Talk:Social anarchism

"sees individual freedom as being dependent upon mutual aid"

-- is it perhaps more accurate to suggest that a qualifying principe (relating specifically to both socialist organization and action as well as the existence non/existence of government) for 'social anarchist' philosophy is the belief that the legitimacy of the laws and rules that govern society are derived from the collective action of social groups, and that many social anarchists see government as lacking "objective" or "fundamental" integrity, in the extent to which it claims a social and political position distinct from other organizations (???)

this may be related to the idea-- that "individual freedom" is somehow the result of collective action which allows for the limitation of government, but I do not belief that it is central to social anarchist philosophy.

-MEO — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.88.200 (talk) 13:45, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

~ The "social anarchy' view is a balance between the individual & the collective, the individual & society, that can be termed as "socialist anarchy" or "left libertarian", though, there are slight shades of differences involved. It is related to "right libertarianism" in that it seeks to empower the individual. However, "right libertarianism" does not support other than capitalistic & profit seeking groups, & therefore, is strongly different than "left libertarianism" that supports coöperatives, Mutual aid, &c, some more government involvement, & is interested in a decentralized federalism that balances local with national, as it does the individual & society.

A decentralized federalism is a strong component of "social anarchy" that utilizes a mixture of vertical (empowerment) & horizontal structure, allowing self-empowerment, as well as helping others empower themselves, yet maintains a check to thwart excessive power being centralized.

It is, for the most part, strongly anti-neoliberal, anti-liberal left, anti-far right ; even if there are some of the same concerns, the view uses vastly different approaches that make it very different, mixing from past views with its new ideas.

'Social anarchy" is not synonymous with "right libertarianism", or as it is sometimes called "American Libertarianism". Even if 'social anarchy" is strongly growing in the United States, as well as in the United Kingdom & elsewhere. The "right populist" movement is related in self-determination & other aspects, yet has not yet accepted "left populist" tenets, mimicking similar differences in "libertarianism".

Nantucketnoon (talk) 19:40, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Social anarchism is illegible in some places

I don't know who wrote or edited the summary, but it is one of the most unintelligible wikipedia pages I have ever had the displeasure of reading. A Hemingway editor analysis of the article put its Grade level at above grade 14. The topic is NOT that complex, and should be summarized in more accessible language. I have gone through and revised the summary to the best of my abilities, but there is one Goliath of a sentence that I will not even try to unpack:

Social anarchism is considered an umbrella term that includes—but it is not limited to—the post-capitalist economic models of anarcho-communism, collectivist anarchism and sometimes mutualism, or even non-state controlled federated guild socialist dual power industrial democracy and economic democracy or federated worker cooperatives in addition to workers' and consumers' councils, replacing much of the present state system yet still retaining basic rights as well as the trade union approach of anarcho-syndicalism, the social struggle strategies of platformism and specifism and the environmental philosophy of social ecology.

This sentence has a readability grade level of 45.1! Come on guys, we can do better than this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.97.248.129 (talk) 04:08, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

New Edits

The new edits are not particularly accurate, confusing the differences by equating them as the same.

Social anarchy is a collectivism that balances the individual with the collective (co-operative). Being a libertarian socialism.

It has elements that make it more on the left side of the spectrum, yet its emphasis on protecting the individual from authoritarian communalism links it to the right, ie, self-defense.

It utilizes both consensus decision-making, while respecting the dignity of the individual. Further, offering federalism by joining collectives in a voluntary manner. Self-determination within a broader framework.

As well as respecting universal rights, such as free speech.

It would, then, have similarities to other systems' thought, yet be more expansive, retaining its differences.

Trying to simplify this so some can understand it better by betraying its completeness & differences undermines the theory's integrity.

An issue of confusion results from mentioning its connections to other branches that are related & are a holdover from its inception as a piece.

The main article is need of much attention. It is too diverse in presentation, lacking conciseness.

Nantucketnoon (talk) 11:40, 28 July 2020 (UTC)