Talk:Communitarianism/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 2

Communitarianism is a philosophical movement of the late 20th century which opposes certain aspects of liberalism and capitalism and advocating phenomena such as civil society. Authors usually included are:

Any reason why this is not mentioned on this page? Is it just because no one has so far got round to including it? And isn't the current title of the page misleading? --KF 21:47 17 May 2003 (UTC)

I only split this article up from communism today!! Give me a chance! :)
Why would the current title be misleading? :-/ Martin 22:41 17 May 2003 (UTC)
Well, simply beause communists and communitarians are two completely different sets of people. They've also got two different names. The first sentence of this article creates the impression that the two terms can be used synonymously, which is just not true. I'm not going to interfere in the article, and as far as I'm concerned, you've got all the time in the world. :) --KF 07:26 18 May 2003 (UTC)

Here is the article I removed from the page. I removed it for two reasons. First -- the main reason -- is that it is just not about "communitarianism," as KF very clearly and correctly points out. Second, it has some specific problems I will make comments interspersed: Slrubenstein

It seems I am misusing technical terminology - I would be indebted if you would correct the article and educate me on the subject... :) Martin
Martin, did you write this? I thought that you were doing some housecleaning on the communism article and knew enough that this material should go elsewhere, but just didn't know for sure where to put it. My sense is it should just be deleted, but I am no expert on "communitarianism" and I would leave that for others. I just know enough about economics and communism to know what is false in the passages. As for educating -- well, for communism I think the articles on communism and on Karl Marx are pretty good right now. FDor communitarianism I think KF gave you a lot of good leads, although he left off Amitai Etzioni who really is crucial. Sorry that I don't have more time to "educate" you, but I am sure if you want to contribute to an encyclopedia article you will do the necessary research first ;) Slrubenstein

In economics, communitarianism or communism is any system in which property is shared by a community or owned in common.

This is just not true. Communism and communitarianism are two different things; also, there are a variety of ways that property may be owned in common -- a commune (which implies neither communism nor comunitarianism, necissarily) is one way, a corporation is another. Slrubenstein

Thus the fundamentalist Christians, many Native Americans, and most aboriginals are said to practice a form of communism. (For example see the Taborites). Communes are small groups that attempt to live according to communitarianism.

Said by whom? Passive voice here means obfuscation.Slrubenstein

Anarcho-communism often predicts that, following the removal of the state, communitarian systems will naturally emerge. By contrast, anarcho-capitalism predicts that the notion of property will be retained or strengthened further. Marxism and related communist philosophies argue that communitarianism will emerge naturally following the dictatorship of the proletariat and a communist state, though this has yet to occur in practice.

I do not know of any anarchists who use the term "communitarian." In any event, this stuff belongs on either the anarchist page or the communist page.Slrubenstein

One potential downside of shared property is the tragedy of the commons.

Maybe true, but vague. The tragedy of the communes is very specific, it is not a critique of communism or any principal of communal ownership or communitarianism; it describes what happens to community property in a capitalist economy in transition.Slrubenstein

The book The Dispossessed gives an example of a communitarian system, where one does not own a hanky, but merely carries and uses it.

To my knowledge, the book does not identify what it describes as "communitarian."Slrubenstein

communitarianism

Communitarianism is the philosophy, the theology, the political theory, and the legal system for all new "community governments." Communitarian laws are used to overturn archaic constitutional laws. "Local" communitarian councils and committees are created to balance national and local laws against the "common good." Communitarian policymakers use consensus, visionings, sustainable devlopment, and crime-prevention efforts to enforce communitarian regulations. For a thorough anti-communitarian slant, please visit the Anti-Communitarian League website: http://nord.twu.net/acl, or http://www.acl.us.tt. Niki Raapana

External links


from Talk:Communitarianism (ideology)

I've now copy-edited this, but it seems to me to be very insubstantial. It could be summed up in two sentences : "A communitarian is the opposite of a libertarian. A communitarian believes that, for the greater good, in both economic and social matters the majority has the right to impose its will on minorities."

The article implies, but does not state, that the term is of specifically American usage. Nothing is done to explicitly narrow the context to the U.S, but no broader context is addressed.

No individuals or organizations are named as examples of this ideology.

None of the positions attributed to this ideology are sourced to any of its adherents (or even to any of its opponents).

That said, from my own knowledge I think what is in the article is reasonably accurate as far as it goes, but it reads more like an essay on a closed-book exam than like an encyclopedia article. -- Jmabel 19:00, Jun 21, 2004 (UTC)


Thanks for the excellent editing. I know it is somewhat insubstantual; I'm afraid I didn't have much time for research. I'll be working on that, including the things you pointed out (and when I form the Communitarian Party I'll add it ;-) hah). I hope I specified it's Americo-centric with the edit I made at the end of the last section, but I wonder if the paragraph should be moved to the front.

As for reading like an essay, well, this was my first article, so... Not sure if I understand the fourth comment down, though. - Juan Ponderas, late night 6/21

By "the fourth comment" I assume you mean the one on sourcing. For an example of (minimal) sourcing, take a look at Left-right_politics#Meaning of the terms. Note that most of the various usages indicate who uses the term this way. For an example of a (non-political) article with reasonably rigorous sourcing, see Tlön, Uqbar, Orbis Tertius. -- Jmabel 05:56, Jun 22, 2004 (UTC)

merger

I merged communitarianism (ideology) into the philosophy section. Feel free to comment. Sam [Spade] 18:20, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I started Wikipedia:WikiProject_Community. Feel free to flog it as you see fit. Quinobi 10:44, 28 April 2005 (UTC)

Communitarianism and Multicultralism - Vs Feminism?

Was wondering if anyone had any thoughts on the effect of communitarianism and multicultralism on feminism - i am not really in the know, but figured that if multicultralsim is in the first paragraph there should be some explaination in the article - eg:

"The question of priority, whether on the individual or community, often has the largest impact in the most pressing ethical questions, such as poverty, abortion, multiculturalism, and hate speech."

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.20.57.36 (talk) 11:52, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Communitarian Agonism?

I don't quickly know what to make of the recently and anonymously added link to Communitarian Agonism. Despite its name, it is not clearly or obviously related to the topic of Communitarianism. Can someone take some time to get a good look at it and see if they can (at the very least) add a sentence or two of useful commentary next to the link, explaining its nature and/or relevance or (more likely) find a more appropriate article from which to link it? -- Jmabel 23:33, Oct 2, 2004 (UTC)

This page is confusing in the way it simultaneously talks about both forms of communitarianism. I think the page on conservatism should be a model for this page. It is very well-organized.

Juan, Oct 15, 2004

I think I agree with you; if someone can point out the signifcance of the article, good, but I couldn't find any. Unless any is found, I think it should be removed. (unsigned; as explained below, it's Juan, who meant to agree with Jmabel, not with himself.)
The above two comments both came from the same account, User:Juan Ponderas. Agreeing anonymously with one's own statement does not strengthen it. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:35, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)

LOL, Jmabel, I was agreeing with your statement. Sorry for the imprecision. I meant the article in the link- 'Communitarian Agonism' Oh, and there's always a possibility that jmabel and I are two accounts by the same person... Juan, Oct 25, 2004

OK, if you're me: what's my mother's maiden name? (Even though I'm not you, I'm going to put a comment by your comment to make it clearer what you were referring to. If I do not fulfil what you intended, please revert me.) -- Jmabel | Talk 06:42, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)

I'm going to remove the link, since no one seems to be defending it. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:46, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)


I, a totally anonymous user who is definately not Juan Ponderas, agree that the link should be removed. And I think it's obvious that the question as to his mother's maiden name is a clever coverup to hide their true identity. You can stop playing your game. The edit makes sense, Thankyou. Now I'll get back to something more substantive, like filling in the remaining holes in the article.- Anonymous, Oct 26, 2004

Who, for anyone not following closely, is Juan Ponderas. And I am Jmabel | Talk. Are you confused yet? 22:15, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)

Sorry folks. I felt I had to reset the "Communitarian Agonism" thing, as I failed to get convinced by your objections to. You should say some more about "how it's not being relevant to communitarianism." You're suggesting that anti-colonial communitarianism is conservative--I don't agree with you. User:Mohhe, 13:46, 14 April 2005 (UTC)

Contemporaries Section

Amitai Etzioni clearly made communitarian a widely-used term. It's aetiology is Vatican II and the document Gaudium et spes (1964 [Church in the Modern World]. It orchestrates a program of church, state, individual, institutions, etc., that have since acquired Lasch, Bellah, George, and others as a "bridge" between collectivist and liberal ideals. This entry needs far more of Vatican II's designs to make it complete. ````dshsfca —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dshsfca (talkcontribs) 22:07, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I added a brief section on this. Two areas in which I see fault are that it A) Only includes the US, and B) Doesn't look farther than politicians, wheras it should inlude writers, activists, ect... Niether of these are strong areas for me. I need someone else to expand on this... -Juan Ponderas

Can someone help me figure out where Amitai Etzioni's brand of Responsive Communitarianism fits into this picture? It doesn't seem to align with the two given definitions, so I've listed it as a possible third.Drernie 18:20, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
You got me. I've never heard of that. Couldn't really understand their platform; it was so vague as to apply to, like, anything. Juan Ponderas 21:10, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Pat Buchanan? I'd be interested in knowing what you were thinking when you labeled him as economically liberal... Here's his record[1]. Some of my favorite positions are these: "People conserve land, not federal or international agencies." "Columbine shootings due to Hollywood, not guns. " "Opposes Kyoto Treaty because it regulates US most." "Against national health system & federal takeover." Wikipedia labels him as a conservative, and he is. Removing...

Yes, Pat Buchanan is quite the economic nationalist being anti-internationalist, just the opposite of an economical liberal. He's against free trade, globalization, NAFTA and for tarrifs and other protectionist policies. - Dejitarob 06:20, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Shouldn't Mary Ann Glendon be in this section? Her notion of "rights talk" also really deserves some discussion in here. I dunno how to do it though :) (anon 11 Aug 2005)

You do it just the same way you made a comment here. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:02, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Civil Society?

I'm considering removing the unwritten sub-section on Civil Society. I can't think of much to say about it other than -) this is what it is and communitarians embrace it. That much is already said. Or could anyone expand on it?

That would be fine by me. Unwritten sections aren't much use unless some one plans to write them in the near future. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:18, 8 November 2004 (UTC)

Communitarianism versus Authoritarianism

I added this section following a realization I had since writing this article originally. Then, I had assumed that the fourth quadrant on the Nolan Chart was communitarian, and, if authoritarianism was their, it was an extremist version. Now, it seems to be rather that the Nolan Chart, by only labeling by government action, includes both in the same space. So I felt it necesary to distinguish them. Juan Ponderas 22:44, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Like the rephrasing, jmabel. What do you not entirely agree about? Juan Ponderas 00:42, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Short answer: offhand, two issues: (1) overplays the importance of the Nolan chart. (2) underplays the dangers of a tyrannical majority. Think of the pogroms in Czarist Russia, or the lynchings in the U.S. South. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:41, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)

I see you modified my sentence "Communitarianism is specifically majoritarian; authoritarianism is not" by striking "specifically". I believe change this is wrong: an authoritarian government can represent majority sentiment. I believe this was the case with Napoleon (and with Napoleon III); it may well have been the case with Mussolini. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:47, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)


I didn't mean to overplay the importance of the Nolan Chart, though it is the most widely known; how should I fix this? I'm certainly not partial to it, having faults with it I believed I fixed in my chart, but it is better than most others- not all charts are created equal. If you believe mention should be made of totalitarian democracy, should it be made in this section? Ideology is not circumstantial; you either believe in majority rule or you don't. There is not an in-between. Those regimes would have ruled without popular support; there philosophy justifies it to them. Does popular support make their regimes democratic? In cirsumstance, yes, but in philosophy, no.Juan Ponderas 03:22, 15 December 2004 (UTC)

Anti-Communitarian League

Someone recently (and anonymously) added a link to the Anti-Communitarian League. It is of some imaginable relevance, but it's a bit out there in tin-foil-hat territory. Could someone besides me have a look? Am I the only one who thinks this is a bit into the lunatic fringe? I won't delete it singlehandedly, but I'd be very happy if we can get some sort of consensus to delete it. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:39, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)

No, go ahead, I agree with you. 'imperialist communist conspiracy?' Juan Ponderas 03:28, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I will defend the link. I found it amusing and informative. So what if their crazy. Some subjects, such as this, are so obscure that few are concerned with them. In such situations the % of people involved who are wacko's is high. Besides, I think it provides a bit of context. Understanding the opposition can sometimes teach you about the subject :) Sam_Spade (talk · contribs) 01:18, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Would it be violating NPOV if we had the link with a warning that the site is operated by a highly amusing fringe group who doesn't have a clue what communitarianism is? Then maybe. I don't think it counts as opposition when it's opposing something that communitarianism is not, and I'm not sure if lack of better sites is enough reason to allow a site that wouldn't be allowed at other articles. As it is, I think we need a review as to the relevance of some of the links transported from disinfopedia. Amusing, yes, and I hate to be seen as square, but not informative- actually the opposite, misinformative. Juan Ponderas 04:37, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Hows that? Sam_Spade (talk · contribs) 12:52, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well, I don't think it is worth arguing about its inclusion (I think it's inappropriate, not a "high quality site", but I have more important things to worry about than this), but "Disputed link" is a matter only of concern to editors, not readers. Instead, I've given a clue to its nature by quoting a prominent phrase from its home page. -- Jmabel | Talk 18:51, 12 January 2005 (UTC)

Reorganization

I've done two things. First, I've rearranged the sections of the article. Second, I've made some changes to matters concerning political models. As jmabel advised, I took some of the emphasis off the Nolan Chart. Mainly, by referencing to it less in other sections and making brief mention of other models in the section on the political spectrum. I did, however, replace the image I had made with the actual Nolan Chart image used throughout wikipedia. Juan Ponderas 01:47, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I've made some more changes. The section 'Contemporaries...' and the last paragraph of 'Political Spectrum' (concerning political parties) have been merged to form 'Communitarianism Today'. On the way, I deleted the contradicting remarks concerning similarities to the populists. It had said in different places that they were 'arguably similar' and 'often bear no resemblance to modern communitarians'. Either they are or they aren't... Juan Ponderas 04:47, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Responding to jmabel's comment in history; I probably did a bad job describing populists, but what I wanted to do was give the definition used in the populist article. Juan Ponderas 23:10, 18 February 2005 (UTC)

Origins

I can't comment much on Aristotle's politics until I do some more research, but from what articles I've read there are rational reasons to believe his views may have provided a source for communitarian philosophy. This topic should be elaborated on, or the sentence concerning it removed, and clarified whether it applies to either or both forms of communitarianism. In the meanwhile, I think the recently added comment "for no logical reason" should be removed. Juan Ponderas 02:09, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The origins of "communitarian" as both word and political ideology is Gaudium et spes (1964) of Vatican II. Most original proponents coincidently happen to be Roman Catholics. It has since been purged of its theocratic elements and made more secular. ````dshsfca —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dshsfca (talkcontribs) 22:10, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

POV

Arturodekko's recent edit looks to me to be pure POV, and counterproductive. I haven't been much involved in this article, and others have, so I'm just raising the flag and recommending a revert. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:50, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)

I second that. I wrote him a comment in his user talk so he can do something. Jacoplane 15:29, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I agree completely. Juan Ponderas 15:34, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Following some reverts of information I deleted, I've tried to make a temporary compromise. I deleted mention of traces to Aristotle until reason can be found to believe that they exist, at which point a mini-section can be written on the subject. As far as responsive communitarianism, I rewrote it for NPOV purposes. Juan Ponderas 17:48, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It occurs to me that since, as the entry states several times, very few people actually identify themselves as communitarian in outlook, the whole thing might be considered POV - except for the part about the historical Communitarian Party, which definitely existed. It seems like for the most part, you get labeled communitarian by fiscal libertarians who want to get you blacklisted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.126.141.116 (talk) 03:37, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Political vs. Economic

Wouldn't it be a lot more easier to talk of political versus economic communitarianism; i.e., the way we usually talk of liberalism? Note, major communitarian theoriticians, such as Taylor and Walzer, actually do have precise political views, views that have very little to do with the economic impelementations by politicians of the "third way" or by Bushist politicians. US economic "communitarianism" has actually very little to do with Canadian or, for that matter, Lebanese, political communitarianism.

Could you elaborate? I've never heard of the term 'economic communitarianism'. Juan Ponderas
Again, I think the invocation of Lebanon here is a total red herring. Communitarianism—a philosophy that says that community needs sometimes trump individual choices—has nothing in particular to do with communalism—division of society into rival communities defined by religion, ethnicity, etc., and, as far as I can tell, the latter is the context in the links etc. that keep being added about Lebanon. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:16, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
Well, communalism is often Communitarian. I don;t know what to say about Lebanon tho.. Sam Spade 06:36, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Sam, can you elaborate on that? They seem to me not to have any inherent relationship. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:28, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
I don't necessarilly think they do either, I was just mentioning that communalism (like a family or a tribe) involves communitarianism (in its broadest sense), community needs sometimes trumping individual choices. Sam Spade 07:54, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Sure. But does that have any bearing on the article? -- Jmabel | Talk 22:08, 19 April 2005 (UTC)

A few issues

A few questions, and some ideas for future work.

  • In the first line, does 'liberalism' refer to classical or contemporary American liberalism? Or both?
  • "For example, both would generally be more supportive of war than would more socially liberal philosophies, but each would support it under different cicumstances and for different reasons. Communitarians would go to war under a doctrine of just war, claiming humanitarian reasons or to spread democracy, whereas for authoritarians would tend to go to war for imperialistic or nationalistic reasons, or in an effort to enforce their ideology." I think this is a bad argument, or at least unsupported. US imperialism in the late 19th century could be cited as a counterexample. It should probably be removed until it can be better supported. And yes, I'm aware that I originally wrote it.
  • Is the 'See also' section meant to apply to both forms of communitarianism?
  • A cleanup of the links, perhaps embedding some within the article.
  • Expansion of sections on contributors to communitarian philosophy (in the second sense).
  • Ties of communitarianism to Aristotle.

Juan Ponderas 16:05, 23 April 2005 (UTC)

Communitarian Law

Niki Raapana, you may have a point behind the section Communitarian Law (and the ACL in general), but you'll have to convince us on the talk page before expecting controversial material to be kept. Wikipedia works by consensus, and, at worse, a vote. I once won a consensus on a change that was universally rejected at the beginning, but I've also had material deleted that I couldn't substantiate.

"Communitarian Law" does seem to return a fair amount of hits on Google, and I'll be happy to investigate the subject to consider if something can be written about it. It remains to be seen whether it fits with the sense of communitarianism currently described by the Ideological Communitarianism, which your descriptions of communitarianism on the ACL website do not seem to do (although you cite Idealog, which I find interesting). The philosophy and the ideology both have widely varying political implications, and its possible that a third exists. But I've had libertarians tell me communitarianism is communism; this would not qualify, and it seems like that is what the ACL is essentially doing; radicalizing an opposing ideology. Juan Ponderas

Juan and the group, The sense of communitarianism currently described on this page is what the communitarians hope to achieve. The ideology itself is purposefully vague and the writers often contradict each other. It's supposed to be so academically advanced that we don't look beyond the platitudes and visions, and waste all our time trying to figure out what exactly it all means.
We proved communitarianism is the synthesis in the Hegelian dialectic. We proved this whole theory was created to destroy the political economy of the former American colonies. Call us whatever names you choose, but that doesn't change the facts presented in our undisputed thesis. It's interesting to me when people find it interesting that I link to the communitarian propagandists; the whole point of the ACL is to expose it and bring the theory down to the lowly American "community level."
What Friedrich List explained in 1841 about British laissez faire capitalism holds true for convoluted British-Fabian political communitarianism in 2005: "It is this theory, sir, which furnishes to the opponents of the American System the intellectual means of their opposition.... Boasting of their imaginary superiority in science and knowledge, these disciples of Smith and Say are treating every defender of common sense like an empiric whose mental power and literary acquirements are not strong enough to conceive the sublime doctrine of their masters.(Freeman 1992)"
I am not as naive as libertarians; the dialectic needs a thesis and an antithesis. Libertarians are merely the indefensible thesis to Marx's antithesis, created in the 1960s by internationalists. I see the role libertarians are designed to play in the final conflict. (They are the pre-determined losers.) But it's within the specific communitarian laws and rulings that we gain a real sense of what political communitarianism actually represents. Consider this: U.S. law was created around the concept of private property rights for the average citizen, the "little guy" if you will, while the ideology of Smith, Hegel, Marx and Etzioni are all devoted to taking away the simple right that is the glue for every other U.S. constitutional law. U.S. law ensures the rights of the lowliest individual, it protects the individual from the group, the majority, and the fascist corporates.
Communitarians "balance" national law against their lovely collective "community" theory. Not only are the new laws in place at the international level already... but they are most assuredly taking precedence right here on the home front with increasing regularity. Mike Allen of the Washington Post told us years ago that there were 11 communitarian "thinkers" in the Bush White House. These men have had an amazing influence on U.S. law and public policy. (Maybe that list and a corresponding list of their "accomplishments" could be added to Wiki?)
At the ACL we look beyond the nice sounding academic rhetoric and vague ideology and focus on the way their new laws change our old laws. Their goal was, is, and continues to be the establishment of a supra-national communitarian global government. I don't care how "wacko" or "finge" that sounds. It's just a fact, and we've produced thousands of their documents to prove it. The Canadian Communitarians call us "angry opposition."
We refuse to allow a small group of elite academics to waltz off with our Bill of Rights. We're appalled that our people have never been asked if they want to change U.S. law into international communitarian law (as per constitutional amendment procedures). We can live with the "angry" description if that's how you ultimately choose to define the ACL. (Btw, 89% of ACL poll responders say no... maybe that's why they never asked us to vote on the changes to our political system.) User: Niki Raapana
Despite the sig, the above was written by an anonymous user, User:66.230.110.80. The user link is to a user who appears to have made no edits and may not exist. The only edit to the user page in question, turning the link blue, is also anonymous. -- Jmabel | Talk 18:55, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
I'm not trying to be anonymous. I registered and logged in. I haven't figured out how to get my username to come up. Nevertheless, I'm very interested in helping Wikipedia become a truely objective online encylopedia. I don't understand the resistance to including verifiable opposition research to communitarianism. Even the Radical Middle Newsletter (Mark Satin) quotes the ACL at the top of their 40 Writer's Try to Describe the Radical Middle. The Communitarian Network links to to the ACL. SourceWatch links to our well-linked exhaustive research on Etzioni. I've also been studying Wikipedia's Third Way page.. and again I notice there are no links to the opposition to this communitarian ideological political platform. How is it considered objective when it only tells one side of the story....theirs? Niki Raapana, anticommunitarian@hotmail.com
Niki, I think we're defining 'communitarianism' rather differently. This article describes three real usages of the term, and I don't know whether you are opposing one of these or something else entirely.
  • The first usage is the philosophical movement described in the article, which is associated with the writers mentioned. This movement seems to be purely on a philosophical level rather than being concerned with actual political issues. When it does, many communitarians in this sense tend to be leftist-socialist.
  • The second is to describe economic liberalism paired with social conservativism. Seemingly, this usage came into place because a term was needed to describe the quadrant opposite of libertarianism on political spectrums such as the Nolan Chart, and it seems a contemporary designation. When Idealogue said most Americans in their survey were communitarians, they meant in this sense, with no relation to the philosophical ideas of the first movement or the politics of the third. In addition, this group is socially conservative, something that distinguishes them from the first. The opposition to this group is the libertarians.
  • The third is not really a group, but the term has been adopted by scolars and activists such as Amitai Etzioni, who calls his term "responsive communitarianism". I'm not sure if they are related to the philosophy described in the first sense. As far as their connection to the second, they may fit in that quadrant, but the second usage of the term is a general designation (ie liberalism, conservatism) rather than a philosophy with clear principles (ie Marxism, Fascism). Therefore, their beliefs may or may not be shared with those who identify themselves as communitarians based on the second usage, such as myself (I had never heard of Etzioni, had no association with the philosophy, and am certainly not a globalist; in contrast, I support decentralizing power to the community level, as well as keeping the Bill of Rights).
So, I'm not sure which group you are describing in your analysis of communitarianism. You put your section on 'communitarian law' in the section on the second sense, though, which cannot be correct; it is a general designation used to describe those like me who fall into the political categorization of economic liberalism and social conservative, and currently has no associated, inclusive movement such as the one you describe.
Hah, a pretty amusing incident actually happened between Jmabel and I when I first started writing here and forgot to leave my signature. He criticized me for what apeared to be myself agreeing with myself anonymously. Anyway, you can leave your name and timestamp with four tildes (~), or only your name with three. Juan Ponderas 22:59, August 6, 2005 (UTC)


Thank you Juan. As for the first usage, the philisophical one, philisophical communitarianism is the synthesis in the Hegelian dialectic. Hegel establshed the dialectical theory of "no-reason." Wiki links to Hegel as an "earlier theorist", so maybe we already agree on this point? If not, can someone please explain what Hegel is doing linked to a page on communitarianism? The ACL calls philisophical communitarianism the biggest fraud in the history of western philosophy. I know this sounds radical...it IS radical... but it has yet to be debunked by one communitarian philosopher.
The second usage is where the dialectic takes on a vague political shape, so vauge that no one can define it. This seemingly modern usage tricks uneducated, average Americans into thinking they're political communitarians, all because some political theorist set up a mathematical chart that placed them there. The second usage is where the fraud actually begins to take shape. Ken Janda's asertion that average Americans are communitarians is as unsubstantiated by factual evidence as the communitarian's claim that "most" Americans will give up some rights to be "safer." The communitarian political ideologies of market-socialism and "power to the community level" do not translate into anything other than international corporate free trade and self-appointed citizen councils who write local laws that over-rule the Bill of Rights for the local citizens (who are never allowed to participate in the new "public-private partnerships," nor to vote on any of it.)
The third usage is the one the ACL focuses on, because the Responsive Communitarians have such a powerful voice in American politics. Presidents Bill Clinton, George Bush, and others as far back as Jimmy Carter have all been influenced by Amitai Etzioni. Etzioni's brand of communitarianism is the one that has the biggest impact on changing American law, which is predominantly what the ACL opposes. Etzioni introduced our "new" requirements for citizenship, forced "community" development, community policing, community mental health centers, and much more. The Washington Post identified ten other communitarian "thinkers" besides Etzioni in the Bush White House. What "brand" of communitarian advice should we assume that they give our leaders?
The most important usage is the law. Communitarian law is written into many legal contracts that over-rule the Bill of Rights. There is no actual proof that communitarianism decentralizes power to the community level and keeps the Bill of Rights. They are fundamentally incompatible ideas. The communitarians in the most powerful positions advise American lawmakers to change American laws that interfere with their platform. For example, the Communitarian Network graded all the state DMVs in 2004 and flunked the states that didn't comply with the international standards for our new National ID database. As a result the State of Alaska changed their application requirements to fit Etzioni's advice. We think this makes his brand of communitarianism the only brand that really matters in the long run. In 1999 several communitarian "legal" pilot tests were included inside our Neighborhood Plan. Their vision for a safer, healthier community included new regulations for rental tenants. The planners called the 4th Amendment an "identified barrier."
So where should we place communitarian law on this page? Being anti-communitarian, I vote to put it right at the top. But that's only because I wish more of my country men knew what it is.
In the meantime.... can we put the link to the ACL back on the bottom where it was before? You know a lot of sites copied this page at different times... so some online encylopedias have our link and then some don't. Others go beyond Wiki and add a link to our Etzioni page (which is thorough). As I explained, I don't care if you call the ACL by some little disclaimer/negative terms, do what you must to keep to the reigning academic standards. (And on the Third Way page too?) 209.112.197.169 19:13, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
Probably the article should have a section on "Criticism of Communitarianism". And between "Communitarian organizations" and "Articles on communitarianism" in the external links should be "Opposition to communitarianism". -- Jmabel | Talk 03:51, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
I changed the terminology to note that communitarianism, when capitalized, usually denotes the movement of Etzioni. When not capitalized, it means in a more general sense. This follows the conventions of other ideologies; for example, Liberal refers to the party, whereas liberal means the belief system.
The general sense described and the movement by Etzioni seem to have alot in common, but I don't think they have anything in common with the philosophical sense, other then a general emphasis on the community. I agree with having a section on criticism, but I think it would have to be specific to either the philosophy or the political movement. We already have links concerning either topic mixed together; they would be better separated. I'm starting to think each should each have their own article again, as is done with multi-meaning philosophies such as libertarianism and objectivism. If something is common between the two, it's not apparent; we have no common sections describing both.
As far as the philosophy goes, I can't address your arguments against it; I'm not knowlegible on that topic. The second usage I wouldn't call fraud. You claim that the Americans described bi Udealog are not communitarians because they do not support ideas that may be associated with Etzioni's Responsive Communitarian movement. That seems like saying someone isn't a conservative because he does not support the agenda of the Conservative Party, or not a believer in democracy because he isn't a Democrat.
The Communitarianism of Etzioni should be given more coverage, and the ACL and your criticisms could certainly be included in that context. What is the significance, however, of the term "communitarian law"? I haven't found anything on it other than at the ACL, where it just seems like a term coined to describe the collective agenda of the Communitarians. By that token, I could start referring to libertarian law or liberal law. Juan Ponderas


Thank you both for your time and effort in this topic area. It is a difficult one. I won't take up any more of your time with my arguments against the communitarian philosophy. My arguments against the prevailing communitarian political philosophy/ideology/theology are already public.
It's still hard to believe communitarian law is so obscure. Not only is it practiced internationally and at the American community level, it's taught at most elite law schools in the U.S. Many congressional Acts passed in the 90s and early 2000s were based on communitarian resolutions passed by the UN. (implemented inside DV programs, ABCD mapping, Crime Act, PCSD, Patriot Act, Smart Growth, etc.) The new law is also coming into the U.S. via UN Local Agenda 21, http://www.cgrer.uiowa.edu/iowa_environment/iowa_un/overview.html, Professor MaryAnn Glendon called the UN Earth Charter a "communitarian document." It's very, very real, I'm amazed I need to assure you of that, although I just went through our communitarian law page and found many ACL exit links go to dead/missing pages now. I don't exactly think that means they're trying to hide it now for some reason, but the same thing *is* happening on our Agenda 21 page. things do seem to disappear on the internet. All this proves is it would be very helpful if another site put a page together based on hardcopy books and published papers that includes not only Etzioni's brand of local communitarian law but all the international papers and resolutions and treaties that also use the term (which is why I hoped it would be included on Wiki.. we must try to inspire archives!) Here's a few working links from our page to communitarian law books:
1.) Vol. 10 No. 6 (June 2000) pp. 383-385. TO PROMOTE THE GENERAL WELFARE: A COMMUNITARIAN LEGAL READER by David E. Carney (Editor). Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 1999. 324 pp. Cloth $65.00. ISBN: 0-7391-0032-7, http://www.bsos.umd.edu/gvpt/lpbr/subpages/reviews/carney.htm
2.) The Communitarian Network Bibliography: Law and Communitarian Thinking, http://www.gwu.edu/~ccps/biblio.html#law
3.) Law and Community: the Case of Torts, http://www.booksmatter.com/b0742522008.htm
4.) The European Union uses the term communitarian law in all its documents, http://europa.eu.int/constitution/futurum/forum_convention/documents/contrib/acad/0039_c12_en.pdf
Funny how communitarian law suffers from the same problem as the political philosophy, ie below: "In the course of the past decades communitarian law has developed as a field of law whose theoretical explanation seems to present considerable difficulties." http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:xFfE5n-nrwMJ:www.iir.cz/upload/Mezinarodni%2520vztahy/Archiv/2002/AnotaceMV012002eng.pdf+communitarian+law&hl=en
[begin quote] International Relations, 1/2002
5.) Harald Christian Scheu - The Concept of Communitarian Law in the Jurisdiction of the ::::::::European Court of Justice and in Legal Theory
In the course of the past decades communitarian law has developed as a field of law whose
theoretical explanation seems to present considerable difficulties. The traditional models ::::::::of
monism and dualism cannot sufficiently explain the position of communitarian law between
international and municipal law. In addition the concepts of the so-called traditionalism ::::::::and
autonomics deal with only a part of the problem. The theoretical difficulties concentrate on
the term "supranationality", which on one hand may provide for mediation between the
political actors, from the legal point of view however is a weak compromise.
The article attempts to provide an overview of the relevant statements given by the European
Court of Justice (ECJ) concerning the systematic of communitarian law. In the jurisdiction ::::::::of
the Court there occur terms like "autonomy", "sovereign rights" and "constitutional ::::::::charter".
Page 2
Behind the application of such terms we may see the development of the concept which spans
the period between the sixties and the nineties.
In the next part of the article we attempt to critically analyse the jurisdiction of the ECJ ::::::::in the light of concepts drawn from legal theory. [endquote]
Etzioni's communitarianism is both Hegelian and "supranational" and his brand is also the political ideology for the DLC-Third Way, George Bush, the Greens, Homeland Security, and most Seattle Libertarians. Niki Raapana (66.230.115.205 06:04, 9 August 2005 (UTC)}

Well, I added the opposition links section with a link to the ACL.

As far as communitarian law, it was only mentioned in one of your sources, the essay at the bottom. It's usage there seemed to have no clear relationship to any of the above philosophies or movements. Do you have any reasons to associate it's usage there to the movement of Etzioni (or any other concept)? Juan Ponderas 19:42, August 11, 2005 (UTC)


I've updated and added many new communitarian law links that mention it more at ACL: Communitarian Law, Introduction to International Communitarian Juridical System http://nord.twu.net/acl/commlaw.html.
I have many good reasons to associate the international usage of communitarian law to Etzioni and his George Washington University's Institute for Communitarian Policy Studies. I've read much of what Etzioni has "written," even though his assistant Erin Riska admitted he wrote hardly any of it (and she later retracted that to mean it only had to be heavily edited). The good doctor has been writing about the "need" for a new communitarian legal order since 1957. His brand is the entire basis for legal programs tested by Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS http://nord.twu.net/acl/commpolicing.html) established by Clinton in 1994. Communitarian laws were inserted inside Seattle's 38 Local Agenda 21 Plans in 1999. Balancing community rights is based in communitarian legal principles. In the EU the new system IS the "community" and the national laws of every member country are subserviant to the "Code de rédaction interinstitutionnel." Etzioni advises both US state and federal government agencies to make legal changes to constitutional systems and procedures. He is a strong advocate for limiting U.S. privacy rights and he is a primary player in the unfolding unauthorized national ID database system. (COPS tested the data-gathering operations in Seattle in 2000, it's called COMPASS, Community Mapping, Planning and Analysis for Safety Strategies http://nord.twu.net/compass.html). Here's another one of my reasons: the Communitarian Law newsletter/subscriber list at GWU: http://www.lsoft.com/scripts/wl.exe?SL1=COMMLAW&H=HERMES.GWU.EDU (it has 1,965 members).[[Niki Raapana 209.112.218.71 13:51, 15 August 2005 (UTC)]]
Can we return to this discussion sometime soon? Communitarian Law has been established as an existing legal theory; it should be included in Wikipedia's section on communitarianism. An "alternative view does exist." Here's an excerpt from an article posted by Duke Law: "a. Communitarianism Defined. The contractarian ideology has clearly dominated the discourse in the worlds of law, economics, and management during the past fifteen or twenty years. Indeed, after observing this phenomenon, Chancellor Allen of the Delaware Chancery Court observed that "[o]ne of the marks of a truly dominant intellectual paradigm is the difficulty people have in even imagining any alternative view."181 That said, an alternative view does exist. Recognized by the press,182 often associated with the work of Amitai Etzioni,183 and increasingly represented in both the law and economics literature184 and the management literature,185 the communitarian paradigm has emerged as the alternative to contractarian thinking. Its origins lie in the worlds of both theory and practice." <a target=_blank href=http://www.law.duke.edu/journals/lcp/articles/lcp62dSummer1999p9.htm>THE PURPOSES AND ACCOUNTABILITY OF THE CORPORATION IN CONTEMPORARY SOCIETY: CORPORATE GOVERNANCE AT A CROSSROADS</a> by MICHAEL BRADLEY, CINDY A. SCHIPANI, ANANT K. SUNDARAM, AND JAMES P. WALSH Niki Raapana December 17, 2005
It's been awhile... could you explain exactly what communitarian law is? Is it an actual, slef-described movement? Is it a view of what communitarianism actually proposes? If the latter, it must be able to be cited to a credible source, ie a peer-reviewed journal. Also, keep in mind that there are other communitarian movements; I have a note later in this page about the 1970's movement in Latin America? Juan Ponderas


Communitarian law is a school of law, not a "movement." Communitarian law is covered in many published academic papers and it's taught at many law schools. The most familiar use of communitarian law governs international and domestic public-private partnerships, and corporate agreements. It's also the foundation for laws relating to behavior modification and intervention policies, both at home and abroad. Domestic Communitarian Law balances individual property rights against the rights of the community; it covers everything from community devlopment to domestic spying to the authority to establish a national ID database. International Communitarian Law "balances" national law against the international definition of sovereignty, it over-rules national laws that conflict with the higher authority than a nation (Kyoto, WTO, NAFTA, EU, UN, LA-21, etc.). It is also referred to as "community aquis" and other new terms such as "divided sovereignty."
For Example:
National Judiciary after the Accession of the Slovak Republic to the European Union by Ján Mazák: "After joining the European Union, a new level of relations has arisen in the Slovak Republic between the Slovak judiciary and the European Court of Justice. Under the Art. 7 sect.2 of the Constitution of the Slovak Republic legally binding acts of the European Communities and of the European Union shall have precedence over laws of the Slovak Republic. The Slovak Courts recognize all principles related to the interpretation and application of the EU law, notably the preferential application of the Communitarian law and its immediate application." http://www.springer.at/periodicals/article_latest_issue.jsp?articleID=xxxxxxxxxx52xxxxxx394109&periodicalID=0948-4396


Vol. 10 No. 6 (June 2000) pp. 383-385. TO PROMOTE THE GENERAL WELFARE: A COMMUNITARIAN LEGAL READER by David E. Carney (Editor). Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 1999. 324 pp. Cloth $65.00. ISBN: 0-7391-0032-7 Reviewed by Cynthia G. Hawkins-Leon, New England School of Law, Boston, MA. E-mail: cghleon@faculty.nesl.edu, http://www.bsos.umd.edu/gvpt/lpbr/subpages/reviews/carney.htm
And again, here's Etzioni's Communitarian Law elist: http://hermes.circ.gwu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0412&L=commlaw&F=&S=&P=70, and here's the Communitarian Law archives: http://hermes.circ.gwu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=commlaw
I've contacted several law professors who use the term and am trying to find one who will define it for Wikipedia. There are people much more qualified than myself who could contribute wisely to this discussion. A good source might be someone like: "Kent Greenfield, Professor, Boston College School of Law. Professor Greenfield is one of the leading thinkers on progressive legal reforms in the field of corporate law. He is a graduate of the University of Chicago Law School and clerked for Judge Campbell of the First Circuit and Justice Souter of the U.S. Supreme Court. Professor Greenfield has been widely cited for his innovative work on the "communitarian" or "stakeholder" school of corporate law. He has served as a consultant to litigators on issues of corporate accountability, and was instrumental in developing the theory of the case brought against Unocal Corporation for alleged human rights violations committed by the company in Burma. He is also the founder and president of the Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights (FAIR), an association of over thirty law schools and other academic institutions organized to fight for academic freedom and against discrimination, which brought suit against the government to contest the Solomon Amendment." User:Niki Raapana

Here's a Chinese communitarian case law study: Law & society Volume 37 Page 549 - September 2003 doi:10.1111/1540-5893.3703003 Volume 37 Issue 3


Confessions and Criminal Case Disposition in China Hong Lu, Terance D. Miethe

This research examines confessions and criminal case disposition in China. It describes how wider economic reforms in China and subsequent changes in its legal system may have affected the nature and consequence of criminal confessions. Bivariate and multivariate analyses of a sample of 1,009 criminal court cases reveal that the majority of offenders confessed to their crime and that confession is associated with less severe punishments (e.g., lower risks for imprisonment, shorter sentences). Changes in the nature of confession and its impact on criminal court practices are also examined before and after legal reforms in the mid-1990s. These context-specific findings are then discussed in terms of their implications for understanding the interrelationships between legal structure, legal culture, and case disposition in communitarian-based societies." http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/links/doi/10.1111/1540-5893.3703003/abs/;jsessionid=b_NkQXeUYoUc User:Niki Raapana

OK, from the links I get the impression that the term is in use in legal circles. What I'm not sure of is whether they are using the term in a general sense to describe community orientated approaches or whether the communitarianism they refer to is an actual school of thought with a unified philosophy.
Can you cite anyone in this school that is a self-described communitarian? I hope you're successful in getting a definition from one of the people you've contacted. Juan Ponderas 19:36, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
The communitarian law I refer to is an actual school of thought based in the Hegelian dialectic. It conflicts with legitimate constitutional and national law, especially in the United States. The ones using the term in legal circles are under zero obligation to explain the law to commoners who can never understand it. Can I cite anyone from this school that's a self-described communitarian? Yes, I can, and his name is Amitai Etzioni. He founded the Communitarian Network, he's written 24 books explaining the need to overturn the U.S. Constitution and replace it with community balancing. He writes the Communitarian Law Newsletter and sends it out from George Washington University in DC where he teaches communitarianism, which is an "actual school of thought." I've watched how the Wiki page on communitarianism has been edited from the beginning. Tell me you know more about what communitarianism is after reading it's bare bones description here. Juan, I'm sorry, but you appear to me to be a fairly educated guy. Don't you think it rather odd that you and I are the only two people in the entire world debating the inclusion of the phiosophical foundation for international laws in the United States? They wrote their descriptors so well that the rest of us are supposed to barely notice or assume it's just this lovely, benign and rather ecentric little philosophy that we don't need to concern ourselves about. How utterly insane that I have to argue alone for Wiki's inclusion of the philosophy for the emerging global law. Comm law belongs in the exact same philosphical and political categorgy from which the law derives. What part of the philosophy and the connection bewteen communitarianism and communitarian law is so hard to see? The communitarian school of thought is that individual rights MUST be balanced against new community rights. Any law that claims a moral right to eliminate an individual's protection from government, any new law that allows agents to tresspass against individuals, in the name of safety, health or livability, is a communitarian law. Internationally, any law that balances a nation's rights against the larger governmental community is also a communitarian law. Basically, communitarian law balances the right of of smaller entity against a larger entity, and the larger entity always wins. Communitarian law trumphs national law, and a few internationals define it so that a ten year old can understand it. U.S. law used to defend the individual against the majority, and the nation triumphed. Today we all live under variations of communitarian laws, and our nation's disappearing into the global fiefdom. The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.230.91.31 (talk • contribs) 24 Dec 2005.
"Don't you think it rather odd that you and I are the only two people in the entire world debating the inclusion of the phiosophical foundation for international laws in the United States?" It's not that no one else is looking at this page. And it's not that I think you are entirely wrong. It is that your remarks are longwinded, often vague, and you to have an axe to grind, which doesn't really lead me to want to work with you on this. Yes, a good exposition of Etzioni's views would be an asset to the page. Given that you seem to have pure, unadulterated hostility to those views, I doubt you are the one to write it. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:57, 25 December 2005 (UTC)


I am an average American "Yankee ape" (a term coined by Engels) who defends my national constitution against what can only be defined as a vague, hostile attack by agents of a foreign power. Since my research was originally defined here as wacko misinformation, I began these Wiki discussions by defending the accuracy of my work. Etzioni's vague communitarian ideas are used to "shore up the moral, social and political environment." He has written 24 books and hundreds of articles on the need to balance ALL the world's laws against his philosophy. My longwinded defense of our national law is brief compared to what our communitarian "guru" publishes in his name.
Etzioni's been active in the New World Order Projects since the 1960s, and his most recent lecture in Jerusalem was titled: "Lecture: The Implications of Neo-Communitarianism for a New World Order" by Amitai Etzioni on December 13, 2005, 6:15pm, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Mount Scopus Campus. (For more information contact Avner De-Shalit at msads@mscc.huji.ac.il".) Should Wiki editors ask Etzioni to explain "neo-communitarianism" and a "New World Order" under it's brief communitarian definition? Do you think for one second Etzioni will condense his vague philosopical agenda for the world's fastest growing online free encylopedia? Maybe I should contibute more on Etzioni's history and his philosophical training to Wiki's Etzioni page.
Others are also having difficulty defining communitarianism. No matter who tries, if it's an honest attempt, communitarianism is always defined as somewhat "vague." For example:
"Communitarianism (Idea and Movement in politics) - With the demise of true socialism as a viable intellectual force, communitarianism is now the most active philosophical opposition to libertarianism. Communitarianism is usually presented in a vague terms, but it is probably best understood as a mild form of collectivism or "democratic socialism". Communitarianism has had some influence in the realm of practical politics, as witness the fact that Hillary Clinton is reputed to admire many communitarian thinker." The original definition of communitarianism, from the The Ism Book.
"Communitarianism [From Latin communitas: community or fellowship.] (politics) In the nineteenth century, the word "communitarian" was used to refer to members of voluntary communities formed to put socialist or communist ideas into practice (close to the more recent usage of the term communalism). After the fall of the Iron Curtain (and the demise of true socialism), a movement of intellectuals resuscitated the term to describe a philosophical and political challenge the seeming triumph of market liberalism. Although the content of recent communitarian ideas is somewhat vague, communitarian thinkers stress the importance of fellowship and community over economic relations and market interactions." Current definition of communitarianism from The Ism Book.

http://www.ismbook.com/communitarianism.html

If my writing is vague and longwinded it's because I cover a purposefully vague, longwinded topic. Etzioni is a Fabian socialist. The Fabian Society was created in 1884 to promote international socialism and a world government. Their writings have been published "for propaganda and other purposes" for over a century. Now I'll rest my longwinded case. [[User:NikiRaapana 66.230.91.226 23:25, 25 December 2005 (UTC)]]
If leftism and conservatism were philosophies with as small followings and recent developements as communitarianism, I believe they would also be viewed as vague. One must also keep in mind that, although Amitai Etzioni is a prominent backer of communitarianism, he is only one backer, and his ideas do not reflect others in the movement. I invite you to take a look at some others, such as Robert Putnam; this article links to a recording of "Talk of the Nation" with three communitarian speakers explaining the philosophy, including Etzioni and Putnam.
Balancing individual rights against commununity rights (although they usually refer to responsibility instead, not community rights) is not a new idea; leftists have been doing it for decades with policies such as gun control and health care. In this regard, the difference with communitarianism seems to be mainly rhetorical. Also, I have never seen evidence of a tie of communitarianism to internationalism. I apologize if this writing skips some points; I am on a trip and I won't have full access (if any) until about five days. Juan Ponderas 05:27, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

"There are some tendencies within the European Union that can be seen with critical eyes," he said, notably "an extension of communitarian law by the European court." http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/01/01/news/austria.php: From Austria, 'new thoughts' for EU By James Kanter, International Herald Tribune, SUNDAY, JANUARY 1, 2006. 66.230.91.2 07:44, 4 January 2006 (UTC) [Niki Raapana]

Schüssel's comments indicate that the implications of communitarianism for supranational attempts at unification need to be discussed in the article. However, much of what you said was unsupported by his reference to communitarian law, and some of what you referenced (such as his criticisms of the constitution writing process) was unrelated to communitarianism.
The Diversity Within Unity platform supports laws protecting human rights overruling local laws, but no others. It does mention the European Union's Declaration of Human Rights, and endorses the type of action that some of the laws indicated in the article represent, such as the one requiring nations to allow women in the armed services.
It seems to me that this article must link the policies advocated by the Diversity Within Unity platform to current attempts at supranational unions such as the European Union. Articles on the Communitarian Network's website that address such attempts should be useful in this, as well as the general platform, but policies beyond what these documents advocate should not be associated in this article with the communitarianism of Etzioni.
Specifically, I at this moment would propose two additional sections; one on the policies of the Diversity Within Unity platform, which is mainly a domestic policy, and another section on the implications of communitarian policies for supranationalism.
Acquis communitaire seems to be a separate issue than the communitarian movement of Etzioni, with "communitaire" simply an adjective indicating its relation to communities. I'm not sure if "acquis" translates to law; my translator gave "to obtain". In any case, this has its own article, and should be noted but not in great detail here.
What you said in that post about Etzioni appears unrelated to supranationalism, and should be addressed in a different section of the talk page. You made some claims in your post that would establish the need for communitarian law to be included in this article if they can be cited, including the claim that universities across Europe offer programs in communitarian law and the mention of official usage in Italy. The usage in that article, however, was uncapitalized. This seems to indicate that he is describing the laws as communitarian rather than mentioning a unified concept, unless the news service mistranslated. Juan Ponderas
Juan, First off I'd like to know what makes you an "expert" on a topic you obviously have not studied, and what gives you the right to remove my contribution in an area I've been studying for seven years. It appears that your goal on this page it to promote communitarianism and deny Wiki readers full exposure to all the facts available regarding the global communitarian agenda. I've provided ample evidence that communitarian law exists, and for that I was accused of being longwinded. Now you want more? What a joke.
Etzioni's communitarian law newsletter last month advertised for his lecture at the Hebrew University on "The Implications of Neo-Communitarianismon a New World Order." Etzioni calls nationalism "outdated" and he's been active in the New World Order projects since the 1960s. It's in his bio... look it up sometime when you're not too busy watering down Wiki's information pages.
Araceli Mangas Martín, a Professor of International Public Law and International Relations at the Universidad de Salamanca became a Professor ‘Jean Monnet’ of Communitarian Law in 1991. Marco Balboni is a Prof. of Communitarian Law at the University of Bologna. Jose Antonio Sanchez Quintanilla, Secretary General of the IDEA has a diploma in European Communitarian Law from the University of Seville. Manuel Estella Hoyos, President of the Courts of Castilla and Leon has a BL (Law) from the University of Salamanca in 1962, majoring in matters related to European Communitarian Law.
And now, after deleting my entire section on communitarian law (because you can't find evidence it exists) you suggest including Etzioni's Diversity Within Unity Platform, another "vague" academic proposal for achieving Etzioni's lofty Fabian Marxist utopian ideals. How very interesting that in your opinion, this page needs more communitarian propaganda as opposed to more factual evidence about the communitarian law that upholds Etzioni's "movement." What purpose does that serve?
Professor Ján Mazák, PhD. President, Constitutional Court of the Slovak Republic general remarks on "National judiciary after the accession of the Slovak Republic to the European Union" as follows:

http://www.us-rs.si/pcceu/index.php?flash=2&sv_path=589,743 [begin quote]

On the immediate applicability of the communitarian law

The primary rule is, that the national courts of member states are obliged to apply directly those communitarian standards which fulfil the communitarian conditions of the immediate applicability.

The immediate positive application of the communitarian rule means the direct application of this rule instead of an incompatible national regulation, or application solving the legal situation not defined by any national regulation.

Under the immediate negative application of the communitarian rule is to be understood the application in order to achieve the state in which the incompatible national regulation will not be used. This usually leads to quashing decisions issued on the basis of this national regulation without need of positive application of the communitarian rule. It follows from above also that it concerns the application of the communitarian rule for the purpose of reviewing the legality or lawfulness of a national regulation or act (decision) issued on its basis.

The national courts of the member state are obliged, ex offo, to use immediately applicable communitarian rules. It always applies, if the national procedural norms stipulate, ex offo, to apply the national law. Furthermore, the national courts have to apply, ex offo, the communitarian rules also in that case if this application is necessary for guaranteeing the protection of rights resulting for a person from the specific communitarian rules.

On the preferential application of the communitarian law

The preferential application of the communitarian law is solved in the above-mentioned Article 7 paragraph 2 of the Constitution.

The duty of the national courts (and also of other public authorities) to apply preferentially the applicable communitarian rules prior to the incompatible national rules means that the national courts in case of such a conflict always have to apply the communitarian rules and at the same time they have not to apply or not to take into consideration the national regulation which is incompatible with these rules.

It is necessary to emphasize that the national courts have to proceed in such way and to solve this conflict through the preference and application of the communitarian rule in the scope of their own power, ex offo, developing their own initiative.

Under § 109 sect. 1 (c) of the Rule of Civil Procedure the proceedings shall be suspended if the court has arrived to a conclusion that there is a question on preliminary reference which must be decided by the European Court of Justice. After suspension of the case, the court sends a preliminary reference to the European Court of Justice and awaits its decision.

On the proceedings on the preliminary question

The law of the European Communities is superior to the law of the member states (lets leave aside the delicate issue of the superiority of the communitarian law to national constitutional law). The priority of the communitarian law requires unified application of this law in all member states. The application process of the communitarian law consists of two fundamental issues:

1. Unified interpretation of the communitarian law, while the unified interpretation must precede the unified application of this law in member states 2. The communitarian legal acts are considered valid in national environment and for that reason the national courts cannot reject the application of the communitarian legal acts only on the basis that they have arrived to the conclusion on invalidity or ineffectivity of the said communitarian legal acts.

These problems are solved in proceedings on preliminary question under Article 234 of the EC Treaty the purpose of which lies especially in the interpretation of the primary and secondary law and the review of the validity of the secondary legal acts. For that reason the proceedings on preliminary question are procedural enforcement of the priority of the communitarian law on the national level.

The obligation to submit the case to the Court of Justice for decision on the preliminary question relates only to the national court which proceeds in the case in the last instance in accordance with the judicial organisation and powers and competences under the Constitution and laws regulating these issues. In Slovakia there are two such courts. Both the Supreme Court and the Constitutional Court sometimes could also be a competent regional court.

The question is whether the Constitutional Court belongs to courts which should make a preliminary reference. It depends, but most of the opinions on this issue have agreed to involve Constitutional Courts to the scope of Art. 234 of the Treaty on European Communities.

The possible effects of the violation of the national court’s obligation to submit the case to the Court of Justice under Art. 234 of the Treaty

Relaying on the obligation and possibility of a national court to submit the case to the Court of Justice for decision on the preliminary question, it is necessary to underline that if a national court was a last instance court and in spite of this fact it did not submit the case to the Court of Justice, the communitarian law would be violated. Such a qualification of a national court negligence follows from the fact that the national court has to respect the Art. 234 of the Treaty if it is a last instance court. The violation of this obligation may result in commencement of proceedings before the Court of Justice in special type of proceedings on violation of the obligation following from the EC Treaty. The member state whose court has not fulfilled its obligation under the quoted Art. 234 of the Treaty will be charged. The charge against the member state is justified for a simple reason. In spite of the independence being a functional principle of a national judicial system, a member-state court remains a public power authority of the concerned state, and the violation of the obligation following from the EC Treaty de jure is assigned to the member state.

On application of the domestic procedural code

In proceedings on communitarian claims and rights the national courts hear and decide these cases usually under the domestic procedural rules.

The work of the national courts on application of the domestic procedural regulations in proceedings in which cases following from communitarian standards are heard and decided, abide by the requirements of equivalence and efficiency.

The issue of competency of the national courts in relation to cases following from the communitarian law

Under fixed case-law of the Court of Justice it is a matter of each member state to define which court shall be competent locally and concerning the subject matter of the lawsuit when the subject of the proceedings is an individual right based on the communitarian law. The member states shall be liable for the effective protection of this right in every single case and it is not the task of the Court of Justice to solve whose jurisdiction shall the individual case fall under.

Concluding remarks

The Slovak judiciary is expecting its transformation into an effective part of the European judicial system. The right attitude might be a cautious optimism in spite of some expected difficulties. We are entering into a stabilised system and it has acted relatively long time in the fixed legal environment. We have at our disposal some experiences, case-law, developed doctrine and the willingness of the colleagues from the member states to share their experiences gained on their way from national judge to the European one. The rest, I think, will be our task. The first step is to get general knowledge then to learn special know-how and finally the improvement of skills in the application of the communitarian law.

[end quote]

Dr. Mazak has a valid point, don't you agree? I propose that first you need to get general knowledge then improve your skills in the application of communitarian law BEFORE you delete my next contribution to the communitarian page. And, maybe you should brush up on your French while you're at it. 66.230.91.55 09:05, 6 January 2006 (UTC) Niki Raapana

If you prefer, Niki, I could just put this template above the article after your insertion, which would result in oute editors deleting your material. You criticize me for deleting material "because you can't find evidence it exists", but this is Wikipedia policy. The three rules of content on Wikipedia are as followed:

You'll find that the first two mandate citing your sources. Inn particular, you should read the second one. An exxcerpt follows:

An edit counts as original research if it proposes ideas or arguments. That is:
   * it introduces a theory or method of solution; or
   * it introduces original ideas; or
   * it defines new terms; or
   * it provides new definitions of pre-existing terms; or
   * it introduces an argument (without citing a reputable source for that argument) which purports to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position; or
   * it introduces or uses neologisms, without attributing the neologism to a reputable source; or
   * it introduces a synthesis of established facts in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing the synthesis to a reputable source.

Most of your research clearly falls in this category; for example, you may not argue in this article that communitarianism is a snythesis in the hegelian dialectic unless you can find this opinion featured in a reliable source, such as a reputable acdemic journal.

I proposed citing the documents of the ocmmunitarian network because those are the only statements representative of the entire communitarian movement; there is disagreement within that movement. For example, as a writer in the Washington Post notes, "Some, such as DiIulio and outside Bush adviser Marvin Olasky, favor religious solutions for communities, while others, like Etzioni and Galston, prefer secular approaches".

Furthermore, you may not describe them as supporting ideas such as the overthrowing of the US Constitution unless they say that they support that. Of course, specific policy examples are needed that reflect the general philosophy within the communitarian platform, but these have to be attributable to them- not policies you think the philosophy entails.

These are the limits within we have to work. It would make no difference if you were an expert, and you don't have any credentials such as a professorship. If you think I am being biased, or that this article doesn't maintain a neutral point of view, then perhaps we should invite editors from the artice on libertarianism to take a look.

You have established the existence of communitarian law with credible sources. Please do the same thing in answering the following question, which needs to be answered so that Wikipedia discusses communitarian law properly. Communitarian law is one of three things. Which?

  • Related to the modern movement of Etzioni, Putnam, and others. Do they use the term?
  • Synonymous with acquis communitaire.
  • Something else.

I don't feel particularly compelled to learn French, and our relative understandings of communitarianism are of no consequence here. You may not like me, but the focus of this discussion is communitarian law and its application in Wikipedia, not Juan Ponderas.

Communitarian Law isn't limited to one of three things; it's all three.
It's directly related to the Communitarian Network. I've already cited and provided a link to Amitai Etzioni's communitarian law newsletter, twice. As the Contract Law Professor's blog explains, "The Communitarian Network—a group of academics and others dedicated to pursuing communitarian ideas in law—". http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/contractsprof_blog/2005/01/you_too_can_ear.html
European Communitarian Law is aquis communitaire, and it's also referred to as Community Law and community aquis and several other terms I've already listed above.
Communitarian Law is also the basis for Regionalism and free trade agreements. It's the rules for merging nations into regions. Regional proposals are in the works for Europe, Asia, the Americas and the Middle East. "The correct application of the Communitarian Law produced by an International Integration Organization implies that States Members have to make political and legal internal reforms." V International Symposium on Comparative Regionalism and the EU, Theme: The road to Regional Integration in Europe and America, University of Miami on November 4, 2005 was sponsored in part by Jean Monet and included Communitarian/Community legal scholars from around the world. http://www.miami.edu/eucenter/Conference_Nov4.pdf
The U.S. Constitution is the Supreme Law in the United States. U.S. Supreme Law cannot legally be modified, merged, balanced, or changed without passage by 3/4 of the individual State legislatures, after full, open, public disclosure and public discourse. Neither the U.S. President nor the U.S. Congress has the legal authority to make trade agreements that require "legal internal reforms" without the individual state's express permission granted by elected representatives who have to answer to the individual registered voters in each indidvidual state. This is our Rule of Law. The U.S. cannot legally be "integrated" into an American Region. Any attempt to subordinate U.S. law or any U.S. citizens to the supremecy of Communitarian Law is the same as attempting to overthrow the legitimate government of the United States of America, which makes it high treason. Niki Raapana 66.230.91.17 18:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Here's another very important way the term is used: "In 2001, the European Commission presented a proposal for a directive on the protection of the environment through criminal law. It is based on Articles 174 and 175, ECT, under which a high level of protection of the environment must be guaranteed. The European Commission points out that there is a considerable body of communitarian environmental law, and that Member States are obliged to provide for effective, dissuasive and proportionate sanctions." [emphasis added] pdf-Harmonization and harmonizing measures in criminal law, Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences. http://www.knaw.nl/publicaties/pdf/20021103.pdf User: Niki Raapana 66.230.91.139 14:44, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
As far approach I think we should make edits in pieces rather than one large section. It will be easier to move forward if we do this as we reach consensus on various issues.
I agree with you that supranational agreements that affect our constitution should not be allowed without voter consent. This issue would be more appropiate for articles such as supranationalism, I believe.
I think we've agreed that communitarian law and acquis communautaire are the same. I've noted that on the page. What I don't see is a relation of this to the modern communitarian movement. You reference cited "communitarian ideas in law", but this usage is rather general. George Bush could be described as pursuing conservative ideas in law without suscribing to a philosophy called conservative law.
Amitai Etzioni is a definite internationalist; he said in 'New Scientist ' that, "Some have faith in the evolution of global civil society -- the thousands of international NGOs and informal networks that link researchers, activists and officials across the world. Others, myself included, see hope in the rise of supranational governing bodies..." [2]. His blog says, on which I found this article, "Personal and ommunitarian reflections". The movement of the communitarian network is defined by the platform the members signed, not by Amitai Etzioni; as the quote at the end of this article explains, there is disagreement beyond these principles.
You mentioned earlier that the communitarian newsletter features content relating to communitarian law; can you cite this? Juan Ponderas 23:20, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Etzioni's book titles substitute the term community for communitarian, as with "Community and Morality in a Democratic Society" and "From Empire to Community."
Do we agree that the terms "communitarian" and "community" are used interchangeably by global communitarians? As with, communitarian law=community law, communitarian economics=community economics, communitarian development=community development, communitarian politics=community politics and communitarian policing=community policing? Do we agree we can explain that the EU and NAFTA (and all their member countries) use the term "communitarian" openly while the U.S. uses the more benign term "community" to designate national integration into a supranational system of government? (Should we bother trying to explain that the term "community" has no agreed upon definition except within the communitarian academic and political community?)
The European Commission claims there is a "considerable body of communitarian environmental law." Can we agree that communitarian environmental law should be included on this page in the sub-section on communitarian law? (The topic may even require its own page, especially if *I* write it.)
Etzioni's newsletter is called the Comunitarian Law Newsletter. I think the title is self explanitory but I can provide numerous law seminars and conferences he has promoted in the U.S. and abroad, (Hague, Turin, etc.) http://www.lsoft.com/scripts/wl.exe?SL1=COMMLAW&H=HERMES.GWU.EDU.
Etzioni says: "Nationalism must be ended. It is a creed that has come to burden the expansion of globalism." He explains the communitarian approach as one that, "..favors shifting much of the defining involvements of citizens in those countries afflicted with nationalism from the nation-state to the body society, specifically to communities (not to be confused with local governments)."
"Numerous policies to strengthen communities that advanced for other reasons can also help build up non-nationalistic involvements. In the U.S. they include community policing, crime watch, mutual saving societies, self-help groups, block parties, safer public spaces, and much more." Politik und Gessellschaft Online, International Politics and Society 2/2001, "On Ending Nationalism," by Amitai Etzioni http://www.fes.de/ipg/ipg2_2001/artetzioni.htm
As Dana Milbank of the Washington Post reported in February 2002, "Bush's inaugural address," said George Washington University professor Amitai Etzioni, a communitarian thinker, "was a communitarian text, full of words like 'civility,' 'responsibility' and 'community.' That's no accident. Bush's advisers consulted on the speech with Putnam."
Milbank further explained the interchangable connection between communitarianism, civil society, and community. "Communitarianism," or "civil society" thinking (the two have similar meanings) has many interpretations, but at it's center is a notion that years of celebrating individual freedom have weakened the bonds of community and that the rights of the individual must be balanced against the interests of society as a whole. Inherent in the philosophy is a return to values and morality, which, the school of thought believes, can best be fostered by community organizations. "We need to connect with one another. We've got to move a little more in the direction of community in the balance between community and the individual," said Robert D. Putnam of Harvard University, a leading communitarian thinker."

Milbank told us the communitarians employed by Bush are Marvin Olasky, Karl Rowe, Don Eberly, Robert Putnam, Amitai Etzioni, Steven Goldsmith, John Diluio, Michael Gerson, Paul Wehner, Laurence Lindsy, William Galston, and Reverand K. Caldwell.

As for permitting the integration of communitarian-community programs into the former independent U.S. republic, President Bush established, by Executive Orders, The White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives on July 29,2001 and also directed five cabinet members to establish Centers for Faith-Based and Community Initiatives,http://www.hud.gov/cdc.cfm. There are now hundreds of programs using the title "community" to describe communitarian initiatives. User: Niki Raapana 66.230.91.166 05:13, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

While using the term community is a sign of a communitarian thinker, I believe the terms are not interchangeable. Communitarian describes the philosophy and politics of the movement, whereas community the actual body of people. Of course, communitarian policies can usually be called community policies. And I agree that civil society thinking and communitarianism are essentially the same.

I don't believe the US uses "community" as a substitute for "communitarian". You can advocate a community without being associated with the political movement; I agree with the liberarians on some issues but wouldn't describe my stance as a libertarian one, particularly when my reasoning is different than theirs. In this case, the government is never going to create a program named after an ideology- communitarianism- and thus will always use the term "community".

"Communitarianism" is derived from community, not the other way around. There have been multiple usages of this term, including the movement of Etzioni, the philosophical movement that arose in the 70's, the Latin American philosophy started in the 60's and practiced by Jose Duarte, and the communalists of the 1800's. They were not part of the same movement; rather, they were indirectly related because their focus was on the community. I believe this to be the case with supranational communitarian law.

My point is that linguistic similarities alone are not enough to link two movements; for example, liberals in the United States are radically different from liberals in Europe.

I believe that:

  • Europe under the European Union is considered a community, although not in the locality sense of the word. For example, the European Community founded in 1967 predates the modern communitarian movement. Thus, I believe communitarian law was named so because it describes the law of the community.
  • Europe under the EU is similar to a nation, and thus the policies the communitarians advocate for national governments- particularly for handling diverse groups within the country, as described within the Diversity Within Unity platform- can be applied to the EU. Thus, communitarians such as Etzioni may write about the EU from a communitarian perspective. Communitarianism has implications for communitarian law, but no advocay of strengthening it.
  • Communitarianism as a philosophy contains no advocacy of internationalism or supranationalism. The communitarian platform describes the common policies of all communitarians. If it contains no advocacy of such policy, then there is no de jure supranationalist aspect of communitarianism. A de facto aspect may exist if the majority of ocmmunitarians support supranationlism and tie their communitarian philosophy to it. I see no evidence that this is the case.

I don't find it surprising that Etzioni doesn't like nationalism; few except on the hard right do. Also, I'm well aware that Bush has instituted many communitarian policies; I briefly described it in the article, although not to great degree. As far as EU environmental law, I would contact the editors of Acquis or maybe Portal:European Union. Something specific to the EU should not be covered in an article on the philosophy except as a (brief) example. Juan Ponderas


EU communitarian law is the model for CAFTA and the proposed communitarian plan for the Middle Eastern "community." I'm sure they'll love it as much as I do. The entire world is to be governed under an integrated communitarian legal system of justice. http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/evidence99/pinochet/IntlLawFull.htm. That is what the CAFTA reports claim: http://www.miami.edu/eucenter/Conference_Nov4.pdf. The Dutch and French voters rejected the supremecy of communitarian law. http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/01/01/news/austria.php.
I'd like to see the voting records that prove only a few Americans on the "hard right" like nationalism. My online survey shows 89% out of 848 respondents don't agree we should eliminate the U.S. Constitution in favor of communitarian values. (Our thesis, btw, is that the right and the left are tools that further man's phoney social evolution into the ultimate communitarian synthesis. I know you keep bringing up the Libertarians as if they are on the "right," but their founder was an internationalist; his followers also have their role in the communitarian dialectic.) I don't think the American people will ever be allowed to vote on the communitarian integration, especially now, based on the recent results in Europe. The fact is most Americans will never hear anything about it until after the final transition. As for the word "community," "Community Councils" in the U.S. are unelected governing bodies. Our little self-appointed, local "community" association in Seattle was the body used to integrate communitarian policies into our Local Agenda 21 Plan. Our 4th Amendment Rights were eliminated for the good of the "community" by a few "concerned neighbors" who were busy increasing community livability. (Livability is another vague communitarian term.) As for Bush being a communitarian, his using the NSA to spy on Americans shows his regard for U.S. law.
My extensive seven years of research on this topic shows the earliest use of the actual term communitarianism can be found in ancient Egyptian Jewish communities, called "communitarian-ra." This could explain the creation of the Judaic Law Institute in D.C. which trains American lawyers and judges to balance the U.S. Constitution against ancient Judaic texts. What do you think will happen when the Muslim nations find out their new regional community law originated with a former Israeli terrorist who studied the Talmud? User:Niki Raapana
"My online survey shows 89% out of 848 respondents don't agree we should eliminate the U.S. Constitution in favor of communitarian values." WTF? I don't imagine more than a relative few Americans would eliminate the U.S. Constitution in favor anything; I'm amazed if as many as 11% said they would do so. But what is this supposed to mean? You seem to be almost alone in believing that "communitarian values" would imply (or even lean towards) eliminating the U.S. Constitution. Among the many institutions in the U.S. entirely compatible with communitarianism are New England town meetings, neighborhood block watches, programs such as Nancy Pearl's "If All of Seattle Read One Book", and the community gardens that grew up beginning in the 1970s on abandoned lands in Manhattan. None of these are threats to the constitution. Rather the opposite. The constitution does not outlaw civil society, nor is it a radically libertarian document. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:49, 18 January 2006 (UTC)


Wikipedia's definition of nationalism is pretty benign, although it seems credible. The definition I had in mind is this one by Columbia University Press, via answers.com:
Nationalism, political or social philosophy in which the welfare of the nation-state as an entity is considered paramount. Nationalism is basically a collective state of mind or consciousness in which people believe their primary duty and loyalty is to the nation-state. Often nationalism implies national superiority and glorifies various national virtues. Thus love of nation may be overemphasized; concern with national self-interest to the exclusion of the rights of other nations may lead to international conflict.
I think most Americans would agree with a moderate definition of nationalism. However, in the extreme form, no. If you look at the people who self-indentity as nationalist- such as those parties listed at Politics1.com- they are invariably to the hard right.
In any case, I do not consider the libertarians to be right-wing. I use them as an example because, being strong individualists, they are most likely to oppose communitarianism. Is information on ancient Israelian communitarianism avaible on the internet? I don't see how a self-appointed council in Seattle could eliminate any rights; they wouldn't have any legitamacy to make such decisions. If they are unconstitutional and governmental, you could consider a lawsuit. Juan Ponderas
The communitarian mission is to "balance" individual rights against community responsibilities, and communitarian law rules on which responsibilities are compulsive. The community referred to can be as small as the Roosevelt Neighborhood in Seattle, or as large as the EU "community" or the world "community." Responsibilities differ at each level. Clearly 10% of our respondents at the ACL website are fully supportive of what is required during the communitarian legal integration process. I would guess that the 10% figure fairly represents the globally active and knowledgeable communitarian adherents. Certainly Sustainable Seattle and 1000 Friends of Washington are quite committed entities. That the former director of the Seattle Department of Design, Construction and Land Use was also (at the same time) on the Board of Directors for Sustainable Seattle (SS designed the "dog-and-pony" shows used in the neighborhood meetings) indicates a close relationship with global communitarians.
My experience in Seattle in 1999 was that the 39 neighborhood plans were "validated" by about 1% of the neighborhood residents, and probably 95% of Seattle residents have still never heard of the 39 Local Agenda 21 plans. Even fewer know the plans follow the requirements for integration mandated at the Earth Summit in 1992. In my many meetings with Seattle City Councilmembers, the common role of elected officials was feigned or real ignorance of what was actually included inside our neighborhood plan. The plans all passed council without dissenting votes, and, like the Patriot Act, nobody read them before approving and adopting a plan that eliminated my right to require a legal search warrant. But several of them somehow knew which properties to buy in the Rainer Valley prior to the Transit route's disclosure. It's not a secret that several of Seattle's councilmembers were land developers.
Since before the 1970s Seattle has implemented many of the most invasive data integration programs in the country. Today Neighborhood and block watch groups are active participants in ABCD datagathering projects designed by communitarian John McNight at Northwestern U. These groups gather information on neighbors which is tranferred and shared in a GIS database program. There are many small councils in Seattle rewriting laws to allow for private home inspections which are necessary to getting citizen data. Community development of private property requires it. There's more than one communitarian program slicing away at rights formerly guaranteed under the U.S. Bill of Rights. In Seattle the SPD Citizen's Advisory Council are all appointed by SPD Chief Kerlikowske, who just coincidentally helped create the COMPASS program while at DC COPS in 1999. Seattle became a COMPASS pilot test in 2000, and then Gil became chief.) After I worked relentlessly to uncover the exact COPS' process for gathering and storing COMPASS data, the COMPASS Privacy Council was created in 2001 to protect the privacy of the officials involved in creating the illegal database.

In addition to defending my landlord's property rights in City Hearings and quasi-judicial proceedings (unbound to constitutional law), I also helped sue them for violations of rights. Dawson et. al. v. The City of Seattle et. al lost in summary judgement and is under appeal. It was heard in oral arguments before the Ninth District Court of Appeals in February 2005. It's a Fourth Amendment lawsuit for excessive actions by community police while serving a "new" team warrant against two private shared rental homes for "suspicion of harboring rats and bugs." (These homes just happened to be within the "mile radius" on the proposed route for the northern portion of Light Link Rail.) User:Niki Raapana 66.230.91.85 12:17, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Cut from article: communism, commune

Communitarianism is similar to Communism, in the preference of the community over the individual. Communitarianism is also similar to life on a commune. People living on communes have no private possessions, share everything, and divide labor equally in a tight community. Again, the community is more important than the individual.

This was recently added. I cut it. The comparison to communism and communes, without also stating the differences, is highly POV. Also, the whole thing is uncited, but so much in this article is uncited that in this case that is a side-issue. As it stands, there is a strong suggestion that communitarians wish to abolish private property, which is not true of anyone I've ever heard of who uses the label. Do they wish to regulate some rights of ownership? Sure, but everyone but the most radical libertarians wishes to do that. Similarly on division of labor. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:02, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

I can see your point about citations being necessary. As for me, I've never met one single person who has ever heard of the term, let alone described themself as one. In fact, most people still think I made the word up. How many Americans have you met who define themselves as communitarians? Were any of them aware that there is no exact definition for the term? Also, I could certainly use evidence that "everyone but the most radical libertarians" wish to to regulate some rights of ownership, and similar evidence that everyone agrees on (regulating?) the division of labor.
Have we reached consensus yet regarding the placement of the ACL link on this page? Did we need any further discussion about the evidence that communitarian law does in fact exist? -- [[209.112.215.49 07:53, 11 August 2005 (UTC) User:Niki Raapana]]
The problem's not that there is isn't an exact definition of communitarianism; it's that there are multiple exact definitions, in addition to multiple loose usages. I don't know what you define as rights of ownership, but even most libertarians support taxes, which seems to fit that description. I forgot about your last post, I'll repsond to it now in the above section. Juan Ponderas 18:47, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
  1. I have no problem with linking the ACL.
  2. Most self-declared communitarians I've met are left-of-center religious Americans; the sort of Christians who read Sojourner and the sort of Jews who read Tikkun.
  3. The burden is not on me to refute this parapraph, it's on you to back it up with citation for the claim of similarity. That said, unlimited rights of property include (for example) the right to refuse to let the police enter your land in hot pursuit of a murderer, the right to let a person starve to death in front of you while you have abundant food and are in no want or danger yourself, the right to pour pollution into the atmosphere without limits, etc. You have to go pretty deep into libertarian territory to find anyone who advocates these things. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:48, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
Communitarians balance individual rights against community rights and change U.S. laws. They came together to "shore up the moral, social and political environment" and that's exactly what they're doing. The multiple, loose usages are all ways to obscure the exact definition, which is: Communitarianism is the synthesis in the Hegelian dialectic. Not only is this our "thesis", it's been confirmed by the 1. Bolsheviks, 2. Jesuits and 3. Communists.
1. "Jean Thiriart's doctrinal works of the early eighties and those developed in the same period by the P.C.N., assume this last tendency. For this purpose, this party presents Communitarism as an "ideology of synthesis that wishes to fuse Marxist-Leninist ideologies and national-revolutionary ones into a synthesis of doctrinal offensive: the socialism of the XXI century" (47). From MARXISM-LENINISM AND NATIONAL-BOLSHEVISM. Bolsheviks.org.
2. "In a passage that is notable for its vagueness, Azevedo says that the CEBs should be the basis for a new communitarianism that rejects the two "bankrupt" models and systems "that are now polarizing the world," capitalism and Marxist socialism. This communitarianism is to be "a dialectical synthesis, a new creation, superimposing itself on thesis and antithesis rather than retrieving them." The passage illustrates the controversy in Latin American Catholicism between those who continue to endorse the "third-position-ism" (tercerismo) of Catholic social teaching and those (including all liberation theologians that I know of) who believe that only socialism can be in accord with Christian values." Theology Today-Basic Ecclesial Communities in Brazil: The Challenge of a New Way of Being Church By Marcello deC. Azevedo, S.J.Washington, D.C., Georgetown University Press, 1987. 304 Pp.
3. "The Socialist Alliance programme is the foundation upon which everything else is built, including in time our exact organisational forms and constantly shifting tactics. The programme links our continuous and what should be all-encompassing agitational work with our ultimate aim of a communitarian, or communist, system. Our programme thus establishes the basis for agreed action and is the lodestar, the point of reference, around which the voluntary unity of the Socialist Alliance is built and concretised. Put another way, the programme represents the dialectical unity between theory and practice." Posted by Towards a common Socialist Alliance programme Weekly Worker 368, January 25 2001. See also: 5. The transition to the communitarian system in the same issue of the American Communist Party's Weekly Worker."
I use the principles established in the U.S. Bill of Rights and our state constitutions to define individual rights of ownership, because our legal system was created only to "protect and maintain individual rights." The difinition of individual is clear. The definition of community is vague and varies widely. {"Those who drafted and adopted the Constitution of the United States and the Bill of Rights in 1787 were well aware of the teachings and ideologies of philosophers like Milton, Locke, Voltaire and Mill. Merrill describes the 18th Century American voices of Franklin, Adams, Jefferson and Madison as intellectuals who gave a governmental form and structure to the philosophical ideas enunciated by Milton, Locke, Voltaire and Mill. It is, therefore, no fluke at all that the First Amendment guarantee comes first in the Bill of Rights. In contrast to Milton, Locke, Voltaire and Mill, author Merrill outlines the ideas of late 18th and 19th Century philosophers such as Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, Immanuel Kant, Arthur Schopenhauer and Karl Marx. And he makes the case that these are the natural forerunners of many of today's communitarian thinkers who are attracted to people's journalism, public journalism or civic journalism." MERRILL PESSIMISTIC ABOUT PRESS by Don Corrigan. (John C. Merrill, professor emeritus, elected to Iowa Hall of Fame in 2005.)}
Our law was also created by folks who used what was once called "common sense." It probably never occured to them that the definition of individual property rights would be stretched into so many bizarre meanings, or that 19th century writers would change the meanings of all the key words they used to establish a government of the people. {Henry D. Aiken, Professor of Philosophy at Harvard explains the Hegelian theory of no-reason in his Introduction to the Age of Ideology commentary: "...Beginning with Kant, the very conception of the philosophical enterprise that had prevailed since the time of Aristotle underwent a profound sea-change, with the consequence that the meanings of even such basic terms of the traditional philosophical vocabulary as 'metaphysics' and 'logic' were altered beyond recognition... Much of the obscurity that pervades nineteenth-century philosophical writing is directly related to this fact."}
Today it's so distorted that it's used to include the "right" to stop police from protecting citizens from murderers, or the "right" to dump poison down your own well, or the "right" to watch someone starve to death. These are not "rights," they're absurdities. Just because a few wackos claim them doesn't make them right, nordoes it mean we should quietly change our entire legal system because we have a few wackos inour midst. Changing the U.S. Constitution can't be some sneaky little program only a few religious Christians and Jews know about. The first 10 Amendments in 1789 were added after years of public debates among the individual states, and it went through the full ratification process. The Communitarian Platform has never been presented as a way to eliminate our laws, nor has it ever had any public scrutiny or debate. Interesting to note the types of people known to already embrace it, compared to the vast percentage of Americans who've never heard of it, and then there's the problem of how to reconcile with the 90% who voted against communitarianism in the ACL poll.
We don't have vauge Communitarian system that makes people feel good about themselves while dreaming about creating Utopia. We have a simple set of CLEAR laws that protect every individual from governments, state religions, moral majorities and minorities, and any other large or small group that thinks they have a "right" to shore everyone else up to their personal standards. {".. Some historians have depicted the United States as a society centered around Lockean values, those of rights and liberty 8. Actually, it is now widely agreed that the United States had, from its inception, both a strong communitarian and individualistic strand, a synthesis of republican virtues and liberal values 9." Amitai Etzioni in The Emerging Global Normative Synthesis (pdf file) published in The Journal of Political Philosophy Volume 12, Number 2, 2004 pp. 214-244.} [Niki Raapana 209.112.213.111 20:24, 16 August 2005 (UTC)]

Communitarianism is a variant of communism. I cut this very misleading opening line. Some brands of communism (though arguably not Marxism) are "communitarian," in the limited sense that they place value on community. However the reverse, that communitarianism is communist, does not hold. With its emphasis on tradition/acculturation it is anti-universalist and arguably conservative. I have read Sandel, Walzer and other communitarians and they would certainly NOT self-identify as communist. Yes, they are difficult to classify because their position is largely defined by being in opposition to liberalism. But their reasons for opposing liberalism are nostalgically conservative, not leftist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cleeliberty (talkcontribs) 15:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)