Talk:Anarchism: Difference between revisions
Line 78: | Line 78: | ||
:: [[User:VoluntarySlave|VoluntarySlave]] 19:35, 12 June 2006 (UTC) |
:: [[User:VoluntarySlave|VoluntarySlave]] 19:35, 12 June 2006 (UTC) |
||
:::Very good. Why don't you go ahead and make that change. It seems fair and neutral - as opposed to AaronS's POV deletion of the citatation he doesn't like. - Faithless ne BillyBong ne anon ne ... (I was right the first time; |
:::Very good. Why don't you go ahead and make that change. It seems fair and neutral - as opposed to AaronS's POV deletion of the citatation he doesn't like. - Faithless ne BillyBong ne anon ne ... (I was right the first time; It doesn't make sense to register.) |
||
== Anarchism, Possession and Property == |
== Anarchism, Possession and Property == |
Revision as of 20:43, 12 June 2006
![]() | Philosophy Unassessed | |||||||||
|
Talk archives & Open Tasks
- Talk:Anarchism/Archives - List of archives.
- Template:AnarchismOpenTask - List of open tasks.
Another Suggestion
Thanks for making those changes, Sarge. Now, one more concern: the phrasing "the 20th century saw the formulation of the contentious anarcho-capitalism."
The adjective "contentious" seems to modify "anarcho-capitalism" rather than whether anarcho-capitalism is really anarchism. This would likely imply to new readers that there is something internal to anarcho-capitalism causing dispute. What we really mean, of course, is that there is a dispute about whether anarcho-capitalism qualifies as anarchism - quite a different thing. One could properly talk about, e.g. contentious propaganda of the deed, since prop of the deed involves violence and contention, but not anarcho-capitalism, if you catch my drift. Would you clarify what contentious is modifying by changing it to something like: the 20th century saw a contentious/disputed/controversial (take your pick) formulation of anarchism called anarcho-capitalism?
Further tweaking it: the word "capitalism" itself is, as you know, defined differently by different people, and has changed considerably over time. So why not specify what is different about this formulation? In particular, inserting the word "pro-market" (or "modern pro-market" to distinguish it from older Individualist Anarchist pro-market notions) explains even better. Thus we now have, the 20th century saw a contentious, modern pro-market formulation called anarcho-capitalism.
IMO the last one is best, most precise, etc. But at a minimum the adjective "contentious" should be moved, as in the first suggestion.
Also, anarcho-capitalism should be a link, since it is the first occurance. Finally, what's with the double reference to Encarta in the same sentence? The "and to this day" seems gratuitous, and can be omitted. Thus we have:
- Anarchism traditionally and popularly is described as anti-capitalist[1], though the 20th century saw a contentious, modern pro-market formulation called anarcho-capitalism.
BillyBong 02:01, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
- Well, I agree the wording is poor. I don't know about "the rise" (since it suggests it's older), and "modern pro-market" is confusing. How about "although the 1970s saw the formulation of a contentious free market philosophy called anarcho-capitalism"? Though there might be a better word than philosophy. Sarge Baldy 02:17, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
- OK, revision: "though the 1970s saw a contentious, free market formulation called anarcho-capitalism." Sarge Baldy 02:19, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
- Excellent. Thanks. BillyBong 02:33, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
- No problem. It's not like we're actively sitting here trying to figure out how to marginalize your POV. I'm very open (maybe too open) to compromise and cooperate and find fair solutions. But this really just isn't the best article to jump into and rewrite whole sections unilaterally. That's really the main thing that bothers people. Sarge Baldy 02:40, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
- Excellent. Thanks. BillyBong 02:33, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
- OK, revision: "though the 1970s saw a contentious, free market formulation called anarcho-capitalism." Sarge Baldy 02:19, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Sarge, you've been very accomodating, and you're not my personal secretary, so there's no need for you to make the following edits. Most are relatively minor, and can wait until protection is lifted. Meanwhile, discussion is invited.
- Somewhere along the line, the translation of archon was changed from "ruler" to "chief." "Ruler" is a more precise translation - the one given here in Wikipedia.
- Origins and predecessors can be trimed. In the second sentence, "Following classical socialist theory" is gratuitous; the claim following is not part of classical socialist theory (esp for statist socialists), and can easily (and usually is) supported without reference to socialism. The first sentence about Kropotin's book is relevant, but it shouldn't be the lead sentence since, without previous explanation, it doesn't seem to relate to the section title. Also, "tribal societies" should be changed to "hunter-gatherer societies" to make it clear we are not speaking of e.g. modern Cherokees in Oklahoma that live consumerist American lifestyles, run casinos, and get govt aid for being indians. I would stike the egalitarian claim since many feminists would reject most such societies as paternalistic; besides, the relative equality of resources implies a degree of egalitarianism anyway. I suggest modifying the first paragraph to:
- Anarchists argue that the State is not a natural phenomenon, and that hunter-gatherer societies lacked division of labour, accumulated wealth, decreed law, and had relatively equal access to resources.[2] In Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution, Peter Kropotkin argued that mutual aid was a natural feature of animal and human relations.
- In the second paragraph of the same section, replace "earlier" (than what?) with "pre-modern" or "ancient."
- The Proudhon section is very redundant, e.g. it says he opposes capitalism six times, and that doesn't include his direct quotes, or descriptions of mutualism which clearly show incompatability with capitalism. It smacks of an editorial agenda, or overreaction, or defensiveness. Since "capitalism" is such a connotative and disputed term, I'd hack out most references to the "C" word and let Proudhon's explanations of possession and mutualism speak for themselves.
- In the Other issues section, the Anti-Racism, Anti-Fascism, and Anti-Oppression subsection, the second half of the paragraph should be deleted, starting with "Anti-Racist Action is not an anarchist group..." (Neither is Zapatista, strictly speaking, and anarcha-feminism is already covered.) Cut, trim, snip.
- The whole Cultural Phenomena section can go. If someone is really attached to it, they can make it a separate article, with a See Also link in this one.
- Probably that book they use in college philosophy courses, "In Defense of Anarchism," should be included in the book section. It's really pretty good, and academically respectable.
BillyBong 03:42, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
UK encart article does not say what is claimed
It does not say anarchism was "traditionally anti-capitalist". It should be changed so that the article claims the source says it was originally associated with socialism and communism. Also, why does the article say "contentious anarcho-capitalism". Like anarchism isn't contentious. (Sorry if that's misspelled.) MrVoluntarist 04:18, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Well you know, anarcho-capitalism is a little too radical for most anarchists. Anything too far out of the supposed "mainstream" makes them uncomfortable. RJII 04:22, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not sure I see what's so radical about it. It's just a consistent form of libertarian capitalism. Radicalism means wanting major changes. Anarcho-capitalism hardly wants to change anything. It thinks things are pretty good. Hell, most anarcho-capitalists think they can get where they want to go through voting. Sarge Baldy 04:28, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- wha? Anarcho-capitalists ... hardly want to change ... anything? Anarcho-capitalists ... favor ... voting? Um, was that post supposed to be satire, or...? MrVoluntarist 04:31, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Well, it's not mainstream anarchism supposedly. RJII 04:32, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not sure I see what's so radical about it. It's just a consistent form of libertarian capitalism. Radicalism means wanting major changes. Anarcho-capitalism hardly wants to change anything. It thinks things are pretty good. Hell, most anarcho-capitalists think they can get where they want to go through voting. Sarge Baldy 04:28, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
The short 1 page US Encarta (ref 2) says the anarchism is "basically anticapitalist." The three page UK encarta (ref 1) says about individualist anarchism: "Since World War II this tradition has been reborn and modified in the United States as anarcho-capitalism." Neither refers to ancap as contentious. So the sentence in the intro should be changed from:
- It has also traditionally and popularly been described as anti-capitalist[1][2], though the latter 20th century saw a contentious, free market formulation called anarcho-capitalism.
to
- The latter 20th century saw a free market formulation called anarcho-capitalism[1], though it is traditionally and popularly described as anti-capitalist[2].
- Faithless
- Exactly! Thank you. Of course, the US Encarta source has its own problems, but we can discuss that once we agree your phrasing is better. MrVoluntarist 17:52, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- The 'it' in your phrasing is ambiguous (obviously it refers to 'anarchism', but grammatically it looks like it refers to 'anti-capitalism'). Maybe:
- Although the later 20th century saw the development of a free market formulation called anarcho-capitalism[1], anarchism is traditionally and popularly described as anti-capitalist[2].
- Very good. Why don't you go ahead and make that change. It seems fair and neutral - as opposed to AaronS's POV deletion of the citatation he doesn't like. - Faithless ne BillyBong ne anon ne ... (I was right the first time; It doesn't make sense to register.)
Anarchism, Possession and Property
We could consolidate much of the stuff into one section. As it is we get incomplete descriptions of Proudhon's views on the subject, and then later Tucker's views, and then later Kropotkin's views, etc. Bringing these together would help readers see the recurring themes in each system. Also, the text doesn't explain possession very well. Finally, the 'Theory of Property' from what excepts I have available, seems closer to Georgism than to propertarianism in the usual sense. Jacob Haller 14:45, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- You are right - possession is not explained very well at all. In the Proudhon section, the explanation given is confusing and contradictory. (But Proudhon may have liked that!). As BillyBong suggested above, the whole Proudhon section needs to be revamped. Maybe there needs to be a sidebar explaining the similarities and differences between private property and possession as mutualists use the terms. Or simply include a short explanation in the Proudhon section. E.g. Proudhon used the term "possession" to refer to a variant of private property in which ownership required continuous possession and/or use. In his early writings, he used "property" to mean ownership failing to satisfy the continued use provision. - Faithless
- ^ "Anarchism," Microsoft® Encarta® Online Encyclopedia 2006 http://uk.encarta.msn.com © 1997-2006 Microsoft Corporation. All Rights Reserved.
- ^ Engels, Friedrich (1884). Origins of the Family, Private Property, and the State (HTML). Retrieved 2006-04-28.