Talk:Anarchism/Archive 7

why is this article still disputed?
Is anyone interested in discussing things politely and coherantly? I am, and I'll start by saying I do not dispute the article as it stands, and am removing the header. Sam Spade 05:47, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

egalitarianism
I have been researching the subject, and have finialy realized what the common thread betwixt anarchism, socialism, and communism is... theoretical (I'd say its always theoretical of course, but then I'm not a commie ;) egalitarianism. How to create egalitarianism w/o a state is in all likelyhood something unlikely to be explained anytime very soon, but I for one would not so modestly suggest Syndicalism as a good foundation on which to rest any workable theory. It is not only capable of integrating w real (as opposed to the type of stuff discussed around the hookah ;) society and economics, but has also had more success than any other form of anarchism, best as I can tell. Sam Spade 05:29, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * I for one would not so modestly suggest Syndicalism... I would modestly suggest doing enough research to find that it has already been suggested (Anarcho-syndicalism). millerc 02:59, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * The successes I was refering to primarilly occured in the spanish civil war, buck-o. Intruigingly the nationalists also favored syndicalism, displaying the opportunity for real world compatability. Don't be so grumpy, its unbecomming. Sam Spade 04:18, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

an anon reverted the edit, and I put it back. does anybody have an objection they'd care to discuss? Sam Spade 22:54, 2 May 2004 (UTC)


 * The egalitarianism bit doesn't seem very appropriate to me, either. Anarchy is not fundamentally about egalitarianism, although some may like it for some such motivation, and some adherents may seek it.  But liberty (as conceived) would appear to be primary. -- VV


 * Equality of what? Equality is very important in anarchist thought, and in many ways is considered synonymous with liberty. I don't think that equality of wealth is important to most, but economic equality is important to many, in the sense that no person is the boss of another. Legal equality is important to all, as an anarchist society cannot grant one person greater legal rights than another; being "the President" or a "police officer" in an anarchist society does not confer rights that others lack (such as the right to have particular weapons, the right to demand tribute, or the right to enter another person's residence without permission)


 * Anyway, I think that the reference to egalitarianism is redundant, as the abolition of hierarchy implies the establishment of egalitarianism. I'm not sure which term is the better one tho: "hierarchy" is parallel to "anarchy", but "egalitarian" probably means more to most readers than "hierarchy" does. AdamRetchless 01:55, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

OK... the more I learn about anarchism, the less sense it makes ;). So me having the biggest stick and the most stuff is ok then, by anarchist standards? Whats to stop people who have more (stuff, ability, courage, violent tendancies, organizational skills, etc...) from quickly taking charge, as has always happened after the temporary anarchies thruout history? The stuff I have been reading suggests imaginary anarchy is synonymous w theoretical communism. If so egalitarianism is key. If no, is warlordism an acceptable variation of anarchy? ;) Sam Spade 23:29, 2 May 2004 (UTC)


 * Well, this is naturally one of the most recurring counters to anarchism, that it is unstable. Various anarchists have answers, IMHO generally lacking, but of course we are here to report not to record our own conclusions.  The dreamed-for anarchy would probably have more economic equality (since rich people would be annihilated), but that is not per se the goal, which is freedom.  More to the point, anarchists are likely to have varying opinions on the connection between liberty and equality, so I don't think the intro should report outright that the latter is the intent. -- VV 23:38, 2 May 2004 (UTC)


 * One of the defenses of anarchism (Typically coming from people who reject the utilitarian/consequentialist model of ethics) is that its instability/collapse is not a meaningful flaw of anarchism - that anarchism is an ethical necessity. One could argue, similarly, that the fundamental problem with peace is that someone eventually starts a war, as has happened after all the temporary peaces throughout history. Snowspinner 05:10, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

clearly both the questionable viability, and the extreme diversity of proposed methods (or lack thereof) of equality needs signifigantly more focus in the body of the article. Also rich people would be annihilated??? Whats that about? Do you have any documentation that this is intrinsic to anarchist thought? I want to be rich, and I don't want to annihilated, so maybe I should become an antidisestablishmentarianist instead? ;) Sam Spade 23:44, 2 May 2004 (UTC)


 * Yes, the criticisms section could be bulked up. The rich people would be annihilated comment was (mostly) facetious. -- VV 00:06, 3 May 2004 (UTC)


 * Oops... I didn't mean to be anon when I deleted that statement, so you may blame me! So me having the biggest stick and the most stuff is ok then...  That depends on the anarchist. VV from what I can tell comes from the anarcho-capitalist side.  But I agree to an extent with VV.  This article is about anarchism in general, which by some definitions includes anarcho-capitalism, so it shouldn't be excluded.  Anarcho-capitalism is very different from libertarian socialism (just look at the talk pages of those two philosophies, their adhearents diagree with each other more than they disagree with other political philosophies).  I think your statement about egalitarianism was directed at the libertarian socialists, but I also think it was inappropriate.  What do you mean by egalitarianism?  The word is contentious, and many times used as a slurr against socialists of any flavor.  I heavly disagree with the wiki article that you had linked to above.  Wikipedia is not the place for original research, and this article, as discussed in the past is about what anarchists believe.  Egalitarianism is not a word commonly used by anarchists (even the socialist libertarian types) to describe themselves, so it has no place in the introduction of the article. millerc 01:45, 3 May 2004 (UTC)


 * How anarchists describe themselves is of only modest import in the article, as this is ment to be informative, rather than propaganda, since it is an encyclopedia. That being said, I now understand why that sentence isn't appropriate for the introduction, and I'll remove it if somebody else doesn't. I don't know what you’re referring to about links, so I would ask you to be a bit clear in that regard. Perhaps we can all work together to give a better description of how egalitarianism is contrasted with warlordism, and outright mayhem in applied anarchism (this theoretical stuff is making my head swim, I think I'd prefer to focus on some reality ;) Sam Spade 04:10, 3 May 2004 (UTC)


 * I think that how anarchists describe themselves is of central importance here. Of central concern to being NPOV is presenting other views. If anarchists do not describe themselves as egalitarian, then the sentence should note that. When applying political adjectives to a group, it's pretty tough to be absolutely correct. (For instance, many would apply the adjective "fascist" to the current US government, although they do not identify themselves as such.) It's probably best, in these cases, to at least initially present the argument from the anarchist side, and then to introduce opposing view - it both makes it more intelligible, and allows the anarchist argument to appear in its best possible light. Which is part of the duty of NPOV (See Neutral Point of View, specifically the "Writing for the enemy" concept). That is, the anarchist argument should be presented discretely and well - as should the counter arguments. If anarchists do not believe themselves to be egalitarian, the claim ought not be ascribed to them absolutely. Snowspinner 05:10, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
 * You articulate my point well, and I agree w the above entirely. Sam Spade 19:54, 3 May 2004 (UTC)


 * You can present other views all you want, but it is important to describe them as such. The line that Sam Spade added made it sound like it was something that an anarchist herself would say, and my point is that it wasn't.  It's also not good to present all others' views in  the introduction (it would be quite a large introductory paragraph).  There are litterally too many political views to represent them all on every wiki page of a political nature &mdash; and it would just be a poor article style.  If the article is about anarchism let it be about what anarchists believe.  This doesn't mean that it is propaganda!  If we make it clear that the veiw points given are those of anarchists, then it has a NPOV.  If someone else's view point is pertinent to a specific section of the article then it may be cited in that section.  The whole egalitarian bit is something which Sam Spade seems to give himself credit for, and wikipedia has a no original research rule. millerc 20:50, 3 May 2004 (UTC)


 * See what I highlighted above. P.S. I removed it, BTW ;) Sam Spade 23:07, 3 May 2004 (UTC)


 * I think this has been settled now, hasn't it? It's out, no one seems to be trying to add it. Yay? Snowspinner 20:54, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

word origin
A mention of the origin of the word may be useful. "Anarchos" (anarkhos), Greek for "Without a ruler". M4-10

are you an anarchist yourself?
If so, perhaps you could tell me if there is enough agreement amongst anarchists to allow much of any opinions from anarchists in the body of the article (as references), and whether perhaps it might do best to generally focus on the opinions of outsiders looking in. While this would open up an entirely other form of bias, it might well allow us at minimum a bit of consistancy of definition, and perhaps some objectivity as well. I am very concerned about getting bogged down in rhetoric and deceit and the other ugly trappings of politics in this article. I'd like to focus on what anarchists are, and what most people think of them, as well as what they might call themselves, or claim. I am still concerned that for many, it is simply a prettier name for "communism", and has little to do with anarchy itself. Sam Spade 04:19, 3 May 2004 (UTC)


 * The term anarchism has been laid claim to by so many different groups that this becomes a tough question. There isn't a consistancy of definition, and that's one of the central problems of writing an encyclopedia article on the subject. I mean, I can tell you right off the bat that the article doesn't pay nearly enough attention to anarcho-capitalsim and "right wing" anarchism. I think the article would benefit most substantially from clear and separate sections on types of anarchism, honestly. Unfortunately, I'm not quite qualified to do an overview - though I can do a great section on anarcho-capitalism. :) Snowspinner 05:15, 3 May 2004 (UTC)


 * In the Communist Manifesto, it is claimed that the state would wither away in a communist society. So the communist ideal is a form of anarchy, tho there are many other ideals that could be called anarchist. AdamRetchless 13:20, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

anarchy
'(quoted from anarchy) we find the common application of the term to states of political disorder. According to the 2003 CIA World factbook, there is one nation in the world today, namely Somalia, in a state of anarchy, in that civil government has collapsed and rule in parts of the country is by mob and warlords, who often clash with bloody results. There are a few others (Afghanistan, Albania, Burundi, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Rwanda) in which government is described as "emerging" or "transitional", and which were in anomie in the near past. The Solomon Islands is described as tending towards anomie because "violence, corruption and crime have undermined stability and civil society". Another example would be The Anarchy, the name most often given to the period of civil war and unsettled government which occurred in England during the reign of King Stephen of England. '

I doubt many among us would argue for a political situation such as this, anarchist or no. What then is anarchism, and how would it (or has it, or does it) function? This fascinates me to no end, and is something I am hoping this article will be able to describe in greater detail. Sam Spade 04:27, 3 May 2004 (UTC)


 * There are a lot of views on this. I think many argue that government is simply illegitimate and should be torn down, regardless of the consequences.  Others have specific proposals for alternative forms of social organization, the sort absent in Somalia, which nevertheless would not be called government.  These are discussed somewhat well in the article, no?  Plus there are links to all manner of FAQs. -- VV 04:51, 3 May 2004 (UTC)


 * There are a couple of views on this. First, there's the view that it can't practically be worse than what we have now. Second, there's the point that the CIA World Factbook is using anarchy in a differents ense than most people who are arguing for anarchy would use it - no anarchist that I know of advocates a warlord system. (And most would argue that this is not, functionally speaking, an anarchy.) Third, there's the argument that ethics and value are not based on consequences - this type of thought tends to reference Kant, the Categorical Imperative, and the notion that sometimes the right thing to do has a very harsh and negative cost. Snowspinner 05:18, 3 May 2004 (UTC)


 * Deontology. -- VV 05:22, 3 May 2004 (UTC)


 * Pretty much. Snowspinner 05:29, 3 May 2004 (UTC)


 * I tried to work in a deontological approach with a paragraph about how a person can arrive at anarchism from the principle of non-violence. However, that's a very limited example. The heading of this article describes anarchism as a political philosophy, but it could also be seen as an attitude or moral code (with political consequences). In that sense, anarchism could be the lack of belief in the legitimacy of any authority, similar to how an athiest doesn't believe in god. It could also be stated as the attitude that a person must always judge the morality of his own actions and cannot abdicate that responsibility to someone else (freethinker). Finally, it could be the belief that the morality of an act is not affected by any claim of authority. However, I think that these attitudes need to be extrapolated to political conclusions before they are full-fledged anarchism. Is this what you were getting at with comments about deontology? AdamRetchless 03:32, 12 May 2004 (UTC)


 * I think that the common definition of "anarchy" is sloppy and near worthless. Also, if this article is about the political philosophy of anarchism, then the common definition should basically be ignored. I view situations like Somolia as being a form of war, and I don't think there is much use in calling them anything but "war". They may be a form of war that does not tend towards any stable resolution, but in the end it is based upon multiple hierarchies attempting to crush each other and impose themselves on the people. I don't know how political scientists describe this situation, but I wouldn't use the CIA's terminology by default because they clearly have a political agenda. AdamRetchless 13:34, 3 May 2004 (UTC)


 * I just read up on the history of Somalia, and I think this illustrates how worthless it is to say that Somalia is "in anarchy". The articles that I read described the situation in the 1990s by three terms: civil war, clan violence, intertribal conflict. Part of "Somalia" seceded in 1991 and has been stable since then, even if the UN doesn't recognize it. Other sections seceded in the late 1990s and apparently have been stable. It seems that when the CIA says that Somalia is in anarchy, they are describing its diplomatic condition rather than any real condition of the society itself. AdamRetchless 14:28, 3 May 2004 (UTC)


 * I would say the opposite, that the most simple and yet accurate definition is anarchy=war. The only way things could be otherwise is if people stopped possessing traits inherent in humanity, such as greed, aggression, lust for power, etc... Ignoring that obvious fact for the sake of anarchist theory would do a disservice to the reader. Perhaps it is as snowspinner says, a form of ethics where consequences are to be ignored, and where the current state is seen as a worse case scenario. If that is so, that should be articulated at length within the article, and the obvious outcome must likewise be made clear. The obvious outcome is that when you remove the laws and hierarchies that restrict us currently, MANY people (myself included) are going to use every means necessary to seize power and resources. and we are already preparing for this WTSHTF contingency. Sam Spade 20:04, 3 May 2004 (UTC)


 * What is WTSHTF? If it is derived from WTF, you don't have to spell out that part of the term. AdamRetchless


 * WTSHTF=when the "stuff" hits the fan ;) Common term in some (particularly paramilitary/militia) circles for the inevitable breakdown of society into anarchy/despotism. Sam Spade 22:08, 3 May 2004 (UTC)


 * I think there are two definitions of anarchy in play here. The first is a lack of recognized government - this is the definition of anarchy employed by the UN and the CIA World Factbook. However, all of these situations have functional governments - a warlord system of despots. This is not anarchy in the sense of political theory, then, and it is not what any anarchist strives for. The second sense of anarchy is more elusive and debated - much like the concept of an "anarchist." Broadly, though, it refers to an idealistic state - one in which there is no controlling authority - internationally recognized or otherwise. That this state does not exist and has never existed is largely immaterial - after all, a communist state as spelled out by Marx has never existed either, nor have a number of other types of states that people advocate. Snowspinner 20:10, 3 May 2004 (UTC)


 * There are a number of persons (i.e. anarchists) who do not believe that "anarchy = war", so it clearly is not an obvious conclusion. In fact, many anarchists would make the claim that "anarchy is peace". As for the "lust for power", we can't ignore the present incarnation of this drive just for the sake of statist theory. Some anarchists believe that human flaws are largly the result of the current system, but I think that most anarchists recognize that these are things that would need to be dealt with in anarchist societies and they propose ways of dealing with them. This could be included as a section of the article... "dealing with anti-social behavior" AdamRetchless 20:33, 3 May 2004 (UTC)


 * Well, I think that it would be fairly silly to believe that anarchy != war, or at least that war != anarchy, since it's a definition in common use, and denying common usages of words is fairly silly. Better, I think, to note that this isn't what we mean when we say anarchy. In any case, I think here we run once again into the basic problem here - anarchism as a whole is about as well organized as one would expect. Snowspinner 20:39, 3 May 2004 (UTC)


 * I ment to illustrate how any state of anarchy necessarilly leads to conflict as various entities struggle to fill the power vacuum. Sam Spade 22:16, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

I would say that of the two definitions of anarchy, one (that used by the CIA factbook) is the one most often used, and is seen by many as the likely end result of anarchist sucesses. The other, idealistic concept seems to me as pretty identical to communism, and I have heard a number of anarchists likewise suggest that this is the case. This would sem to show that my theory is corect, that a number of "anarchists" and anarchist philosophers might more accurately be labled as revoloutionary communists. Sam Spade 22:14, 3 May 2004 (UTC)


 * Yes. A number may well be labelable as such. The number, however, is not all. Conservative anarchists/anarcho-capitalists, for instance, are pretty far from communist.
 * As for the CIA definition, while it may be more often used, it's not the term used in political philosophy, which is the area in which anarchism exists. Words have different meanings in different contexts. In this context, anarchy is decidedly not a warlord system, as is clear from the fact that no anarchist would ever say that's what they support. Some anarchists might say they support communism in its idealized form. Many, however, would not. Snowspinner 22:21, 3 May 2004 (UTC)


 * Sure, what I want is for this to be made more clear, definitely not less. Spending aprox 1 paragraph clarifying each would seem appropriate. Sam Spade 23:09, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

Larger picture
Also, if the non-communist anarchist ideas copuld be given a bit more attention/space, I would appreciate it. I'm particularly unclear as to what sort of system they are in favor of. Sam Spade 23:11, 3 May 2004 (UTC)


 * As you've probably noticed, I'm currently merging a bunch of articles into this one. When I get through that, we'll have a clearer sense of what's actually not covered, and what's simply covered in an offshoot article. Then I'll work on the schools of anarchist thought section, which will hopefully be illuminating. Snowspinner 23:18, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

Great, and since nobody seems to have mentioned yet, I approve of what your doing, just so you know. Be bold! :D Sam Spade 23:21, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

presenting political ideologies
As i said before, i think it would be good for this article to focus on anarchism as a political philosophy, clearly indicating that it is presenting anarchist POV. We have also discussed anarchy as a diplomatic status, or as a breakdown of civil society, but I don't think that those are appropriate topics for an encyclopedia article. To make it clear that we are presenting anarchism as a political philosophy, we could make one of those topic footers (see the bottom of biochemistry) for political ideologies. I've seen instructions for making these, but I forget how to do it right now. If you guys think that it would be helpful, I'll figure out how to make one. -adam

The anarchism and x articles
I don't think we need a huge number of articles in the form of "anarchism and X" - especially not repeatedly referred to in terms of being a main article on a topic. These should probably all be folded into the main text of the article. For now, I've moved them to the see also section. Over time, I'll work on incorporating them into the article. Snowspinner 21:44, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

Jewish anarchism
The section on modern anarchism reports that many anarchists of the early 20th century were Jews. Is this really relevant? Were the anarchist-jewish communities, or were these isolated individual Jews? Were their anarchist attitudes specifically related to the experience of being a Jew in Russia? AdamRetchless 02:24, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

Surrealism
The section on surrealism seems out of place. Maybe it is just too vague and grandiose. Anyway, is it POV to use the word "erroneously" in the following sentence?
 * many anarchists erroneously consider that it finds one of its closest allies in the work of the surrealists

AdamRetchless 02:24, 5 May 2004 (UTC)


 * Yes it's POV. How about changing it to something like this:
 * although contentious, many anarchists consider that anarchism finds one of its closest allies in the work of the surrealists millerc 22:20, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
 * How about the less awkward "many anarchists believe that anarchism finds one of its closest allies in the work of the surrealists, though many surrealists would disagree." Snowspinner 22:24, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Less awkward? Maybe. But too long winded. In the article its only a portion of the entire sentance, and the above may sound like it has too many clauses when attached to the rest of the sentance. Also, the current way the idea is stated makes it sound like it's more than just some surrealists that disagree. millerc 04:29, 6 May 2004 (UTC)


 * Who are these dissenting surrealists, might I ask? Sam Spade 22:32, 5 May 2004 (UTC)


 * The large number that backed Trotsky would be one important segment, I'd imagine.... To say nothing of Dali... Snowspinner 22:38, 5 May 2004 (UTC)~


 * Apparently the Surrealists had an "official" organization and Dali was kicked out for refusing to take a political stance. His response was something like "I'm more surrealist than them" -adam