Talk:Anarchism/Archive 4

''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)''

"Brief history"
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.
 * A surge of popular interest in 'Anarchism' occured during the 1970s in Britain following the birth of the punk rock movement, in particular the situationist influenced graphics of Sex Pistols artist Jamie Reid, and that bands' first single release, Anarchy in the UK. However, whilst the early punk scene appropriated anarchist imagery mainly for it's 'shock value', the band Crass expounded 'serious' anarchist and pacifist ideas, and were to become a notable influence within various late twentieth century protest movements such as Stop the City, the anti-war movement, animal rights, Class War, etc.

--Sam


 * Good idea quercus robur 16:50, 31 Dec 2003 (UTC)

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


 * Sorry, I intended to put that put back in much-improved. -- Sam

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


 * The 'brief overview' that was the main part of my re-write was intended to be brief and so I had to cut out some details -- like exactly which heads of state anarchists assassinated. Of course, these details will be part of the finished article. Forgive me, but I couldn't wait to get a new intro in! --Sam 11:12, 2 Jan 2004 (UTC)

[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


 * I see- thanks quercus robur 21:43, 1 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * That is a valid point -- but on relection, I think the state will do the job. If it said 'states' it would be ambiguous, but I think the meaning is obvious. --Sam

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.


 * From the Anarchist FAQ: "The key...[to anarchism], is the creation of a network of participatory communities based on self-government through direct, face-to-face democracy in grassroots neighbourhood and community assemblies."
 * I think thats pretty clear. Lirath Q. Pynnor

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


 * Please don't put words into my mouth (referring to your 'true government' quote). The wikipedia article on government states that "Government is the political means of creating and enforcing laws." Community assemblies, as described by anarchists, do not create and enforce laws since that implies that anarchists would force people to act in accordance with such laws involuntarily, which is against anarchist principles. Don't you agree?


 * Democracy is a form of government, but it is not only a form of government: in the sense you use it here, it is an abstract concept describing a form of decision-making.


 * Self-government, in this context, simply a description of how people would organise their own lives without government. If you disagree with any of what I've said, let's talk about it.--Sam 09:47, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)

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.
 * Anarchists do believe in the enforcement of laws. An anarchist community is likely to have a "custom" against murder and rape; if the members of the community discover that someone is murdering and raping, they are likely to enforce the law. In an anarchist community, since it is a democracy, everyone is part full and equal member of the government; thus, that enforcement is a government act.
 * Self-government does not refer to how people would live without government (the word self-government implies governance, governance by the self); self-government refers to how people would live without hierarchial government. Lirath Q. Pynnor

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


 * Re: words in the mouth. Use inverted commas as opposed to quote marks; using quote marks ("..") implies that you are quoting directly, which can be dishonest.


 * Government as hierachy is the usual form. But I suggest we use "the state" instead of "government". --Sam

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
 * The point is that anarchists use the word government to describe what it is they oppose; for example, Leo Tolstoy: &quot;Government is an association of men who do violence to the rest of us.&quot; To say that anarchists oppose only traditional or modern forms of government is first of all contradictory (a lot of people take 'traditional' and 'modern' to be opposites). It also makes quoting anarchists impossible, since they have usually used a different definition of 'government' than the one you are proposing. I notice the anarchist FAQ tries to avoid using that word, too, preferring a positive description of what anarchists want, not what they oppose. We can't do that here, since we aim to represent what makes anarchists anarchists, which is, in essence, opposition to the state or government. --Sam 10:16, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Doublethink
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)


 * Rather than start to argue a position, I just want to point out that this page is currently an incomplete and frustrated description of anarchism. Try libertarian socialism or some of the external links and look for the answers you want. I'll be back later for discussion if you like. --Sam

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


 * The only actual "laws" are laws of nature, or God. Everything else is a suggestion, or an excuse for punishing you when it is deemed necessary. There is a reason why we have more laws than any one lawyer can ever possibly read in any given nation. The only rights anyone has are those that they can defend or enforce. But when we look at things this way, arn't we in an ugly state of true anarchy now, due to freewill? Jack 10:48, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)

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


 * OK, you seem to be agreeing with me that anarchism is doublespeak. Do I hear you right to say that a state of anarchy would involve obeying "MORE" rules than we do today? what are these "basic moral rules of anarchy" ??? Jack 11:15, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * Yes and no. Many laws would probably become simpler, the current government likes to write tens of thousands of pages of text, so that it can hide loopholes, clauses, and the like. I really don't think "laws" are bad, what is bad is "the laws". Many anarchists claim to oppose "government and law"; but I think that is patent nonsense
 * I really can't fathom a person advocating that we shouldn't have laws against murder, and the like. However, I don't think most anarchists really advocate such a notion; although, for the sake of argument some of them seem to. Once at an anarchist convention I met a primitivist who said that technology was bad, and apple orchards counted as technology. Yet, he finally agreed that he didn't want to go live in the woods (without anything at all, but "nature").
 * My view of anarchism is that it advocates democracy, and opposes hierarchy. All this talk of "abolishing all laws and government" seems like meaningless overexaggeration to me.
 * I wouldn't say there are "basic rules of anarchy"; but there are certainly basic rules of morality. I pretty much believe that everyone knows what they are. Lirath Q. Pynnor


 * well! Whilst I am now thoroughly convinced that the word anarchy is being rigorously misused, I am glad to gain some small insight into your views. Can you please address my objection to your objection to heirarchy? Whilst it is clear that many (lets say for purpose of argument all of the left ;) promote "equality" and "egalitarianism", another mighty group of people (let us again for the sake of argument say all the right ;) demand a heirarchical system. Of course, nature has always sided with the latter, as even if we were all to be physically equal, equally armed, etc... (which we never will be) someone (hopefully me!) would find a way to use his wits and charisma (whatever means necessary) to subjugate and dominate others. Some people demand power, by our very nature. Thus spake Zarathustra! Jack 11:34, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * First, anarchists wouldn't define 'equality' as sameness as you do above. Second, the argument about 'nature' is a bit crazy (who is Nature?). Third, anarchists tend to argue that an anarchy would have to have ways of stopping people from obtaining power, and these usually consist of the non-cooperation of the masses. -- Sam


 * Non-cooperative, disorganized, non-heirarchical masses go to the death camp. See any historical record on the subject ;). Other than simple non-cooperation with an agressive or manipulative individual, what other method could be used to enforce either equality or anarchy, or heck even these moral laws described above? The definition of nature is too drastically divergent a subject to get deeply into here. I was refering to natural law. I am also likely influenced in my opinions of the word by my faith, which you can review at Pantheism, but that is primarilly a red herring to this conversation. Jack 11:54, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * I think the idea is that equality and anarchy will not need enforcing by any specific means; people spontaneously resist oppression, and the means with which they do so are for them to consider.
 * No one said the anarchists would be "disorganised" except you. --Sam

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


 * Non-heirarchical=disorganized. Its pretty simple to me, the way I get things done is thru heirarchy. I have found time and time again that w/o one, either nothing gets done, or one person does all the work. How did it work in the spanish civil war? Clearly a heirarchy of sorts is required in combat. Jack 21:38, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * How about taking this to one of the newsgroups instead of arguing about it here, where the goal is to build a reasonable encyclopedia article, not score points on who is right and wrong about anarchism. Just a suggestion... And BTW most anarchists would advocate organising in a non-hierarchical fashion. Not always easy but not beyond the wit of human creativity either. quercus robur 23:35, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * Your quite right, but I did have a goal in this debate, which has been satisfied. I now feel qualified to edit this article, knowing that my suspicions are correct, and that an explanation of the profoundly contradictory and anti-semantical nature of self titled "anarchists" is in order. Jack 03:45, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * You haven't really proved anything about anarchists employing doublethink... Anarchism requires no written law, and people being guided by their own morales. Most Anarchist philosophy also doesn't believe in the use of coercive force on another so the needs for laws would be diminished. Also since there wouldn't be the same kinda the more you have the better, capitalist society we live in now would change to one where everything shared so nothing needs to be stolen.

Socialist or Communist?
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)


 * Socialism is a vaguer term representing the social control of production. A definition of this can vary from mere nationalisation under a bourgeois government (ie the UK Labour Party "Clause 4" programme) all the way through to the "industrial commonwealth" ideas of unions like the IWW where workers councils control all industry, but other classes still exist.  Today, however, "Socialism" is usually a code word for either Social Democracy or State Capitalism.  "Communism" normally being associated in economic theory with "from each according to their ability, to each according to their need" is much more closely related to libertarian socialism (ie: the major trends inside left-wing anarchism).  Some debate occurs about whether left-wing syndicalist marxists (KAPD), often known as "Left-wing communists", who support workers democracy and workers control are sufficiently closely related to left anarchists for a united front to be worthwhile.  Unfortunately the wikipedia article Communism seems to have been hacked together by Maoists and needs some revision, I've made a start.  User:Fifelfoo


 * One distinction that sets anarchist communists apart from other socialists and communists is that they abhor party politics and refuse to take part in them, whereas Communists have usually formed Parties and these have been at the centre of their organising and hierarchy. --Sam


 * You both make good and interesting points, but in no way appear to dispute mine, which is that anarchist philosophy mirrors in many (perhaps most or all) ways the basics of communist philosophy. Socialism, as we all know, is a bird of another name. Jack 01:14, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * Anarchist communist philosophy shares the goal of communism, that of a stateless communistic anarchy. However, it is the strategies for achieving that goal that differ, and anarchists and communists tend to differ to the extent that they believe the other's strategy can't work and, worse, that it could be harmful to 'the workers'. It is Marxist ideas in particular that anarchists object to: the idea that the state will ever whither away or that a dictatorship (dictatorship of the proletariat) of any kind could ever create a free society. Non-communist anarchists take a very different view of a future society.


 * I think we may be talking of different definitions of socialism: do you refer to socialism as particularly a statist philosophy? --Sam 08:56, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * I mean the standard definition. I use the commonly accepted dictionary and encyclopedia definitions for all of my words. Goverment types (such as socialism, communism, anarchy, etc...) only exist within a state, so I guess I mean "statist" but there is actually no other way I could have possibly ment it. Feel free to review Socialism. Jack 10:22, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)

FAO JackLynch
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)


 * You are confusing anarchism with chaos and anomie. Your Hardcore punk pals weren't 'anarchists', they were fashion victims, I've known many myself. However those that had spikey hair, dreadlocks, A's in circles on their jackets etc, but were actually serious about anarchism got on with setting up wholefood coops, bookstores, alternative newspapers, community projects, and generally self-organising (rather than being hierachically organised (ie, from the top down)). Somalian and Albanian gunlords have NOTHING to do with anarchism. I suggest you read a few books such as Clifford Harper's Graphic Guide to Anarchism or the George Woodcock books such as The Anarchist Reader or Anarchism, Colin Ward's Anarchy in Action or his other books on self organisation amongst allotment holders, etc, which you should be able to find at any library, then come back and make some informed edits. I've no problems with critical viewpoints, but please base them on what anarchism is actually ABOUT, rather than what your dodgy punk mates told you.


 * PS. Where is it wiki policy not to use external links in articles? I always thought citations were a standard way of referencing, if it is policy it should be changed forthwith.
 * Cheers quercus robur 22:26, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * It's fine (actually its great, even necessary sometimes) to cite sources providing evidence for statements you have made like this . What you don't want to do however is place links to fun or related sites in the body of the article, when they would be better suited for the external links section at the bottom. URL addresses are also never to be in the text. See here Cite your sources and here Manual of Style and mention any changes you'd like made in the talk pages thereof.


 * The external links that were removed from the text where for that purpose exactly. I'm putting them back in. "[1"] is the Britannica article written by Peter Kropotokin which I quoted in the paragraph and was a source for the information; "[2"] is a prime example of people linking anarchism and taoism, directly relevant to the paragraph it was in; and "[3"] is a site I quoted directly from and a very useful article on the subject of the sentence, William Godwin. I appreciate that you probably did not realise these links were citations. --Sam

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)


 * Oh, and what is the FAO before my name ment to stand for? Jack 02:06, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * I think it means 'For attention Of'- cheers quercus robur 02:21, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Removed second introductory paragraph
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)


 * I don't agree, and while I will not immediately revert what you have done (I certainly may at any time), I may need to dispute the factual accuracy of the page if similar information is not promptly returned. Jack 01:56, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * I made a compromise, replacing the majority of the above text (with minor editing for subtleties) in another location, hopefully more agreeable. I agree that criticisms of a philosophy are not best suited to the introduction. Jack 02:04, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * TBH I don't think any article should have anything beyond a one sentence summary above the TOC, eg, 'Anarchists think governements are bunch of crap' followed by TOC, then the elaboration, be it summary, history, pro's and cons, or whatever. If anything the existing para should also probably be severlely edited to a single summarising sentence. i'm off to bed now. cheers quercus robur 02:17, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * hehe... that perfectly underscores the problem here. You want this article to say what philosophical anarchists think. I want it to be an encyclopedia definition of what anarchism IS. They are two different things. While there is clearly a place for your ideas in the page I envision, there isn't much of any place for what I am looking for in what it appears you envision. Review Neutral point of view early and often, please. Jack 02:27, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * Well I'm really going to bed now, but I found this page which I'm wondering if it has been forgotten about- Diversity of anarchism which should be either intetgrated with this page or else used to expand the diferent ideas of what 'anarchsim' means- I saw this (anarchism) page as being about an overview of of the political/philosophical meanings of the term, rather than the bastardisation of the word 'anarchy' (to be synonymous with 'chaos' and mindless destruction) that apparently first came into linguistic coinage during the French revolution (which was anything but anarchistic). Cheers quercus robur 02:53, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)

What does everyone think of my original version of the paragraph above:
 * Anarchists refuse to participate in party politics and see any attempt to 'take over' the state or take power as futile, firmly believing that power corrupts and that some kind of revolution is necessary to overthrow the state completely. The main body of anarchist theory was developed in the later nineteenth and early twentieth centuries when anarchism was primarily part of the labour movement, though its connections to feminism were already evident. More recent theorists have built on previous anarchist critiques of the state by developing a broader critique of social hierarchy.

My own problems with the current version, quoted at the top of this section by QR, are these:
 * 1) I don't think anarchists have seen "terrorism or assassination" as a direct catalyst for a revolution: of the minority that have advocated such tactics, they have been seen as a way to raise the profile of anarchism and have it taken more seriously.
 * 2) While there is a strong link between communism and some forms of anarchism, worthy of discussion, anarchist theory is not "predominantly Communist" -- especially with the capital C. And anarchists have historically rejected Karl Marx's concept of a dictatorship of the proletariat -- that is one fo the main parts of Marxism that no anarchist can accept.
 * 3) It might seem to you that order implies hierarchy, and that POV is widely held and worthy of mention, but anarchists disagree entirely, and I think that should be the main focus of a discussion of order: rather than lack of hierarchy implying lack of order, anarchists believe order can be found in non-hierarchal organisation. An article discussing this in an NPOV manner will help the reader understand what it is that anarchists are trying to say.
 * 4) 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

Wow, thanks sam for lining these up for me.
 * You appear to be correct. I admit I assumed that there was some greater purpose to these deeds, but the the more I look into the actual motivation, the more I see there was only the vaguest of purpose. A good example of disorganized planning, I suppose.
 * The Collectivism suggested by libertarian communism (an oxymoron if I ever heard one), also known as anarchism is clearly what Karl Marx has in mind with both Communism and of course the dictatorship of the proletariat. Where is this lack of acceptance/similarity of which you speak?
 * anarchist beliefs are a only part of what this page is about, and the smaller part at that. The majority of what every encyclopedia article should be about is what the facts are. The fact is order cannot be found, had, experienced, without heirarchy. Give an example of an orderly lack of heirarchy. Obvious holes in your theories have a vital role to play in this article.
 * Two words, Punk rock.


 * The joint issues of terrorism and assassination are a very contentious part of the history of anarchism and we should treat these subjects carefully. I'm glad you've looked into it. I found the relevant section in a book called The Anarchists was particularly good from a historical point of view, if you ever get the chance to read it. Also, one main point is that the anarchist community as a whole tends to reject these tactics as ineffectual at best.
 * The difference I'm talking about was laid out historically in the debate between Karl Marx and Mikhail Bakunin which led to the split in the First International, an international socialist group. Marx's dictatorship of the proletariat (as I understand it; I'm no scholar) was a period when the state had been taken over and the Party ruled on behalf of the People. Anarchists have rejected this strategy entirely: as Bakunin put it, 'freedom can only be created by freedom', not the tyranny of the workers.
 * On the contrary, I think anarchist beliefs, theory and practices should be one of the main focuses of this article. And counter-arguments are a part of that. I think my objection might have more to do with you presenting the counter-argument without fully explaining the argument as set forth by anarchists. We have a NPOV issue to deal with carefully here, we need to represent both views.
 * If that is the movement you refer to, then please do so explicitly, otherwise I think it is misleading. Quercus Rober should be able to make some valuable contributions on this subject, he seems to know a lot about it. --Sam 11:31, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * as per 2, the subtleties of communist utopian theory are poorly understood by EVERYBODY (arguably because they are severely unsound) so don't knock yourself for not being an "expert". and regarding 3, I clearly have some objections to anarchist reasoning which are so profound that I am unable to create a counter argument to challenge them. I don't know if this reveals a failing in my debating skills (it never happened once in all those years of debate club!), or a failing in anarchist philosophical logics... Actually, I can make a fine argument for anarchism, but it would be a variation of anarcho-capitalism, which was suspiciously left out of the article.... hmmm... Jack 12:13, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Other encyclopedia entries on anarchism
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:
 * "Suppressed as an organized movement by fascism in the 1930s, anarchism reemerged in the 1950s and '60s through its influence on the civil rights movement and the student movements in the U.S. and Europe. The radical ecology movement in the 1970s also was inspired by anarchist ideas. Beginning in 1999, anarchist-led street demonstrations against the World Bank and International Monetary Fund received unprecedented publicity and inspired new anarchist groups, periodicals, and Internet sites. Anarchist themes are reflected in the work of many 20th-century artists, writers, and musicians, including Pablo Picasso, the American poets of the Beat movement, the Spanish Surrealist filmmaker Luis Buñuel, and the American composer John Cage." ("Anarchism." Britannica Concise Encyclopedia. 2003.)

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 Jack 11:46, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)
 * I agree, it is mostly good, though I'd contest parts of the last paragraph. --Sam


 * of course you would, that paragraph is primarilly why I cited it ;) Jack 12:07, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Punk rock
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.


 * Punk rock was/is a music/fashion movement, not, of itself, anything to do with anarchism. Before it was edited out I stated that the earlier punk rock bands such as the Sex Pistols appropriated some anarchist imagery for it's 'shock value', in much the same way as The Clash wore Red Brigade teeshirts and Siouxsie and the Banshees used the swastika, but nobody would seriously suggest that Mr.Strummer actually supported German Terrorism or that Miss Ballion was really a nazi.


 * Up until Crass appeared most bands that used the word 'Anarchy' did it to upset their parents and wind up the local policeman, Crass however used the medium of punk rock to promote 'serious' anarchist ideas, particularly anarcho-pacifism and most centrally the idea that There is no authority but yourself (which, at the end of the day, just about sums up everything, I think, that needs to be said about anarchism- ie, it's about self organising and personal responsibility). Spend some time looking at some of Crass' literature, or the ideas of some of the other anarcho punk bands. Whether you agree with them or not, they certainly don't promote the mindless destructiveness you seem to be saying that they do.


 * But leaving aside Crass and the anarcho-punks, even the 'mindless chaos' punks are not seriously advocating the lawlessness of Somalia or albania (actually due more to the chaos of a power vacuum as would be governments and gangsters vie for control than the true meaning of 'anarchy'), or if they are it's the 'shock your parents' pose all over again, most of them would no doubt run a mile if such a situation came to their shopping mall... Though I'm out of touch with the younger punk scene now, in my day the drugs, glue and spray paint brigades didn't advocate ANY kind of serious political action beyond 'get pissed, destroy'.quercus robur 12:34, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * Exactly. Now if you simply leave out the dismissal of it as 'shock the parents' anarchism, unequal to your own, you'd fail to have an objection. I am quite familiar with crass, and their insipid philosophies and monstrous attempts at song. I have seen many a crass poster, read the lyrics from a couple of their albums, and engaged in many a drunken conversation with their fans about their "idealic, utopian" lifestyle. That sort of thing may be a portion of the punk rock anarchist philosophy, but it certainly isn't a typical one. I happen to like punk music, and still listen to it. Anarchy in the U.K. was just a tad removed from the sort of fodder crass was selling. I must say, you fellows are quite a charming lot to disuss with, you seem to miss the forest thru the trees. In any case, were half way there, you do see the trees! Jack 12:49, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm not 'dismissing' the 'shock your parents' punks, they were some of my best friends, but what I'm saying is that they weren't advocating anarchy, they were 'advocating' getting pissed and taking drugs. Now I've got nothing against the article containing something like 'some punks who got pissed all the time and spray painted walls described themselves as anarchists', but it is pushing it a bit to state that an (un-named) large anarchist youth movement is advocating the lawlessness of Somalia and Albania as if it was some serious part of the anarchist philosophy. BTW, please can we have a citation of exactly which punk bands have stated that Somalia, albania, etc is a good thing? quercus robur 13:22, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * See what you think of the current edit. Jack 20:04, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * I think that looks much better :-) quercus robur 20:00, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Cheers to User:Sam Francis
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)


 * Thanks -- in editing, I try not to delete information, though it is often easier to do so. I have a lot of thoughts to improve this page, and a lot to add, so I hope it will get a lot better. And long live NPOV! :D --Sam 10:27, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * Again I want to compliment you, this time on your sizable recent contribution of text. I did make some extremely minor edits regarding the haymarket riot. If you have any evidence proving that an anarchist did not throw that bomb, I will be very interested, but otherwise I think we'd better leave it ambiguous. Factually, since people were convicted, they were technically guilty. While I can accept casting some doubt, I think we'd better err on the side of caution.


 * Thanks again. I don't know enough about Haymarket to know if any evidence exists, but I thought I'd read somewhere that they had been pardoned. Still, it was a public meeting, so I'm gonna change it back to that from "gathering"! :P --Sam

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)


 * The relationship between hierarchy and violence that you describe is the basis of the argument of non-violent anarchists. I think that is the issue we need to make clear: that there is a divide between anarchists on the issue of violence, some think it justified in some circumstances, others think it never justifiable. The discussion could certainly do with some development. -- Sam


 * Definately. Also, you can't leave out of the discussion the important factor of the popular image of anarchism, which almosy instantly inspires images of "wild eyed mustached men w bombs" or whatever it was the Tolkien said. I saw some alternative press coverage of the recent seattle riots, and while they were attepting to paint a flattering picture, it still came accross very badly to me, giving the impression that the demonstrators were profoundly provacotive, and excitedly seeking out confrontation. There were many gleeful mentions of the "equipment" they had come prepared with, and even while much of it was non-violent in nature (wet rags to breathe thru to escape tear gas, etc...) it gave little doubt that they expected violence and disorder prior to arriving.

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)

Deplorable
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 of all I'd like to mention that it is IMO deplorable that User:Kevehs neglected to sign this long winded tirade ;) . Secondly, I will have him know that reverting this article to a time almost a month past simply because he has returned from vacationing at his momma's house (understand that this previous was intentionally humourous in nature, meaning no specific offense to either kev or his momma ;) ) will not be tolerated. Some of what you say might well be true. Honestly I am rather vacous on most of your complaints, they simply arn't areas where my generally ample wisdom assists me. A couple of them however are my edits, and you are completelywrong regarding those of course ;) 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)


 * Maybe you are unaware of the neutrality policy of wikipedia Jack. Maybe you think that your position is fact, and thus have no problem presenting it as such on the page.  But even if your position is true, it is contrary to the wikipedia policy to state it as fact, especially to state your position as fact in the context of an article describing the position of a group you disagree with.  In other words, your claim, which you did not even add to the text as a claim, does not even belong on the page, much less in the format you put it in.


 * If this is the best the editors of the past two weeks have to offer then the reinstatement of the version from two weeks ago, which was largely rewritten with little justification, wiping out months of work by dozens of people, is still on the table. I'm glad Jack thinks this is humorous.  However, I don't think misrepresentation is a joke, nor the disrespect that a complete rewrite showed for the work others had put into this page, nor the blatant disregard of the neutrality policy of wikipedia that is currently evident here.  If you don't know the arguments of primitivism well enough to even know what you are criticising, then you don't know it well enough to add such specious comments to an encyclopedia article.  Picking up a single primitivist text which claims that ancient societies were anarchistic in nature will provide anyone with several of their arguments and sources of evidence, being too lazy to even properly critcize primitivism (i.e. speculating on what their argument is in order to provide a shadow critique of a straw-man position) is not in itself a valid critique of primitivism.  - Kev 01/14/04

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)


 * You are correct, but I still think the rewrite was not entirely justified. Anyway, it needs a lot of work and has really gone backwards since then, but I don't think the rewrite itself is necessarily at fault.  Most of the parts I quoted were present at the time of my post, those that weren't still have very relevant passages that succumb to the same criticism.  My emphasis was not to point out specific passages that needed to be changed, but to indicate the generally low quality of the edits and the need for a drastic rework.  Anyway, please take this opportunity to defend any of the above passages that you think are appropriate (if there are any), because I will edit those that remain undefended on my next go through.  I also think there are other serious but more subtle problems in the article that I will address later. - Kev 01/14/04


 * I'll just second Jack's comment bellow; be bold, Kev. But in the spirit of cooperation! --Sam

And am I right in thinking that you're quoting parts of the article that have already been edited out? --Sam
 * Your quite right. The primitavist portion I debated above was no longer present at the time of his complaint, nor had it been for some time. Perhaps he spent some days writting this essay? Anyways, I am rather proud of improvements that have been made, and the moderately agreeable fashion they were made in. This is the wiki, not the britannica, and edits are made early, and often, not once a year. Jack 19:39, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)

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. ''

'Primitive' societies
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)''


 * You might find Harold Barclay's People Without Government; An Anthropology of Anarchism a useful read in this debate, which gives many examples of anarchist, non-hierachical social orgnisation in so called 'primitive' and tribal societies. Its a long time since I read it and can't recall it that well, but certainly contains 'evidence' to support it's arguements, even if some of that evidence is aguable or open to other interpretations. I'm pretty sure Kropotkin's Mutual Aid also contains such examples, which may again be open to debate but none the less refutes the charge that such 'evidence' is non-existant. quercus robur

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


 * It also needs to be noted that just because you can't be arsed to read a book or check a refernece, that does not make the refernce invalid or not relevant quercus robur 01:10, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * I completely agree. In fact, I don't think someones statements should be challenged at by someone who isn't knowledgable on the subject, outside of requesting documentation, and logic. Anyways, be bold! Write this article so well that anybody, regardless of how ignorant, is going to get the general idea of what "primitivism" means. I have studied it, and I find no relationship between it an anarchism, outside of perhaps certain individuals finding both concepts intruiging. Jack 02:47, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)

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)


 * Green anarchism and primitivism are relatively recent and, in the broad history of anarchism, not as significant as communist anarchists, for example. That's not to say they don't deserve mention, but it just hasn't been done in this version -- yet. (If you look at past versions of this article, you'll see it was done before.) Where do you read of "social" and individualist anarchism being opposites? They are usually characterised as two different strands, but not necessarily opposites. --Sam 15:24, 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)


 * Majority rule isn't the definition of democracy. --Sam