| Revision as of 05:35, 27 July 2006 editThe Ungovernable Force (talk | contribs)Pending changes reviewers4,877 edits →Thomas Jefferson and OR← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 17:24, 13 December 2024 edit undoSpookyaki (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users4,169 edits Assessment: banner shell, Alternative views, Politics, +Human rights (High) (Rater) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
{{Philosophy}} |
|
{{Skip to talk}} |
|
|
{{Talkheader|search=no}} |
|
{{controversial (politics)}} |
|
|
|
{{Round in circles}} |
|
{| class="messagebox standard-talk" |
|
|
|
{{Controversial}} |
|
|- |
|
|
|
{{British English}} |
|
| width="40px" | ] |
|
|
|
{{Article history |
|
| This article is a former ]. Please ''''']''''' to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the ].sim |
|
|
|
|collapse=yes |
|
] |
|
|
|
|action1=FAC |
|
|} |
|
|
|
|action1date=21:45, 1 Mar 2004 |
|
|
|action1link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/Index/June 2003 to January 2004#Anarchism |
|
|
|action1result=not promoted |
|
|
|action1oldid=2588948 |
|
|
|action2=GAN |
|
|
|action2date=01:40, 21 March 2007 |
|
|
|action2link=Talk:Anarchism/Archive 49#Good article nomination |
|
|
|action2result=not listed |
|
|
|action2oldid=116671833 |
|
|
|action3=GAN |
|
|
|action3date=13:11, 22 January 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|action3link=Talk:Anarchism/GA1 |
|
|
|action3result=listed |
|
|
|action3oldid=339336764 |
|
|
|topic=socsci |
|
|
|currentstatus=GA}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=GA|vital=yes|collapsed=yes|1= |
|
|
{{WikiProject Alternative views|importance=Top}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Anarchism}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Philosophy|importance=High|social-and-political=yes|modern=yes|contemporary=yes}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Politics|importance=High|libertarianism=yes|libertarianism-importance=Top}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Socialism|importance=Top}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Sociology|importance=Mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Human rights |importance=High}} |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{Press |
|
|
| subject = article |
|
|
| title = Topics that spark Misplaced Pages 'edit wars' revealed |
|
|
| org = ] |
|
|
| url = http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-23354613 |
|
|
| date = 18 July 2013 |
|
|
| archiveurl = |
|
|
| archivedate = |
|
|
| accessdate = 18 July 2013 |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{banner holder |
|
|
|collapsed=yes |
|
|
| |
|
|
{{pp-move-indef}} |
|
|
{{caution|image=Start hand.svg|'''Note:''' This talkpage is for ] to the ] article. '''Questions''' about anarchism should be addressed to the ]. Issues regarding the '''coverage''' of Anarchism on Misplaced Pages should be raised on the ] ''']'''.}} |
|
|
{{Annual readership}} |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|
| algo = old(90d) |
|
|
| archive = Talk:Anarchism/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|
| counter = 68 |
|
|
| maxarchivesize = 150K |
|
|
| archiveheader = {{Aan}} |
|
|
| minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
|
|
| minthreadsleft = 3 |
|
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
__FORCETOC__ |
|
'''Proposed New Layout:''' The idea of reorganizing this page has been suggested below under the heading "Organization". A working version can be found ]. Feel free to take part in the process. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Talk archives & Open Tasks == |
|
== Disambiguation instead of division == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
After having been an anarchist for 40 years, I personally think that the entire article on anarchism is rubbish. One example: I do not see myself as left-wing. That would mean that I would be part of their parliament. We are anti-political, so which idiot describes us as a left-wing political current? The article should have a short - extremely - general paragraph describing the general idea of anarchism and then it should sum up the different currents of anarchism as they are divided in internationals: individualists, anarcho-syndicalists, platformists. The articles on these currents should also be short and general and should just sum up the different versions of individualism etc. That way - at least - there would be a general definition that every anarchist could live with and it would keep all philosophical discussions to a minimum. Underneath every current, there could be further disambiguation until all currents are happy with the description of what they think anarchism should be. ] (]) 18:05, 9 June 2024 (UTC) |
|
*] - List of archives. |
|
|
*] - List of open tasks. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:Well, unfortunately Misplaced Pages is an online encyclopedia based on ] (in theory, anyways), not the self-opinions of the people being written about. Start a ] or something. <big>]]</big> 07:13, 10 June 2024 (UTC) |
|
==Organization== |
|
|
|
:{{reply to|Jan De Neys}} You may try ] and ]. ] ]<sup> ''], ]''</sup> 15:07, 8 July 2024 (UTC) |
|
This has been discussed many times before, I'm sure, but I could find nothing on the most recent talk page about the organization of the article. Here is the current layout. |
|
|
|
::@] Jan de Neys is perfectly demonstrating the inherent hypocrisy of anarchism. ] (]) 08:17, 31 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::{{ping|146.200.132.123}} Note this is the talk page, ]. ] ]<sup> ''], ]''</sup> 10:39, 31 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:To the extent that ''left'' and ''right'' have any coherent meaning over the centuries, it seems to me, ''left'' is for some kind of equality and ''right'' is for some kind of stability. Anarchism seeks to abolish the privileges of the political class, so I reckon it belongs on the left. ] (]) 22:36, 31 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Against all forms of authority? == |
|
* 1 Origins |
|
|
o 1.1 Pierre-Joseph Proudhon |
|
|
* 2 Anarchism and workers' revolution |
|
|
o 2.1 Anarchist communism |
|
|
+ 2.1.1 Kropotkin |
|
|
o 2.2 Anarchism and organized labor |
|
|
o 2.3 The Russian Revolution |
|
|
o 2.4 The fight against fascism |
|
|
* 3 Anarchism and the individual |
|
|
o 3.1 Max Stirner's egoism |
|
|
o 3.2 Individualist anarchism |
|
|
* 4 Issues in anarchism |
|
|
o 4.1 Ends and means |
|
|
o 4.2 Capitalism |
|
|
+ 4.2.1 Anarcho-capitalism |
|
|
+ 4.2.2 Neocolonialism and globalization |
|
|
o 4.3 Post-left and poststructuralism |
|
|
o 4.4 Feminism and anti-racism |
|
|
o 4.5 The environment |
|
|
o 4.6 Religion |
|
|
* 5 Criticisms of anarchism |
|
|
* 6 Cultural phenomena |
|
|
* 7 See also |
|
|
o 7.1 Historical events |
|
|
o 7.2 Anarchism by region/culture |
|
|
o 7.3 Books |
|
|
* 8 Notes and references |
|
|
* 9 External links |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hi friends |
|
The article lacks a coheesive organizational structure in my opinion. I can't determine if this is an article about the history of anarchism, an introduction to anarchism, or both. I'm leaning toward both, but if that is the case, it needs to be more clear. This article may need two sections, one on anarchism as an ideal, and another on anarchism through history. Or perhaps each historical section needs a short aside regarding the ideals of each historical figure or organization. Thoughts? ] 07:56, 19 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The introduction currently claims that anarchism is against all forms of authority. But what about the ]? |
|
I'm just now looking over the encarta article previously mentioned, and I think it serves as a good model for the organization of the article, although we would surely want to make some changes. The layout is essentially as follows. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I don't mean to sound like a pedant, but I'm worried that people will only skim the intro and leave with some misunderstandings of anarchism. |
|
* 1 Introduction |
|
|
* 2 Origins of Anarchism |
|
|
* 3 Schools of Anarchist Thought |
|
|
* 4 Anarchism as a Social Movement |
|
|
* 5 Anarchism Since 1945 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I don't have an obvious suggestion to fix it, but I wanted to point it out and start some discussion. ] (]) 14:57, 11 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
A fusion of the two might looks something like this? (First draft of course) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:Hi @], glad to see new faces around. I get your point. But, look how it goes. Intro should reflect Main Body of the Article. Main Body of the Article should reflect the general consensus of contemporary authoritative scholars in the field. Authority of the bootmaker isn't prominent in the current anarchist literature, as I understand. Could you provide significant evidence within ]? That would do the trick. Hit me back if you got any questions. ]] 09:30, 12 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
* 1 Introduction |
|
|
|
::I don't have any, but I would also like to know if the general consensus among academics is that anarchism is opposed to all forms of authority ] (]) 17:35, 13 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
* 2 Origins of Anarchism |
|
|
|
:@] Authority has several definitions. One of them (according to google oxford languages thing) is {{xt|a person with extensive or specialized knowledge about a subject; an expert.}} I believe this is the type being referred to with that, rather than the usual meaning. Does that make sense? ] ] 20:55, 12 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
o 2.1 Pierre-Joseph Proudhon |
|
|
|
::It makes sense, I just think that it is a slightly misleading account of anarchism ] (]) 17:32, 13 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
* 3 Schools of Anarchist Thought |
|
|
o 3.1 Mutualism |
|
|
o 3.2 Anarchist collectivism |
|
|
o 3.3 Anarchist communism |
|
|
+ 3.3.1 Kropotkin |
|
|
o 3.4 Anarchist Syndicalism |
|
|
o 3.5 Anarchism and the individual |
|
|
+ 3.5.1 Max Stirner's egoism |
|
|
+ 3.5.2 Anarchist Individualism |
|
|
* 4 Anarchism as a Social Movement |
|
|
o 4.1 First International |
|
|
o 4.2 Anarchism and organized labor |
|
|
o 4.3 The Russian Revolution |
|
|
o 4.4 The fight against fascism |
|
|
* 5 Issues in anarchism |
|
|
o 5.1 Ends and means |
|
|
o 5.2 Capitalism |
|
|
+ 5.2.1 Anarcho-capitalism |
|
|
+ 5.2.2 Neocolonialism and globalization |
|
|
o 5.3 Feminism and anti-racism |
|
|
o 5.4 The environment |
|
|
o 5.5 Religion |
|
|
* 6 Anarchism Since 1945 |
|
|
o 6.1 Post-left and poststructuralism |
|
|
o 6.2 Post Anarchism? |
|
|
* 7 Criticisms of anarchism |
|
|
* 8 Cultural phenomena |
|
|
* 9 See also |
|
|
o 9.1 Historical events |
|
|
o 9.2 Anarchism by region/culture |
|
|
o 9.3 Books |
|
|
* 10 Notes and references |
|
|
* 11 External links |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
==Contemporary anarchist thinkers== |
|
I would appreciate any thoughts on this possible alternative. ] 08:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
Surprised to see that ] didn't make an appearance in the article, then realized that with some few exceptions (], ], even Zoe Baker in the suggested reading), there aren't many contemporary thinkers elaborated. It would be great to expand this element and point to some of the journals/etc that have been key. ] (]) 02:52, 16 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
:At first glance, your draft looks quite good. --] 13:45, 19 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Although we can trace many schools back into the 1830s and 1840s, the influences of mutualism, collectivism and individualism peaked in the late 19th century, while those of syndicalism and communism grew in the early 20th century. So we can say that 'classic' syndicalism incorporates many ideas from mutualism and collectivism (and sometimes individualism) while 'classic' mutualism doesn't incorporate as many ideas from syndicalism and communism. The later sections (in the article) like the later developments (in our history) can refer to the earlier ones, but not vice-versa. Godwin could be 2.1, Proudhon, Warren and Stirner 2.2-2.4. Mixing systems and mixed systems (i.e. panarchism) could be 3.1 as an intro, then the details of each system starting with mutualism in 3.2, then individualism and collectivism in 3.3 and 3.4, and syndicalism and communism in 3.5 and 3.6 (though whether communism should focus on Kropotkin's or Platformism is beyond me), with post-stuff in 3.7 and beyond. Possession and Property could go between 5.1 and 5.2. ] 05:20, 20 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::Kropotkin seems more important than platformism. Maybe a bit of both though. I personally like both of the layouts so I have no real objection. <font color="Black">'''The'''</font> ] ] 06:03, 20 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I can see what you mean. Perhpase the "origins of anarchism" section would do better after the schools of thought section anyway, as, like the section on anarchism as a social movement, it is historical. I'll make some changes to this time line and place them in my talk page. ] 06:19, 20 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:Instead of your talk page, just create a sandbox. Start a page titled ]. Actually, just click on the link and start typing. That way it doesn't take up a bunch of room on your talk page, screw up the formatting etc. Just a thought. <font color="Black">'''The'''</font> ] ] 06:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks very much, I was actually about to ask how to do that. I'll do that now. ] 06:27, 20 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Okay, it's done. You can view the new layout at ]. Feel free to edit it. In fact I think we all should so that we can figure out how we want this article to be arranged. Would it be too presumptious to paste a link to this page at the top of the talk page? ] 06:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:I think it would be ok. I'll go put it up now. <font color="Black">'''The'''</font> ] ] 06:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
: That layout seems well organized. Good work. ] 09:41, 20 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::I'm currently too busy to do it, but if someone can actually cut and paste the current text into that order on you're test page, that would be nice. Anything that needs to be written can be done there. Once we have decided on a version we like, just cut and paste into this page. <font color="Black">'''The'''</font> ] ] 09:51, 20 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:It lacks talk about Jeffersonian democracy, which is important to understand philosophical anarchism. ] 16:41, 20 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Ungovernable, I had been thinking the same thing, so you pushed me over the edge. There is now a mosty-fleshed out version of the anarchism article based on the new layout. A few of the sections are missing, and some of the sections are taken directly from the libertarian socialism article. Maybe this project could solve some of the issues regarding that article as well (the discussion of a merger or redirect or whatever else.) Or just make them worse... ] 10:52, 21 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Thomas Jefferson== |
|
|
|
|
|
While I certainly admire the man, I'm not sure such a large quotation from him in this article is appropriate. The content is good, the placement is not. I'm going to move it to ], a sentence on Jeffersons point of view might be worth having somewhere in the article. - ] ] 15:56, 23 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:Seriously. The amount of original research that is being injected into this article is strange, to say the least. --] 16:45, 23 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::It would be pointless to talk about anarchism without Jefferson. It's like starting at end of the novel, only reading the last 2 pages and be done with it. Instead, one starts of course at the beginning. ] 16:48, 23 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::As long as this is just your ], it has no place in the article. --] 16:49, 23 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::I am only citing scholars...I could even have cited the 1889 article, if I wanted to. ] 16:52, 23 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::If you read True Civilization by Josiah Warren he cites Jefferson's Declaration of Independence. Also, Voltairine de Cleyre cites Jefferson in Anarchism and American Traditions ] 18:24, 23 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::Good. It would be appropriate to put a sentence about Jefferson's influence on the individualists in the American individualists section. ] 14:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::Thankyou, TheIndividualist and Intangible. <font color="003366" face="Verdana">]</font><font color="006666" face="Veranda">]</font><sup><font color="3906A2">]</font></sup> 06:11, 25 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==FrancisTyers moving my edit to another article== |
|
|
|
|
|
That was real cute, FrancisTyers, moving my edit to another article thereby getting it out of the way of this '''communisto-anarchist''' article and taking credit for my research at the same time. Clever. BTW, how many edits did you make on Sunday the 23rd, Francis? Let me count..uh 1, 2, 3, 4....9 edits in one day. You could get blocked for that if I'm not mistaken. I may be wrong but I believe there's a ] rule. Oh well, happy editing! <font color="003366" face="Verdana">]</font><font color="006666" face="Veranda">]</font><sup><font color="3906A2">]</font></sup> 06:11, 25 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
You said you're "not sure such a large quotation from him in this article is appropriate". Well, I and Intangible and Theindividualist do think it is appropriate. Vision Thing can't be here right now, but something tells me he would think it's appropriate, too. <font color="003366" face="Verdana">]</font><font color="006666" face="Veranda">]</font><sup><font color="3906A2">]</font></sup> 06:31, 25 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
: Actually, it was me (VoluntarySlave) who moved your section on Jefferson to ]. As I explained above, this is an article about anarchism, not about non-anarchists who influenced anarchism. If you think Jefferson is ''so'' significant an influence on anarchism as to be the only non-anarchist with their own section in the article, could you explain why? |
|
|
: Also, while I'm replying to you, I notice you added "the teachings of Jesus" as a precursor of anarchism. While I agree that many Christians have developed proto-anarchist (or actually anarchist) views based on their religion, are the gospels themselves directly anti-authoritarian? I'm not enormously familiar with them, so I'm not disagreeing with you, just asking for clarification. And giving a reference would be helpful, as the article on Jesus doesn't appear to discuss his politics. ] 08:05, 25 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:: Oh, sorry, I've just noticed that ] also moved your edit to ]. I'll let him put forward his own reasons for moving your text out of this article, but I'd appreciate a response to mine. ] 08:18, 25 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Like I said above. - ] ] 09:15, 25 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::Devil! --] 13:01, 25 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Layout== |
|
|
A possible layout, mostly fleshed out, for the anarchism article can be seen ]. Some of the information is from the libertarian socialism article. ] 12:51, 25 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==your requests for info== |
|
|
VoluntarySlave, FrancisTyers, Aaron, I have already answered most of your questions above. I won't be caught in your mind games. I have answered your questions. Intangible has. TheIndivdualist has. Answering once is enough for any of us. |
|
|
|
|
|
As far as the big section about Proudhon: Proudhon called himself an anarchist, agreed, but could not tell the difference between anarchy and government. So we may as well include a section on Daffy Duck and his influence on the movement. |
|
|
|
|
|
This is an article about '''anarchism'''. Not Russian anarchism. Not European anarchism. Just anarchism. So it's not a big leap to assume that American anarchism (or the anarchism of other countries) should be included. |
|
|
|
|
|
There is more on American anarchism that needs to be in the article. These edits are just a start. |
|
|
|
|
|
I'll find references to show how Jesus was anti-authoritarian and revolutionary and he most certainly was. I can't account for why the revolutionary direction to his desciples was not included in the article ], I didn't write it. I can imagine why, though, LOL. |
|
|
|
|
|
You, socialist-communists just keep dominating this article like it personally belongs to you. It doesn't. You do the same thing to, or worse, stuff that you accuse other editors of doing, and then harass them to no end. Like what you are doing to Intangible right now, which I just discovered today. |
|
|
|
|
|
To what ends will you go to guard this aricle and keep it communistic? How low will you people go? Please try and behave yourselves. <font color="003366" face="Verdana">]</font><font color="006666" face="Veranda">]</font><sup><font color="3906A2">]</font></sup> 16:10, 25 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::I wasn't trying to attack you Shannon. But someone who claims to be an anarchist and is actively editing a site as such should not state that "The only government that I would even begin to trust is a libertarian Jeffersonian one" as trusting governments of any kind is antithetical to being an anarchist. Whether you can be a patriot to the United States of America and also truly be an anarchist i personally don't think so but i will remain tolerant of your views despite your apparent inability to be tolerant of people here who hold alternate beliefs from yourself. Intangible, you wrote, "No one in their right minds would call for abrogation of any form of state in the Jefferson era." Do you mean that no sane person would call for the abolishment of any form of state in the Jeffersonian era? What does that mean? Anarchists call for the abolishment of any state in every era. According to that statement, at least, you dont seem to understand the basic tenants of anarchism any better than Shannon and should therefore not be editing a site on the subject. This has nothing to do with who I agree with or not ideologically, or whether I am collectivist or not, it has to do with the quality and accuracy of an article that many people will view and on which Ancaps seem intent on pushing their POV. Piece, ] |
|
|
:::You could not write about it. If you did, there was always the ] or a ]. Of course people could live in communities far away from government control, but I doubt anyone living there did so because they were trying to live in "anarchism," they were looking for the ]. ] 17:55, 25 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::<sarcasm>Yes, and now it's our job to reinterpret history so that those people thought how we think they should have thought.</sarcasm> --] 18:25, 25 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::I'm not sure what is sarcastic about ''citing sources''...] 19:15, 25 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
: Shannon, I may have missed it, but I haven't seen a response to my question. Why do you believe that American non-anarchist precursors of anarchism are uniquely significant to understanding anarchism, such that they are the only non-anarchists who should have their own section in the article? Note that American ''anarchism'' (as opposed to American non-anarchism) is already included in the section on indvidualism. ] 19:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Why did individualist anarchism precede any influence of anarcho-communism in North America... ] 21:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Because the USA is where individualist anarchism started. Communism was not an American idea. Those who went to establish America were "rugged individualists" inspired by the classical liberals. Thomas Jefferson was basically an anarchist who saw government as an unfortunate "necessary evil" and whose strongly promoted individualism. The communists ideas came in from outside the country from a different mindset. ] 21:26, 25 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::To quote ]: "Men like Josiah Warren, Stephen Pearl Andrews, Lysander Spooner, William Greene, Ezra Heywood and Benjamin Tucker were influenced in their intellectual developments much more by the principles expressed in the Declaration of Independence than by those of any of the representatives of libertarian socialism in Europe. They were all hundred per cent American by descent, and almost all of them were born in the New England states. As a matter of fact, this school of thought had found literary expression in America before any modern radical movements were even thought of in Europe." ] 22:53, 25 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
=== Response to Shannon === |
|
|
|
|
|
ROTFLMAO. --] 18:24, 25 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Blockader. What's the deal with ending your comments with the word "piece"? If you mean "peace" why can't you say that? If you really mean "piece," would you explain why? I've corrected you on this before, when I thought it was just a one-time typo. Now it appears to be a habit. Does it mean something? --] 18:47, 25 July 2006 (UTC) (Peace). |
|
|
::Chris, by signing out with "piece" I am referencing a graphic common during the seventies which read "piece now" arranged around various firearms. i believe it was first employed/created by the weathermen or weather underground though i first encountered it on a American Indian Movement pamphlet. I liked the pun and have used it ever since. Piece, ] |
|
|
::Also, I was wondering where one might meet and engage some ancaps in face-to-face discussion. I'm not familiar with any among any of the anarchist groups or collectives in the southeast but then again why would an ancap join a collective? Would a libertarian party event be the proper place to find some? Just wondering. It seems like if anarcho-capitalists are anywhere it would be the southeast. Or maybe Montana.] |
|
|
|
|
|
==the bickering== |
|
|
Can we all stop the bickering now and get down to improving this article in a friendly and collaberative manner? It is possible. |
|
|
|
|
|
As to the further assaults on my understanding of anarchy, patriotism, etc. I will say this and then not say it again. I understand anarchy and I understand patriotism. I clarified what I wrote on my page concerning governments, etc. Patriotism to many Americans is good citizenship. It does not mean blind loyalty to a party or blind loyalty to a president, etc. It does mean keeping an honest eye on your government to ensure that it is the kind of government you would want to have. (We have a government whether we want one or not.) I hate this treasonous (Bush) administration as I hate the treasonous administrations of Bill Clinton and Franklin Delano Roosevelt and many more. Patriotism is being critical of, and not being afraid to express dissent of your government. Please read the U.S. ]. The definition you seem to be expressing is the one that these traitorous presidents, (Bush, Reagan, etc.) would have us all believe. I don't buy it. |
|
|
|
|
|
Another thing about patriotism is this: As much as I hate these bastards, (the presidents that I have just mentioned), the idea of a foreign country like the allies communist China and Russia, or the European Union, for instance, coming in here and taking control gets me even '''way more infuriated.''' There has been socialist influence in the U.S. since the turn of the 20th century. But the blatant attempt at overthrowing this government, through the spreading of propaganda on the internet and through Misplaced Pages, honestly makes me sick. If communist China thinks it will take my country it has another think coming. Not while I'm alive and kicking. <font color="003366" face="Verdana">]</font><font color="006666" face="Veranda">]</font><sup><font color="3906A2">]</font></sup> 19:53, 25 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
: Dude, can you please assume good faith. I mean, as it turns out I actually am a Maoist propogandist seeking to undermine the US through the terrible power of Misplaced Pages (and we're doing pretty well. Go Hillary in '08!), but you shouldn't go around just assuming it. ] 20:03, 25 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::My God, this is too precious. --] 20:18, 25 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::I'm surprised that someone so smitten with capitalism would denounce modern day China :?. As far as communist nations subverting the U.S. go I am holding out for Cuba cause they seem to come up with the best mixed drinks. Or if Chavez engineers a successful coup here we could all hang out with oil and cocaine! Hooray, ] |
|
|
::::All I know is that the Revolution begins with Misplaced Pages!!!!1 --] 21:34, 25 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Ursula K. Le Guin: "self-avowed anarchist"? == |
|
|
|
|
|
There is some controversy about whether ] is an anarchist. Actually I've never seen her referred to as an anarchist except on this wikipedia page. Anyway, in attempting to discover an actual answer I have found the following three sources: |
|
|
|
|
|
*'' set out to ask a broad range of thinkers what they had read that had provided moral insight or served as a catalyst or paradigm of virtue, ethical behavior, or simply living the kind of life that makes a difference. What texts do they look to when they want moral guideposts or standards for ethical action?'' |
|
|
|
|
|
:'''''Ursula K. Le Guin, Novelist''''' |
|
|
:''I read Lao-tzu and the Tao Te Ching at 14. My father had it around the house in the old edition with the Chinese text. I sneaked a peek and was and remain fascinated. Taoism is still an underlayer in my work. It begins talking about what we can't talk about--an old mysticism that intertwines with Buddhism and is practical and not theistic. Before and beyond God. There's a humorous and easygoing aspect to it that I like temperamentally and that fits in with anarchism. Pacifist anarchism and Lao-tzu have a lot of connection with each other, especially in the 20th century.'' |
|
|
|
|
|
*'''''Q:''' How did you become a Taoist, if you would consider yourself one?'' |
|
|
|
|
|
:'''''UKL:''' By reading Lao Tzu and Chuang Tzu, mostly. I don't have my library here so I don't dare try to give you any names of scholars and popularisers who helped me understand Taoism - I would forget most of them. I don't really know how one "is" a Taoist. I do know that Taoist ideas inform a great deal of my writing.'' |
|
|
|
|
|
*''ELM: You have talked about dry times in writing, and how sometimes one must wait for the writing tank to fill. How do you deal with such fluctuations in your writing life? Have you noticed consistent cycles? What helps you get through the dry times and refill your writer’s tank?'' |
|
|
|
|
|
:''UKL: You sit and wait and wait and wait and wait. And fret. And consult the I Ching, which tells you to wait. So you wait and wait . . .'' |
|
|
|
|
|
:''Traveling is bad for fiction but good for poetry. That's the only cycle I have noticed.'' |
|
|
|
|
|
:''Work always leads to work, so it's good in a dry time to have some interest to pursue, something I want to learn about (because I'm a head-worker). Like the Revolution of 1830, say. I read about it for years. Just because I liked it. I was very interested for years in sleep and dream research. In other years I read a lot of utopias, and about utopias, and about Gandhi, and about Anarchism. All those learnings, which I pursued purely because I was interested in the subject, turned into novels in the end.'' |
|
|
|
|
|
These statements hardly clear up the ambiguity, other than to illustrate that she claims pacifism as much as anarchism, and Taoism more often. She may "be" a Taoist, and maybe an anarchist and a pacifist as well -- note her disavowal and use of quotes around "is" -- or she may just be "interested in subjects" that "turn into novels." ] 20:30, 25 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:Where does this article refer to Le Guin? ] |
|
|
::She's been added to and deleted from the "examples of prominent publicly self-avowed anarchists" list under the ] section a number of times. ] 21:22, 25 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::I think maybe her prominence is in as much question as her "self-avowed" anarchism. ] |
|
|
::::Are you kidding? She's one of the most prominent sci-fi authors alive today. If you want to describe what she writes as sci-fi, anyway. And she has anarchist themes in almost all her books. You only ever hear about ''The Dispossessed'', but I think it's at least as clear in other works. She has said she's found anarchism fascinating, but stopped short of calling herself an anarchist. Someone cited a secondary source earlier that said she eschewed labels so that her work could remain accessible to a larger audience. But it is true she's not self-avowed. Whether that matters is another question. ] 21:54, 25 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::If it's the same one, the also says "''Anarchism acts as an underlying theme throughout all of Ursula Le Guin's novels and short stories. It is portrayed in the different life forms and cultures encountered, and in the varied political systems and methods of social organization.''" This is who confuses "anarchism as an underlying theme" with ] or ] as underlying themes. If "''it is true she's not self-avowed,''" then putting Le Guin on a list of "''publicly self-avowed anarchists''" is unambiguously '''false,''' and surely it's not a serious "question" whether putting falsehoods in Misplaced Pages "matters." ] 04:22, 26 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Thomas Jefferson and OR == |
|
|
|
|
|
Thomas Jefferson is an extremely interesting historical and political figure, and admirable in many ways. His place in this article, however, is a bit dubious. Shannon, you claim that your edits are not ], because they are referenced. I think that you might misunderstand what is meant by "original research." The policy, in a nutshell, is this: <i>articles may not contain any previously unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas; or any new analysis or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas that serves to advance a position</i>. What you present is a new analysis or synthesis of published materials that serves to advance the position that the history of anarchism can be traced back to Thomas Jefferson. You're not providing enough evidence from ] to show that your claims are ]. Nobody is attempting to stifle your work, or attack you. We're just trying to make the article accurate. Alright? --] 00:44, 26 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:I just provided a quote from Rocker that says that individualist anarchism came from an earlier tradition, different from the one that produced European anarchism. Did you miss that one? ] 00:54, 26 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::And if you worry that I'm using a primary source here, this quote was noted in a review of Rocker's book by a Yale professor, who said that: "Rocker's conclusions concerning American radicalism is the most interesting part of his book. Pointing out the universal and inevitable movement of cultural influences back and forth among nations, he indicts the stupidity of the "one hundred per cent Americans" who distort the importance of such streams of influence and label radicalism as a foreign importation." Then he quotes Rocker, which quote I already provided somewhere above here. ] 01:24, 26 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::Okay, Aaron. Thanks. I know what OR is, I've read the policy and I don't think what Intangible and TheIndivdualist and I are doing can be considered OR. We are getting plenty of citations to back up our case. There is no way that anarchism in America has been ''influenced more'' by Europe and Russia than it has by Americans. We are getting more and more to back this up. |
|
|
|
|
|
:::VoluntarySlave asked me: ''Why do you believe that American non-anarchist precursors of anarchism are uniquely significant to understanding anarchism, such that they are the only non-anarchists who should have their own section in the article? Note that American anarchism (as opposed to American non-anarchism) is already included in the section on indvidualism.'' Is this a trick question? Thoreau was an anarchist. Thomas Jefferson was an anarchist at heart but would have had a hard time getting his great fight for our freedom into the backbone of this country if he had admitted it to the other statesmen. Proudhon said he was an anarchist, didn't seem to be able to distinguish between anarchy and government, and his ideas sound exactly like Jefferson, who after all, came before him. The Russian and European anarchists get a huge portion of this article, while the American and individualists get a small crappy bit at the end of the article. It all started more in America, ironically, than it did anywhere else. If you can't follow what I have just written, then I don't know what else to say. <font color="003366" face="Verdana">]</font><font color="006666" face="Veranda">]</font><sup><font color="3906A2">]</font></sup> 03:44, 26 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::: Thanks, Shannon; I hadn't been clear as to on precisely what grounds you thought the section you added belonged in the article. Now I realize it's because you believe that Jefferson and Thoreau were anarchists. As far as I'm aware, this is not the generally accepted view of either figure. If you can find reliable sources to show that Jefferson and Thoreau are widely held to have been anarchists, though, then they ought to be in the article. ] 05:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::I don't think most people doubt Thoreau as an anarchist, though he never called himself one. Emma Goldman went so far to refer to him as "the greatest American anarchist", and he was an obvious influence on early environmental anarchists such as Edward Abbey. ] 06:11, 26 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::I personally like many of TJ's ideas and I think he may have held rudimentary anarchist ideals. However, many historians have posited that his beliefs were often unstable, even bordering on amorphous. Jefferson's continuously changing religious affiliations, for example. Though I guess these vacillations don't preclude him from being included in this article, they do throw into question what he actually believed. I think TJ should be excluded here simply based upon the fact that he not only helped found 2 governments (Articles and Constitutional) but served as president of one of them (twice), which are not the actions of an anarchist of any ilk. ] |
|
|
:::::::Proudhon held governmental office. Does that mean he's not an anarchist? ] 01:52, 27 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
"THE classic land for the efflorescence and experimentations of bourgeois Liberal-Anarchism was America. If bourgeois Anarchism called for free land, free capital, free labor, and free exchange, what country could appear more favorable than the United States? (*1) Indeed, in a country where Liberalism could afford to appear as Radicalism, could there be a sharp line drawn between Liberalism and Liberal- Anarchism? The conditions of American life not only had forced men into a certain pattern of individualism, but had also compelled them to idealize this individualism and to make it an end in itself. It was in the United States that the development of State versus Individual had reached its sharpest point. Liberalism and Liberal-Anarchism could well blend into one another....Indeed, there was plenty of patriotic precedent for the views of such Anarchism. The Liberal had declared: "The best government is that which governs least." The Anarchist merely added: "The best government, then, is no government." The American Revolution had recognized, both theoretically and practically, the Right of Revolution. This implied the superiority of moral law to government; and, using his conscience as his guide, Thoreau declared his own revolution. The American Revolution, then, was the great inspiration for early American Anarchism! Nay, more. Anarchism could be said to stem from the early settlers themselves. Were not Mrs. Anne Hutchinson and Mary Dwyer in the seventeenth century perhaps the first Anarchistic persons to set foot upon this country? And what of the Quakers? In the nineteenth century, American Liberal-Anarchism simply broke its religious ties and stepped out in its own right." ] 04:04, 26 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::What you have laboriously detailed above would indeed make an interesting subject for a history or political science thesis or doctorate but I don't think you can show that it is a generally accepted idea among historians or political scientists. What you might do is to enroll in a accredited doctoral program, successfully defend this hypothesis before your committee, and then gain acceptance among the academic community. Then it would be appropriate in this article. Piece,] |
|
|
I don't really care if we mention Jefferson or Thoreau, but I think the quote from Jefferson was needlessly long. I cut it down, and honestly, I think that entire section could stand to be cut in at least half. I think it's interesting, but it doesn't deserve that much attention, especially not on this page. I think Orgins of Anarchism is a good place for a more thorough treatment of that topic. And although I agree with Sarge about Thoreau being considered an anarchist by many, I don't think scholars usually label him as such (anarchism is only mentioned once on his page here, in reference to the Goldman quote). It's OR for us to say he's an anarchist, unless we say who said it (and like I said, that section is already too long). <font color="Black">'''The'''</font> ] ] 05:35, 27 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==continuing this discussion== |
|
|
Thanks to everybody for their input and comments. |
|
|
|
|
|
This comes from ] ''Original research that '''creates''' primary sources is not allowed. '''However, research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged.''' All articles on Misplaced Pages should be based on information collected from published primary and secondary sources. This is not "original research"; it is "source-based research", and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia.'' |
|
|
|
|
|
I would hardly refer to TheIndividualist's input as OR. There is little in there that even needs referencing as it refers to historical facts that are well accepted. He did add a reference. Let's just stop the need to make this article a left-leaning thing when it is a basic article about anarchism. TheIndividualist's statement is brilliant in it's insight, though. I don't think there is a policy against brilliant insight. |
|
|
|
|
|
*This is an article about '''anarchism''', not European anarchism, not Russian anarchism, not communist anarchism. Can we agree on that? |
|
|
|
|
|
*An anarchist is one who would like to see a society with no ruling power. Can we agree on that? |
|
|
|
|
|
*The left and the right, throughout history, have managed to create governments that insure the freedom of the rulers while minimizing the freedom of the ruled. Can we agree on that? |
|
|
|
|
|
*The American revolution was an unheard of phenomenon when it happened. It was built on the influence of a number of men and women who had a wide range of ideals and motivations, some selfish, some not, thereby rendering it neither left nor right, but possibly a combination of the two. (What was liberal then is considered by some to be conservative now.) Please let's not start making value judgements here about ] philosophy or liberalism or conservatism (whose meanings are largely non-existent now). Study straight American history first then make judgements, at least. Not someone's take on American history, but the actual writings of some of these men and women. The actual actions that were done. I'm still pretty sure we won't all agree on that. There are plenty, involved in this debate, who do. |
|
|
|
|
|
*Let's just work together toward creating a well-rounded inclusive article. ''Can we agree on that?'' <font color="003366" face="Verdana">]</font><font color="006666" face="Veranda">]</font><sup><font color="3906A2">]</font></sup> 17:22, 26 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
After having been an anarchist for 40 years, I personally think that the entire article on anarchism is rubbish. One example: I do not see myself as left-wing. That would mean that I would be part of their parliament. We are anti-political, so which idiot describes us as a left-wing political current? The article should have a short - extremely - general paragraph describing the general idea of anarchism and then it should sum up the different currents of anarchism as they are divided in internationals: individualists, anarcho-syndicalists, platformists. The articles on these currents should also be short and general and should just sum up the different versions of individualism etc. That way - at least - there would be a general definition that every anarchist could live with and it would keep all philosophical discussions to a minimum. Underneath every current, there could be further disambiguation until all currents are happy with the description of what they think anarchism should be. Jan De Neys (talk) 18:05, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
The introduction currently claims that anarchism is against all forms of authority. But what about the authority of the bootmaker?
I don't mean to sound like a pedant, but I'm worried that people will only skim the intro and leave with some misunderstandings of anarchism.
level-3 vital article is rated GA-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
