Talk:Anarchist schools of thought

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Philosophy (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Politics (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Name of the article[edit]

This article is a summary style split from this "Schools of thought" section of the Anarchism article. User:Bacchiad tentatively named it "Anarchist political theory", but this does not seem to cover the topic entirely (as User:Operation Spooner has pointed out, it omits economic issues that are given broad coverage). I had initially thought to call it simply "Anarchist schools of thought". Is there a better title to describe the content of the article? Skomorokh incite 18:57, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Anarchist political economy? But I have a personal prejudice against list-y articles. If I didn't I'd probably agree with your initial suggestion. Biasedly, Bacchiad 19:01, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Good point on avoiding listy articles — perhaps we should avoid plurals in the name. I think political economy is too narrow and too obscure for the intelligent, ignorant reader. I think what we want to say is "the different types of anarchism" in a concise, familiar way. "Types of anarchism" does not make clear the theoretical nature of this. "Anarchist philosophy"? "Anarchist theory"? Skomorokh incite 19:08, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Anarchist political economy, Anarchist schools of thought, or just Anarchist theory. -- Vision Thing -- 19:05, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Any objections to "Anarchist theory"? Skomorokh incite 19:23, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
I think that gives the impression that anarchist theory is monolothic. There is no "anarchist theory." Rather there are multiple anarchist theories, so maybe Anarchist theories? Operation Spooner 19:25, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I've been looking for naming precedent in other political ideologies. Only one I found was Types of socialism, and that's disputed into the ground. I think Schools of anarchist thought or Anarchist schools or thought would be most reasonable, based on section naming conventions in articles like Marxism and Conservatism. Bacchiad 19:29, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I was bold and moved the article to Anarchist schools of thought. Skomorokh incite 21:21, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Awesome. I like a bold wikipedian. Bacchiad 22:52, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Today, one of the listed schools of thought is boston anarchists, and anarcho-capitalism is listed as a sub-category.. I find this ridiculous. As an anarcho-capitalist, the only usage I've ever heard of the term 'boston anarchist' is in reference to the book by Applegate.. At the most, Boston anarchist should be a category of An-cap, not vice versa. I'll be changing that now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.130.30.66 (talk) 00:02, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposed expansion of article[edit]

At present, the article only covers a subsection of its subject matter. Philosophical anarchism, pacifist anarchim, anarcha-feminism, platformism, crypto-anarchism, infoanarchism, Buddhist anarchism, Christian anarchism, Jewish anarchism, black anarchism could all be mentioned. The article could go also into detail about the interrelationships of the schools, and interlink with the Issues in anarchism sub-articles. Skomorokh incite 19:05, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Cant Buddhist anarchism, Christian anarchism and Jewish anarchism be grouped together under the same section Religious Anarchism.--Fang 23 (talk) 23:10, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
ps:I (might) help the situation by (possibly) adding a section on Religious Anarchism some other day just as i did with Anarcha-feminism and national-anarchism.
That would be ideal, this article badly needs more subsectioning, though perhaps with a different heading similar to the Contemporary free market anarchism subsection. Thanks for all your hard work so far! Skomorokh incite 18:27, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Celtic anarchism ought also be included. Skomorokh incite 17:33, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Small "a" anarchism removed[edit]

The two sources given for Small "a" anarchism are an essay published in the unreliable source Spunk Library by the non-notable author Dave Neal, and an article published in the unreliable source ZNet by the notable David Graeber. Thus material from the Neal essay must be removed per WP:V, while the Graeber material qualifies for inclusion. However, Graeber's piece refers to small "a" anarchism only fleetingly and not as a specific school of thought but as a description of most anarchists today. I could not find any reliable sources for the notability of this supposed school of thought in Neal's sense and so I am moving the section here until verifiable material is forthcoming:

Small 'a' anarchism (sometimes known as "little a") is a term used in two different, but not unconnected contexts. Dave Neal posited the term in opposition to big 'A' Anarchism in the article [http://www.spunk.org/library/intro/practice/sp001689.html Anarchism: Ideology or Methodology?]. While big 'A' Anarchism referred to ideological Anarchists, small 'a' anarchism was applied to their methodological counterparts; those who viewed anarchism as "a way of acting, or a historical tendency against illegitimate authority." As an anti-ideological position, small 'a' anarchism shares some similarities with [[post-left anarchy]]. [[David Graeber]] and [[Andrej Grubacic]] offer an alternative use of the term, applying it to groups and movements organising according to or acting in a manner consistent with anarchist principles of decentralisation, voluntary association, mutual aid, the network model, and crucially, "the rejection of any idea that the end justifies the means, let alone that the business of a revolutionary is to seize state power and then begin imposing one's vision at the point of a gun."<ref>[http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=41&ItemID=4796 Anarchism, Or The Revolutionary Movement Of The Twenty-first Century] by [[David Graeber]] and Andrej Grubacic</ref>

Skomorokh incite 19:54, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I would say that Neal's article is very notable, although he isn't as famous as Graeber. If priority is being given to academics over non-academic writers, then perhaps most of Wikipedia's editors ought to establish their credentials in editing pages. Chuck0 (talk) 04:55, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Reliable to you or me, perhaps; reliable in the Wikipedia sense, probably not. The above terminology should be read from a technical viewpoint. I don't have any opinion on the quality or importance of Neal/Graeber/Spunk Library/ZNet, I just haven't been able to find non-trivial coverage of small "a" anarchism in a peer-reviewed/editorially overseen respected publication. Skomorokh incite 05:32, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, the section needs more citations in order to be included. I'm just responding to the comments about Dave Neal being non-notable, which he is not. He's been very influential on my own thinking and his essays have gotten some attention within anarchist circles. Chuck0 (talk) 18:12, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, sorry, I should have made it clear in what sense I meant that. Skomorokh incite 20:22, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes well I am David Graeber and I think Neal is just as notable as I am. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.237.84.163 (talk) 06:10, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

National-Anarchism removed[edit]

User:Chuck0 has removed National-Anarchism from this article. I don't entirely disagree as it has a whiff of Astroturf about it and I have not come across any mainstream non-partisan sources (e.g. Oxford Dictionary of <whatever>) that consider it a notable form of anarchism. However, I thought people should be given a heads-up here in case anyone wanted to dispute it. Skomorokh incite 05:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia shouldn't include every nutjob theory that comes along and says that it is part of something bigger. Wikipedia is not the kitchen sink. I've run across all kinds of whackos who say that their pet theory is part of anarchy. I try to humor them and get them out of my life as soon as possible. In the instance, "national anarchism" goes against everything that anarchists stand for. Anarchists are fundamentally anti-racist, anti-nationalist and anti-authoritarian. I can find armfuls of citations to support my argument here. Hey, I'm not arguing with you, Skomorokh, just explaining why this section was removed. Chuck0 (talk) 18:10, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Its true that many modern anarchists are antagonistic to nationalism but that does not mean anarchism as an ideology is hostile to nationalism a number of early anarchists such as Mikhail Bakunin and Pierre-Joseph Proudhon supported nationalism and in addition Chinese anarchists (before the Communist party of china took control) were also deeply involved in the nationalist movement it would be somewhat of an exaggeration to say that all of anarchism is totally anti-nationalist.--Fang 23 (talk) 14:45, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
No worries, I agree with much of what you say, I just like to make the decision not to include N-A transparent. Regarding kitchen-sinkism, I think there is also a danger of going in the opposite direction of excising everything one band of editors feels is not true anarchism. I'm sure you could find respectable citations to support conflicting arguments that anarchism is say, only anti-hierarchical, anti-government or anti-collectivist. I have read black anarchist essays claiming that mainstream anarchism is inherently racist and thus unanarchistic etc. And I think when we do have such citations from reliable sources, we should include the different viewpoints, as we do here with the anarcho-communists and the individualist anarchists both claiming the others are not anarchists. I am very skeptical that such citations could be found for national anarchism. But in general I think its best to include viewpoints that have been given some credibility, explain the objections, and let the reader make her own mind up. Thanks for taking the time to discuss this btw. Skomorokh incite 20:22, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Pictures of Max Stirner[edit]

Does anyone else think it's repetitive to have the same picture of Max Stirner twice within the same article? Gadev (talk) 09:48, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Good point; I've replaced him with Godwin in the philosophical anarchism section. Thanks for catching that,  Skomorokh, barbarian  09:54, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Anarchist schools of thought[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Anarchist schools of thought's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "carlson":

  • From Egoist anarchism: Carlson, Andrew (1972). "Philosophical Egoism: German Antecedents". Anarchism in Germany. Metuchen: Scarecrow Press. ISBN 0810804840. Retrieved 2008-12-04. 
  • From Freeganism: Carlson, Tucker (February 3, 2006). "'Freegans' choose to eat garbage". MSNBC. Retrieved 2007-06-21. "These people don't eat out of dumpsters because they're poor and desperate. They do it to prove a political point. You wouldn'‘t expect someone to choose a lifestyle that involved eating out of dumpsters. Kind of seems like something you do as a desperate last resort. But there's an entire society of people who willingly get their meals out of the garbage. They're called freegans, and they say they have a reason for doing it." 

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT 21:41, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Anarchist schools of thought[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Anarchist schools of thought's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named " Alain Pengam":

Reference named "ideology":

Reference named "sasha":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT 04:40, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

File:N-A Flag.png Nominated for Deletion[edit]

Image-x-generic.svg An image used in this article, File:N-A Flag.png, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests January 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 18:48, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Anarchism symbol is wrong[edit]

The circle-A symbol used for this school of thought is wrong. The circle represents order, and the 'A' rebellion against that order. So in a true anarchist symbol the 'A' should break through the circle. It's funny how contemporary anarchists have such a poor grasp of their own traditions. http://anarchism.net/symbol_ca.htm User:AecwriterAECwriter 21:21, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I'd support having a symbol where the breaking occurs, but the way it's drawn is straight/professional. The 'graffiti' style looks silly, and another problem with it is how many different ways it could be drawn graffiti style. Byelf2007 (talk) 5 March 2012

Orphaned references in Anarchist schools of thought[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Anarchist schools of thought's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Graham-2005":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT 15:40, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Brief explanation[edit]

Thanks to Eduen for his recent edit in which he removed my edits, and especially for clarifying that a movement/ project/ organization must provide proof of self labeling as holding an anarchist position before being considered for possible inclusion on this article. I was not aware of this (perfectly reasonable and common-sense) requirement (I wrote a qualifier along the lines of 'they seem to be' anarchists). I fully agree with Eduen's removal of my additions to this article and thank him for the valuable feedback he provided. Warm regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 16:02, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 August 2014[edit]

Thoreau was not a pacifist, far from it. Although 'Civil Disobedience' influenced pacifist leaders, it never condemns violent resistance or states that nonviolent resistance is the only path. In another essay of his, 'A Plea for Captain John Brown', he praises Brown as a hero despite his violent acts. In fact, he was not even an anarchist, if you read his essays. 69.249.104.48 (talk) 18:24, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done. I've replaced "proponent of anarcho-pacifism" with "influence on anarcho-pacifism". —Mr. Granger (talk · contribs) 15:07, 22 August 2014 (UTC)