Talk:Anarchism

Anarchists schools of thought should go before history

This is consistent with other articles. Before we go over the history of anarchism, we need to go over what it is. In order to do that, we need to explain what the different types of anarchism are and how they differ. Byelf2007 (talk) 10 February 2012

I don't have an opinion one way or the other; I've seen articles the other way as well. However, I must ask you to please stop edit-warring while this is being discussed. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:37, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

"Schools of thought" does not describe "what anarchism is". "What anarchism is" was already described in the Introduction and in etymology. "Schools of thought" deals with debates inside the particular position (something very different) and it is clearly more specialized knowledge and up to a point something more of interest to those "inside" anarchism than to outsiders and those who just want to have some understading what anarchism is about. On the other hand "History" deals with the evolution of the position and so for the uninformed reader this is more helpful in knowing where this particular idea comes from and what has been the evolution of it in relation to specific issues of the times.--Eduen (talk) 23:03, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Eduen, please stop edit-warring while this is being discussed. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:08, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Eduen, the "anarchist school of thought" goes over the different types of anarchism, not necessarily debates within the position (that's what the "Internal issues and debates" section is). I think it would be good to include more info on the various strains of anarchism near the beginning, because that deals with what anarchism is, as it consists not only of its definition, but also what is subsumed under its definition (the schools). How about this: we create an "overview", which will include some of the lede and some of the "anarchist schools of thought", while the rest of "anarchist schools of thought" will be combined with "internal issues and debates" (pro-property vs anti-property, pro-intellectual property vs anti-intellectual property, pro-violence vs agorism vs pacifism, etc). Does that sound good? Byelf2007 (talk) 11 February 2012

The introduction to this article is already long enough. As far as "the schools" the section history deals with that presenting their emerging with specific historical events (the protestant peasant revolts, the enlightenment, the revolutions of 1848, the First International, the consolidation of the labour movements, the early 20th century revolutions, fascism, etc). It also does with the important names such as Godwin, Warren, Proudhon, Bakunin, Kropotkin, Malatesta, the spanish CNT, the Haymarket square anarchists, etc. "Schools of thought" does not make visible this historical vision as well as some discussions within their specific historical context. Internal issues and debates I think is also big enough and to tell you the truth all the major historical works on anarchism (Daniel Guerin, George Woodcock, Max Nettlau) do not really present as such important issues those you present. I have read all of those and there is no discussion over the word "agorism" (what is that?), intelectual property and such. Violence vs. non-violence is already touched upon on the introduction itself and Anarcho pacifism is touched upon in the introduction, the historical section and "post-classical currents". What has been an important discussion from the 20th century until today has been the debate between synthesis anarchism, platformism and insurrectionary anarchism and it is dealt in the section on the Russian revolution and other revolts. This article has to present and overview of the issue and the specific reader is free to click on any link of his interest. The anarchism template is also a good tool for those to investigate deeper in some issues. It seems to me you want to give more importance to doctrinaire discussions but they have a historical and geographical context that should not be ignored and which will get lost if from the beginning we start overemphasizing political theory discussions. What also happens with that method of presentation is possibly undue importance given to minoritarian or too recent viewpoints when we know wikipedia intends to present viewpoints in proportion to the real importance and influence in a given subject.

Now if you ask my opinion on the schools of thought section I think it might be better to split the "social anarchism" section into individual sections for Anarcho-syndicalism, collectivist anarchism and anarcho-communism since they have been the main schools of thought of "classical anarchism" and all of them individually has had much of a bigger influence on society that all of individualist anarchism which is a section that is good as it stands and which is the other school that is usually included in the "classical schools of thought" concept. Post-classical schools is good as it stands since we should not give these new positions the same individual space as the main 4 classical schools of anarchism. This mainly since they are recent developments (more or less from the 1960s onwards) and their existence as real movements is in some cases only in the form of intellectual theorization while on the other hand we have today anarcho-syndicalist trade unions, platformist anarcho-communist national federations and national synthesis anarchist federations and some of these organizations are in some cases more than half a century old (ex: Federation Anarchiste, Italian Anarchist Federation, Iberian Anarchist Federation, Confederacion Nacional del Trabajo, etc) and in the case of the spanish anarcho-syndicalist trade unions (the previously mentioned CNT and also CGT)they have memberships over the 100 thousands.--Eduen (talk) 22:43, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good. Byelf2007 (talk) 13 February 2012

Unschooling

Hey, we need a link to unschooling at the heading for anarchist schools so that people can get a balanced view, nicht war?Leutha (talk) 21:52, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Unshcooling is briefly dealt in the section in Issues in anarchism in the part of education. Nevertheless unschooling is not only of anarchist origin and cannot be said to be an anarchist school of thought as that term is usually used in anarchist historiography and political theory analysis.--Eduen (talk) 22:46, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

My recent edits

Eduen, I've provided (albeit brief) explanations for my recent edits. What are your objections and what do you think would be better? I think the article currently has a very awkward structure. I'll be sure to not make any more edits (other than very small ones pertaining to grammar, etc). Thank you for being so passionate about this article. I look forward to working with you on this (since we're apparently the only two people who are interested in restructuring this page right now). Byelf2007 (talk) 13 February 2012

On my recent edits I have to question again some things that Byelf2007 never responded to. Instead he just went and edited the article as he wanted.

I will talk about his version visible here which I reverted some things back to their previous state.

1. Lets consider this sentence Byelf2007 added in the introduction. The individualist wing of anarchism emphasises negative liberty, i.e. opposition to state or social control over the individual, while those in the social wing emphasise positive liberty to achieve one's potential and argue that humans have needs that society ought to fulfill, "recognizing equality of entitlement"

It was from the "Anarchist Schools of Thought" section, so I just assumed this wouldn't be an issue (I was only moving content, not adding any). Byelf2007 (talk) 13 February 2012

The language of "negative liberty" and "positive liberty" is of relevance within liberalism and it comes from there and is it used mainly there (also not too important for example in marxism). Within anarchism there is not an important use of those terms as it can be seen in main historical works on anarchism as written by anarchist historians such as George Woodcock, Max Nettlau and Daniel Guerin. It is also not present within the main classical theorists of anarchism such as Proudhon, Stirner, Bakunin, Kropotkin, Malatesta, Tucker, etc. If these concepts have been applied to anarchism, they nevertheless do not belong to the anarchist tradition and so they don´t deserve a mention in this introduction. But even if we were to aplly the concepts of "negative liberty" social anarchism is also obviously an anti-state position and so it could also be said to be a negative liberty position in a way since it want liberty FROM the centralized nation state. And so for example the catalan anarchists during the Spanish Civil War tried to end connection with the Spanish Republican State after they took over Barcelona and adjecent areas. The Ukranian anarchist did the same in respect to the crumbling Tsarist Russian State and also rejected the Bolchevik Soviet state. And so at most these concepts become problematic in a context for which they were not designed.

2. Byelf2007 Deleted from the introduction this very importance parragraph "Anarchism as a social movement has regularly endured fluctuations in popularity. The central tendency of anarchism as a mass social movement has been represented by anarcho-communism and anarcho-syndicalism, with individualist anarchism being primarily a literary phenomenon[25] which nevertheless did have an impact on the bigger currents[26] and individualists also participated in large anarchist organizations.[27][28] Most anarchists oppose all forms of aggression, supporting self-defense or non-violence (anarcho-pacifism),[29][30] while others have supported the use of some coercive measures, including violent revolution and propaganda of the deed, on the path to an anarchist society.[31]

I didn't delete it--I moved it to overview. Byelf2007 (talk) 13 February 2012

I don´t want to guess why he did that. My point here is that this paragraph that User:Byelf2007 deleted shows anarchism has reached at some points mass movement status and even big anarchist militias and continues in some form or other to be an activist and radical direct action and organized movement. Anarchism cannot be reduced as a mere literary philosophical phenomenon as his proposed version of an introduction does.

3. As can be seen in this talk section of this article and in previous editions of this article (and not just because of my opposition), user Byelf2007 never got a consensus for his proposal for an "Overview" section. Nevertheless he continues to insist on this.

You didn't get consensus for your recent edits either (which taken together, amount to a big change), so what's the rub? Did you really object to every edit I made, or just some of them? Personally, I don't care about your editing without consensus because I'm a "be bold" editor, so I'm fine with other people doing this, as I can always revert if I have a problem with changes (I usually don't, and didn't with respect to your recent edits).

Furthermore, I already said I wouldn't do any more big edits without your permission, so I'm not sure how your point-3 comments are constructive. Byelf2007 (talk) 13 February 2012

4. On the inclusion of specific sections for the classical schools of thought of anarcho-communism, collectivist anarchism and anarcho-syndicalism, he seemed to agree with me and so I only made small changes to those parts.

Sections order

I'd like to move the "internal debates and issues" and "topics of interest" sections around. My argument is that in getting people to understand subject, we're supposed to go from the broad/important points to the specific/relatively non-important ones, and, in this respect, i think it's much better to cover internal debates before other "topics of interest". What do you think?

Also, you made some big edits with the anarcho-communism, collectivist anarchism, and anarcho-syndicalism, so I'd like you to also not make big edits on this page without consulting me first from now on (not that I think you've done this again since those edits, as your more recent ones have been small). Byelf2007 (talk) 14 February 2012

Byelf2007 said "You didn't get consensus for your recent edits either (which taken together, amount to a big change), so what's the rub? Did you really object to every edit I made, or just some of them? Personally, I don't care about your editing without consensus because I'm a "be bold" editor, so I'm fine with other people doing this, as I can always revert if I have a problem with changes (I usually don't, and didn't with respect to your recent edits)."

Mostly I just reverted back your editions and sometimes with long justification provided in this Talk section as can be seen in my previous arguments provided here. A lot of what you have pretended to edit have been long consensus with other users and done collectively. Nevertheless I have to question in some instances you actual knowledge of anarchist history and thought while in others you seem to want to import things which are not really relevant to anarchism and so I reverted things which really show lack of that knowledge with the corresponding argument for that here in this Talk section as can be seen before this.

As far as your proposal for Overview I remember no so long ago it was reverted by another User. I have to suggest you to first argue your changes here before proceeding. I think that is the best solution to this edit war. Personally I have tried to do that here. I have made some changes before and mostly they have been uncontroversial because I first brought them here for discussion.

And of course as far as your fixation with the title of the section on history called "Fight againts fascism, the spanish revolution..." it is something more or less about not being careful about what the actual content of that section is about. That sentence is the logical form of summarizing the content. If you take off one of those three parts you don´t do justice to the actual contents.--Eduen (talk) 09:03, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

"Also, you made some big edits with the anarcho-communism, collectivist anarchism, and anarcho-syndicalism, so I'd like you to also not make big edits on this page without consulting me first from now on (not that I think you've done this again since those edits, as your more recent ones have been small)."

Tell me specifically what you didn´t agree with and we can discuss it here. They were not big format changes really, only small additions to new sections you just created. As far as the small changes on the anarchocommunism section I just added content from the "anarcho-communism" article which I personally have been improving in recent times without much controversy (as can be seen in the talk section and the editions history of that article) and which I know very well.

This unlike what you have tried to do here in this article which have been big format changes of the whole structure of this article and also important changes on the introduction itself without previous discussion here in this talk section. Once I came before and asked for opinions on changing a specific picture and I wondered If this was exaggeration of diplomacy and democracy. Now after all the changes and especially in the way you have made them I understand that this is an important global article which I think is better that changes proposed be done in that careful way, and this especially as far the introduction. --Eduen (talk) 09:10, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

"Tell me specifically what you didn´t agree with and we can discuss it here." I didn't say I disagreed with any of the edits.

You still haven't commented on my proposal for changing the sections order. Byelf2007 (talk) 15 February 2012

Suggestion: Anarchism Task Force

In an effort to resolve the differences of opinion between Byelf2007 and Eduen concerning the structure of the article, may I suggest asking members of the Anarchism Task Force to review the article and offer their comments? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:59, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to note that I have only one outstanding disagreement with him (the sections order). Byelf2007 (talk) 15 February 2012

Well ther is also your strong dislike with the title of the section "fight against fascism, the spanish revolution and World War II" which you have edited many times. Maybe if you can explain why is that since to me it is sucha small detail but it is clear something in it you really don´t seem to like.--Eduen (talk) 01:10, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I already have. And you haven't changed the title, so I assumed you were cool with it.

My problem with the title is that "fight against fascism" (when included with the others) is redundant when we also mention "Spanish revolution" and "WW2" because what we talk about with respect to those things are ALSO fights with fascism, so it implies that they were only fighting fascism when they were fighting the Italians, even though the Spanish and Germans were also fascist. Byelf2007 (talk) 15 February 2012

Those three things might be related but a different thing is to say that they are the same things. The Spanish Revolution the CNT-FAI not only fought with fascists but also expropiated landowners and the bourgoise, so in that case that event was more than "fight againts fascism". It was a social revolution and as the event in which anarchists achieved the biggest impact on society it deserves special treatment.--Eduen (talk) 01:33, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

This is a good point. I think the only good solution is just to split up each issue into its own subsection. Does that sound good? Byelf2007 (talk) 16 February 2012