Talk:Anarchism: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
MiszaBot I (talk | contribs)
m Archiving 2 thread(s) (older than 30d) to Talk:Anarchism/Archive 61.
Xerographica (talk | contribs)
Line 113: Line 113:
{{In Our Time|Anarchism|p0038x9t|Anarchism}}
{{In Our Time|Anarchism|p0038x9t|Anarchism}}
''[[User:Rich Farmbrough|Rich]] [[User talk:Rich Farmbrough|Farmbrough]]'', 02:56, 16 September 2010 (UTC).
''[[User:Rich Farmbrough|Rich]] [[User talk:Rich Farmbrough|Farmbrough]]'', 02:56, 16 September 2010 (UTC).

== Request For Comments – Political Ideologies Diagram ==

[[File:Political Ideology Interconnectedness Venn Diagram.jpg|thumb]]

On the libertarianism talk page we're having quite a bit of disagreement regarding where libertarianism ends and other ideologies begin. Given that a picture is worth a thousand words, I drew this diagram to illustrate the one defining tenet that two ideologies share.

When I posted it on the talk page I specifically noted that it was original research based on numerous reliable sources and was not intended for use in the article. However, the file has been proposed for deletion because editors that oppose my viewpoint feel that original research based on reliable sources should not be allowed on talk pages or even user pages.

From my perspective...it sets bad precedent if you can't draw a diagram to try and help simplify a complex and confusing topic. If this diagram is deleted it will be the equivalent of somebody deleting your comments from the talk page just because they disagree with what you have to say. So far, nobody has offered any evidence that the straightforward definitions contained within this diagram are not factual.

Here's where I posted the file on my user page...[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Xerographica#Political_Ideology_Interconnectedness here] and here’s where the file is being proposed for deletion...[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2010_September_28#File:Political_Ideology_Interconnectedness_Venn_Diagram.jpg here]. I spent a bit of time working on this diagram and would really appreciate some outside feedback on whether the file should be kept or deleted. If it turns out that my diagram is in clear violation of Wikipedia policy then my other two diagrams will have to be deleted as well...[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Xerographica#Survey Scope of Government Diagrams].

Revision as of 19:02, 30 September 2010

Good articleAnarchism has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
March 1, 2004Featured article candidateNot promoted
March 21, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed
January 22, 2010Good article nomineeListed
Current status: Good article

Template:Outline of knowledge coverage

What anarchists are against in general

The initial, basic, core definition of anarchism used here says it opposes the state. Even founding anarchists like Proudhon were ambivalent about the role of the state during their lives. The state is an association of governance, whether or not that implies specific leaders or leadership. What state means varies with the theorist or context. Just because Bakunin used the term in his own way and advocated the elimination of the defined thing doesn't mean we can use it like a blanket term in that way for anarchists in general, for the focus of the article. Reaching a generic or simplistic definition is not going to be so easy, given the topic puts a lot of pretty different thinkers together. The opposition to the accumulation of power (by an elite) seems like a key theme in collectivist anarchist circles. Individualists seem to tend to oppose rules, on the other hand. Who is like God? (talk) 10:27, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We keep lowering the bar, and yet we never seem to reach the lowest common denominator. I thought we could at least agree to the term "state", an institution of authority. Now we have to specify what a state is by what it does? How soon before we have to specify the difference between the "power" of the individual vs a group vs an organization? And who are these individualists who prefer an anti-rule critique rather than anti-state? --Cast (talk) 03:29, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should just leave it at 'state'. Zazaban (talk) 06:38, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

anarchism is more than just antistatism. anarchism is oppostition to hierarchy in general. it is a good thing that the intro to this article says this.--Eduen (talk) 03:54, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cast said: And who are these individualists who prefer an anti-rule critique rather than anti-state?
Not rather, as in general those are the same people. The state is an institution that makes rules, and how authority is instituted in the state varies (compare a "democracy" and a "dictatorship"). Power and leadership are not limited to the state, and it's power (privilege) and authority that social anarchists most clearly oppose, and not rules specifically. Individualist anarchists, on the other hand may tolerate privilege or practical power (such as a heavy accumulation of wealth by some individuals) as long as it's not based on the state or rules. The issue is not lowering or raising a bar, but not contradicting facts by trying to reach some generic and simplistic definition. Basically, there are two types of anarchist, and each needs a definition of its own; the social anarchists that oppose elites, and the individualist anarchists that oppose rules. This gives many of them, on either side, reasons to oppose the state and many of its incarnations, but that is not what defines them in general. There are two problems in the definition; there's more to oppose for an anarchist than the state, and some anarchists may accept some form of stateship. Social anarchists seek egalitarianism, while individualists seek a willful sort of anomie. Who is like God? (talk) 18:32, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Individualist anarchists, on the other hand may tolerate privilege or practical power (such as a heavy accumulation of wealth by some individuals) as long as it's not based on the state or rules."

I dont know who are these individualists you talk about. of course i guess you are not talking about the most important individualist of the early XXth century:

"But in relation to those whose amorphism, ignorance or interest interferes with his living his life, the individualist feels himself a stranger. Moreover, inwardly he remains refractory — fatally refractory — morally, intellectually, economically (The capitalist economy and the directed economy, the speculators and the fabricators of single are equally repugnant to him.)" Emile Armand. Anarchist Individualism as Life and Activity (1907)

and of course seems you are not aware of the illegalists either but in the end you are not doing justice to other individualists like Proudhon, Oscar Wilde and Godwin either. i suggest you visit the nice individualist anarchism article. as far as individualism in itself it is a central feature of anarchism in general and it is present in Kropotkin and Bakunin also. The CNT itself in the spanish revolution allowed certain "individualist" peasants to work the land on themselves instead of forcing collectivization on them. they just were applying what kropotkin hismself suggested. --Eduen (talk) 21:33, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Anarchism without Adjectives" part in the introduction

The introduction says "Others, such as panarchists and anarchists without adjectives, neither advocate nor object to any particular form of organization as long as it is not compulsory."

I think this should be clarified, corrected, cited, or removed since it is overly simplistic (if not incorrect) and it isn't cited. Jemoore31688 (talk) 21:10, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree with you above all on "panarchists". i don´t know who they are and of course doubt if they are or were anarchists since that particular concept has not had importance in anarchist debates. pan archy can include hierarchical social arragenments since the concept means plurality of the types of social arrangements and nothing else. anarchism without adjectives is something different and deserves a better treatment on this article if it has to have one.--Eduen (talk) 02:28, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The lede of the article does not require citations unless the material is not cited in the body. This particular segment is supposed to be a (yes, simplified) summary of the "Schools of thought" section. We need to get across in a single sentence that there exists these pluralistic/non-sectarian strains within anarchism. Suggestions welcome. Skomorokh 12:52, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

anarchism without adjectives might get a mention as it is an old discussion within anarchism. but "panarchists" who are they?. anyway seems to me that we already live in "panarchy". as far as this article "panarchy" o "panarchists" do not have any reference to support them so i propose we delete this term from the article.--Eduen (talk) 21:17, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Panarchy refers to the approach proposed by Paul Emile de Puydt around 1860, involving a voluntary, polycentric "free market" in governmental systems. Folks like John Zube and, to a lesser degree, Kevin Carson, have given de Puydt's proposal a new lease on life. Libertatia (talk) 00:12, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From what i read in his wikipedia article, Mr. de Puydt had no connection with anarchism. It is hard really to think "panarchy" deserves a mention in this article, let´s not speak about a mention in the introduction. The article "panarchy" establishes some authors who have mentioned the term which include recent systems theory and international relations theorists. I don´t see the strong anarchist connection which can make one think that it deserves a mention in the introduction. Also John Sube is too much of a recent author. I might support a mention in the introduction of anarchism without adjectives as major anarchists such as Errico Malatesta and Elisee Reclus suported the idea and it is relevant in many countries since the late XIX century.--Eduen (talk) 02:56, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mises.org as RS?

I'm unsure that the Mises Institute is a reliable source on the subject. Zazaban (talk) 02:54, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, you know what, I should probably stay out of this, call me back when the dust settles. Zazaban (talk) 03:01, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What makes you think the dust will ever settle? It hasn't since 1694. - BarbaricSocialistZealots (talk) 10:36, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article content review

Having not examined this article for a long time, I thought it would be worthwhile for an earlier editor to comment on the current version's content (I'm not doing a sourcing review):

  • §Lede: pleasantly surprised at the quality!
  • §Etymology and terminology: covers that encyclopaedic issue fast, neutrally, and with a Main Article.
  • §Origins: Good summary style, and with a Main Article.
  • §Social movement: Probably needs to explain what a social movement is better
  • §The First International: Probably needs a Main Article. Spends too much time on history, and not enough time on anarchism as a social movement here
  • §Organised labour: Fast paced, directly connected to anarchism, good coverage. First International should read like this. Needs a general Main Article on Anarchism and organised labour
  • §Propaganda of the deed: Fast, good, connected.
  • §Russian Revolution: The Goldman and Berkman paragraph is probably extraneous trivium in a summary article at this level. Otherwise fast paced.
  • §Fight against fascism: good coverage choice, fast writing
  • §[There is a gap in coverage, 1940-1960] [There is a European-North American bias]
  • §Contemporary anarchism: confused sentence about Carrara
  • §Anarchist schools of thought: Fast, good coverage of issues
  • §Mutualism: Fast, summary, good
  • §Individualist anarchism: Good summary coverage decisions, fast
  • §Social anarchism: Good summary coverage decisions, drags a bit as the section may be too long, hard to see how to subdivide or cut though
  • §Post-classical currents: Good summary coverage decisions, fast
  • §Topics of interest in anarchist theory: needs a better heading sentence as a summary, may need a Main Article.
  • §Free love: Fast, Western bias
  • §Libertarian education: Fast, Western bias
  • §Internal issues and debates: A bit confused in its exposition. Not sure of how it could be improved, but fast writing.
  • The fastness of the writing, in the sense that it flows and encourages continued reading is good. The decision to split the coverage into a History, Social Movements, Ideologies and Topics is a good one providing four different ways of approaching the topic. There is a strong Western bias which could do with rectification.
  • Well done editors! Fifelfoo (talk) 03:36, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In Our Time

The BBC programme In Our Time presented by Melvyn Bragg has an episode which may be about this subject (if not moving this note to the appropriate talk page earns cookies). You can add it to "External links" by pasting * {{In Our Time|Anarchism|p0038x9t}}. Rich Farmbrough, 02:56, 16 September 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Request For Comments – Political Ideologies Diagram

File:Political Ideology Interconnectedness Venn Diagram.jpg

On the libertarianism talk page we're having quite a bit of disagreement regarding where libertarianism ends and other ideologies begin. Given that a picture is worth a thousand words, I drew this diagram to illustrate the one defining tenet that two ideologies share.

When I posted it on the talk page I specifically noted that it was original research based on numerous reliable sources and was not intended for use in the article. However, the file has been proposed for deletion because editors that oppose my viewpoint feel that original research based on reliable sources should not be allowed on talk pages or even user pages.

From my perspective...it sets bad precedent if you can't draw a diagram to try and help simplify a complex and confusing topic. If this diagram is deleted it will be the equivalent of somebody deleting your comments from the talk page just because they disagree with what you have to say. So far, nobody has offered any evidence that the straightforward definitions contained within this diagram are not factual.

Here's where I posted the file on my user page...here and here’s where the file is being proposed for deletion...here. I spent a bit of time working on this diagram and would really appreciate some outside feedback on whether the file should be kept or deleted. If it turns out that my diagram is in clear violation of Wikipedia policy then my other two diagrams will have to be deleted as well...Scope of Government Diagrams.