Jump to content

Talk:Communitarianism/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

removed Nolan Chart

I removed the Nolan Chart because it is pro-right-libertarian and anti-communitarian, implying that right-libertarianism is the height of freedom (even though right-libertarians do not account for the positive liberty that communitarianism may seek to provide), and that communitarianism is necessarily authoritarian (while in fact it may be left-libertarian in nature). I have substituted the Political Compass Organization's chart, although the Friesian Political Spectrum may be appropriate as well. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.28.237.180 (talk • contribs) 2 Oct 2005.

The Political Compass's chart say nothing about communitarianism. As it is, that passage and chart is no more useful than showing a left-right axis. Of course, perhaps we don't need this section at all- communitarianism at least claims to transcend such classifications, which your edit seems to say. Juan Ponderas 04:09, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
If we are to show where communitarianism may fall on a 2-d chart, I thought it better to use one that isn't anti-communitarian. But it may indeed be better yet to remove this section entirely, if the rest of the article makes it clear that communitarianism may span right or left and authoritarian or anti-authrotarian. 65.28.237.180 16:12, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
If we are to show where communitarianism may fall on a 2-d chart, then it needs to fall somewhere on such a chart. But it doesn't fit on that model, and it seems anything of the sort would be a generalization. I removed the section. -Juan Ponderas

I think in terms of communitarianism as a political ideology, a 2-D chart like the Nolan Chart might be worthwhile. Of course saying 'more' or 'less' freedom is asking for trouble, so I think it would be fair if it had 'more' and 'less' government involvement in the economy and society. That doesn't seem biased one way or the other. I don't think it's more of a generalization than saying what libertarians or conservatives or liberals are...clearly there are people who fall all over the place, but I have seen little to make me believe that amongst the populace at large any of these large groups consist more of exactly like-minded people than others. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Doregasm (talk • contribs) 15 Dec 2005.

Deleted paragraph

I deleted the following paragraph from the subsection "Authoritarianism"

Communitarianism societies are similar to authoritarian societies in that communitarianism is totalitarian in its scope. Communitarians,however use different methods to attain it's goals. Communitarians seek to build consensus and use democratic processes rather than naked power. The UN document titled Universal Declaration of Human Rights is a communitarian charter showing the United Nations goals covering every aspect of society and life issues. The totalitarian nature of communitarianism also raises the question in the minds of many people about whether communitarian democracy is genuine democracy or whether it is merely a democratic dctatorship where the 'deck is stacked ' in favor of the desired outcomes.

For the following reasons:

  • Communitarianism is not totalitarian. See its definition; communitarianism does not advocate "widespread use of terror tactics", and certainly does not oppose "activities by individuals or groups such as labor unions, churches and political parties that are not directed toward the state's goals.". Quite the opposite.
  • I see no aspect in which the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is particularly communitarian.

Juan Ponderas

    • Harvard Professor and noted Communitarian Mary Ann Glendon sees a Communitarian Influence on the UNHR-- From The Communitarian Update Number 37 July 10, 2001 http://www.gwu.edu/~ccps/communitarian_update_n37.html. A Communitarian Influence? "In a recent interview with National Public Radio, Harvard Law professor Mary Ann Glendon discussed the role played by Charles Malik, a philosophy professor from Lebanon, in helping the United Nations Human Rights Commission draft the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948. She explained: "In Article I of the declaration, which reads, "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood," there was a great argument among the members of the commission about what exactly is the nature of the human person whose rights are being protected here. The Soviets, for example, wanted to submerge the person in the collective. Mrs. Roosevelt and the English representative had a highly individualistic idea of the person. And it was Malik who was able to bring these people together with an understanding of the person as uniquely valuable in and of him or herself, but also as a social being, constituted in part by and through relationships with others. And that was the position that was accepted by the group and that infuses the entire declaration. It's an important point because it kept the declaration from becoming either a highly collectivist or a highly individualistic document."" User:Niki Raapana

I believe that deleting an entire paragraph was over kill. The paragraph, though did need some editing. Communitarian is totalitarian in that it involves the community in every aspect of the individuals life. I believe part of the problem is that many political terms that used to be adequate are no longer adequate inlight of new realities. Politics now involves NGO's and makes heavier use of political tools rather than violence. user:Dallas Houston

I suppose that communitarianism could be carried to the point of totalitarianism, but it doesn't inherently involve the community in every aspect of the individual's life. Certainly there are plenty of people in the communitarian camp who would never presume to tell people what books they may read (or write), what they may do sexually in the privacy of their own home, with whom they may associate, etc. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:04, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
A goal of communitarianism is involving the community in people's lives, but this is different than involving the government, and is usually not forced upon them as totalitarian governments do. It may affect many aspect s of a person's life, but so do most religions, and they are not considered totalitarian. Juan Ponderas 02:59, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Whether communitarianism is voluntary is debatable. Can a libertarian minded person opt out? Can he or she bring minority values to the table? The reason we have a Bill of Rights is to protect minorities from being marginalized or disenfranchised.

Conspiracy nuts are not the only ones concerned that communitarianism poses at least a potential threat to individual liberty. Here are several links to articles that discuss this very possibility. None of them are from a conspiracy site:

http://www.philanthropyroundtable.org/magazines/2001/october/masugi.html

http://www.quebecoislibre.org/010901-13.htm

http://www.thirdway.org/files/policy/truedem.html Third Way Article primarily about restoring true democracy to England but contains a reference to Communitarian societies Dallas Houston 17:51, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Communitarian programs designed by Communitarian Network founder Amitai Etzioni are not voluntary. I can produce ample evidence that Etzioni's GIS centered Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) database pilot tests are not voluntary. http://nord.twu.net/acl/dawson.html
Participants in communitarian human subjects research and various community based database pilot tests are never pre-informed about the collection of personal data or the nature, extent, or full potential capacity of the COMPASS (Community Mapping, Planning and Analsis for Safety Strategies) programme. Participants are not allowed to withdraw from the program. Participants are not allowed to access their personal files or to be informed of all the levels in which their data is being used. Participants are not allowed to know where their personal files are stored and which agencies and personell have access to their private information. COMPASS exists without State Institutional Regulatory Board (IRB) oversight and holds the power to overrule privacy regulations for agencies previously bound by strict regulations prohibiting such actions under U.S. Code 552a. (The Privacy Act of 1974 is not a communitarian document and it includes none of their misunderstood terms.)
The communitarians claim to be many things, and much of what they say is almost too vague. As an encylopedia that presents lengthy explanations about communitarianism written by communitarians, why isn't it equally important to research and perhaps study the exact nature of communitarian policies in order to determine whether communitarians import and export the new Third Way definition of democracy? And then there's the whole realm of possibilities covered under communitarian law, which is becoming a more frequent google search term at the ACL. with visitors coming from across the globe. Wikipedia's section on communitarianism needs references to existing communitarian laws and theories for community aquis. Providing legal sources would be a valuable resource and allow Wiki visitors to determine their own political labels for the global ideology of the socio-economists.
User: Niki Raapana —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.230.111.167 (talk • contribs) 14 Dec 2005.

Marx and Nietzsche

Were Marx and Nietzsche (in vom Genius der Gattung?) communitarian thinkers?--Daanschr 15:40, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Marxism is the antithesis in the Hegelian dialectic. Communitarianism is the synthesis. http://nord.twu.net/acl/dialectic.htmlUser: Niki Raapana —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.230.111.167 (talk • contribs) 14 Dec 2005.

Apparently, somebody has been touching upon the topic of the relationship of Nietzsche to communitarianism. I personally found some relevant answers in this webpage called Communitarian Agonism (http://hem.bredband.net/b287842) and I consequently added it to this section. But apparently somebody who doesn't like it just deleted it (I have some reasons to think it's Mr Raapana but I may be wrong). Now, to leave this behind us, I'd like to ask all those who have some knowledge of the subject (communitarianism) or have some general interest in the topic to get up into this discussion and enlighten us in one way or the other. So

HOW DOES COMMUNITARIANISM RELATE (OR NOT) TO NIETZSCHE;

for example, IS COMMUNITARIANISM UNCONCEIVABLE WITHOUT HEGELIAN DIALECTICS (i.e., is communitarianism or at least inter-communitarianism unthinkable in terms of Nietzschean agonism);

more generally and for those more involved with the subjet, WHAT IS (OR HOW SHOULD BE) THE RELATIONSHIP OF WORLD COMMUNITIES ACCORDING TO THE COMMUNITARIAN VIEW?

A nice topic isn't it! I'll set back the link untill we settle the matter. Greetings MBJ 17:30, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm the one who removed the link, because on a quick read I literally could not see its relevance to this topic; it does not even appear to be this sense of the word "communitarianism". If it is relevant, just linking it and giving the title isn't going to explain anything; you're at least going to need a paragraph explaining what it has to do with the topic at hand. -- Jmabel | Talk 08:10, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, I think the site is about theoretical explorations at the borders between communitarianism and Nietzschean thinking -- but that can be too much for you maybe. It's absolutely not about conservative communitarianism as suggested above, quite the contrary. Now, you're free to delete the site; you apparently have the power (and apparently too the necessary number of inlogging identities) to do that. Never mind, just please comment on my questions above about Nietzsche being or not being communitarian. And when you're ready with that I have a bonus question for you: What you think about the November 2005 revolt in France; was it "communitarian" as official France has been claiming or not? What's your opinion about the French language use of "communitarianism"? Should the French rather speak of "communalism"? And by the way how does the deleters' consensus look; are communitarians and anti-communitarians equally represented on board? MBJ 20:01, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

"number of inlogging identities": are you accusing me of using sockpuppets? If you are, then please start and RFC against me and indicate what you are claiming are my sockpuppets. And please request that I be de-adminned for doing such a thing, because if you were right, I would deserve to be. Otherwise, please assume my good faith, and don't make random accusations.
I'm not expert on Nietzsche; I've read two of his books, browsed others. It's hard to imagine a less "communitarian" notion than that of the Übermensch: the main thing I remember Nietzsche saying about communities in the aggregate is that perhaps a race is nature's way to produce a few great individuals. What precisely in Nietzsche do you consider communitarian?
I'd have to see a precise quotation on that about the November 2005 revolt in France being "communitarian": offhand, I suspect that it was not this meaning of "communitarian" but in the sense of "communalism", the sides being divided along the lines of different ethic/religious/etc. communities (as, for example, the riots at the time India and Pakistan were divided). I certainly do not have good enough French to say how these words line up in French; even in English, the words are sometimes used interchangeably, but that does not change the fact that this encyclopedia article is about one meaning not the other. This is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. Even if the same word were used for both, that would simply call for a disambiguation.
Your link http://hem.bredband.net/b287842 leads to a collection of papers thick with jargon. Frankly, this is not one of my main topics, and I'm not planning to take the several hours it would obviously take to read them. It is not incumbent on me to work my way through these papers. It is incumbent on the person who wants to get this material into the article to write a comprehensible summary, with citations, as candidate text for the article. To be honest, I'm not even sure of the sense in which they are using the word "agonism". To me, "agonism" means being insulting or abusive without genuinely examining the arguments of the other side; they are obviously using the word in a different sense, but I am not sure I understand the meaning they are using, and I presume it has a history I am not familiar with. It is certainly not a common word: even the sense of the word I know, I would count as pretty obscure. And their abstracts, frankly, are miserable: for example, "Agonistic rights are basically individuation rights and duties in matters of identity interpretation and cultural meaning; (a) rights to critical contestation of monopoly and/or "herd" restrictions and (b) duties of moral integrity and innovative competition," or "The essay… takes up the question of the linguistic borders of Derridean supplementation, the question of the significance of borrowings in natural language-related cultures, and the question of the bias risk of a purely interdiscursivist approach." This is obscurantist. I have no intention of ploughing through it. -- Jmabel | Talk 08:29, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Communitarianism in Latin America

I came across as interesting passage in a book called "El Salvador: Central America in the New Cold War". Apparently, a Communitarian Action organization existed there, seemingly under the direction of Napoleon Duarte, who also wrote a book on the subject. After talking about some projects Duarte enacted as mayor of San Salvador, it goes on to say "This program of decentralization of authority, the creation of neighborhood organizations able to carry out self-help projects, is the heart of the doctrine of communitarianism, which was evolved by a Chilean philosopher, Jaime Castillo". I can't research this further due to a lack of time, but if somebody else could look into this... Juan Ponderas

In the September 2nd 2006 edition of the Bolivian newspaper La Razon, various government members talk about how the goal for the Evo Morales government (elected December 18th 2005) is to create a communitarian state. http://www.la-razon.com/versiones/20060903_005653/nota_276_327816.htm

Four main policies a mentioned:

- Making communitarian decisions: Leaders do not act alone but must consult the social bases. Leaders will be "spokespersons"

- Rotative authority: The leaders executive period will not be unlimited, every individual should represent his/hers community at some point.

- Co-existense between businesses: The private initiative will live alongside communitarian businesses to generate surplus.

- De-colonizing education: The principal mechanism for teaching the ideological, polical and social proposal to the youth and children. [User:galejpaven] 01:09, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Endless debate

So, obviously, there is some disagreement on this topic. But, as far as I can tell, the long debate on the talk page, essentially between two people, is doing little to move the article forward. Can those who wish to add material to the article (Niki, maybe Juan) try to write 2-3 paragraphs, with appropriate citations, succinctly summarizing the views they think are missing from the article, for possible insertion into the article? And/or, conversely, indicate specific material in the article that they think either is actively inaccurate or requires citation? Otherwise: guys, I assume you each have a website of your own to write long opinion articles, or can start one. This page is supposed to be for working on the article. Of course brief digressions are fine, and questions from people who need information are welcome, but this endless debate without any concrete proposal of content is turning into a distraction from the task at hand. -- Jmabel | Talk 9 Jan 2005

My main proposal was that Communitarian Law be included. Now that we've agreed it is an existing, verifiable topic directly related to theoretical communitarianism and Etzioni's "brand," I'm happy to end this debate. Will we be writing the new addition together? And, for the record, I have never deleted anything on Wikipedia, I do have a website that adresses all factual and verifiable facets of communitarianism (including its relationship to Etzioni, existentialism, religion, politics, law, foreign terminology, and U.S. domestic and foreign policy), and I'm a Ms, not a Mr. My next contributions will be devoted to updating and expanding Wiki's Amitai Etzioni page and creating a Wiki page for UN Local Agenda 21 (another global communitarian legal integration programme).66.230.91.244 18:51, 10 January 2006 (UTC) User: Niki Raapana

Cut material

I'm cutting out the link to Elizabeth Anderson for two reasons- first, the philosopher Elizabeth Anderson is not, on any plausible interpritation a communitarian. Secondly, the link goes to someone other than the philosopher and so does no good anyway.

Jmabel considered adding back the material cut out by 67.162.102.153 on 14 September 2004. Can we work on working it back in? Wiwaxia 11:18, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

The material in question was:
  • This lead (quite different from our current lead): Communitarianism is a political philosophy that emphasizes the rights of the community as a whole, as opposed to those of individuals. In this, it contrasts sharply with classical liberalism. Not necessarily hostile to political liberalism in the American sense of the word, it seeks to benefit individual citizens by way of enhancing the collective good, rather than vice versa." What was called "political liberalism in the American sense of the word" would probably be what out liberalism article refers to as social liberalism.
  • The following list of names; the removal of Etzioni seems particularly odd:
  • The removal of a reference to Plato and Aristotle as "some of the original communitarians".
  • The following paragraph:
    The communitarian vs. libertarian dichotomy can be viewed as a balance of the rights of the majority of people in a democracy to make collective decisions versus the rights of individuals who may find themselves in the minority. At the communitarian extreme, one could have a majoritarian totalitarian state, where a 51% majority could impose anything on the minority. (See also, in this respect, Totalitarian Democracy.) At the libertarian extreme would be anarchism: a government could create no laws to govern anyone who disagreed.
  • The following sections:
    Common cultural ties
    Communitarians usually hold that the foundations of society include common cultural and moral ties, such as religion and nationality. In this, they are similar to conservatives, favoring intervention to protect the moral fiber of the community. So-called "victimless crimes", such as drug use, gambling, and prostitution, are regarded by communitarians as having a detrimental effect on society. Communitarians tend to support the teaching of morals in public schools, and the place of religion in government, though not to the point of advocating a theocracy.
    Communitarian stances on the issues
    As communitarianism is not as established as many other philosophies, a precise list of communitarian stances is difficult to determine. However, in general, communitarians favor:
    • Public works programs
    • A social safety net
    • Free public education
    • Affordable housing
    • A livable minimum wage
    • Fair trade
    • Gun control
    • Environmental protection
    • Decentralization of power
    • Free prescription drugs
    • A strong military
    • Uniforms in public schools
    • Curfew laws for teen-agers
    • State-provided tuition for college
    Also, in general, communitarians oppose:
    • Gay marriage
    • Recreational drug usage
    • Obscenity in public expression
    • Prostitution
    • Pornography
    • Public or semi-public nudity
    • Flag-burning
    • Teen-age drinking
    • Counterculturality or outrageousness in dress
    • Violence and sexual situations on TV or in video games

FWIW, I don't offhand have a strong opinion either way on this material. - Jmabel | Talk 04:45, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Cass Sunstein

Why was Cass Sunstein removed? I'd consider Sunstein a communitarian. - Jmabel | Talk 01:36, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Communitarianism in the United Kingdom

Would anyone object if I added this heading below the one relating to the United States and put in a sentence of two about the influence that the ideas of Putnam and Etzioni have had on the "Third Way" ideas of Tony Blair and New Labour? Itsmejudith 14:22, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good, but you may need to cite something. Juan Ponderas
Good call, Itsemejudith. I will bookmark this page as I have some scholarly sources/citations that explicitly call Tony Blair Communitarian that I can use to add to the section. Hauser 09:49, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

European Community has nothing to do with Communitarianism

As a citizen of the European Union, I was amused to see acquis communautaire (i.e that very complex thing called European law) mentioned here. I would have removed it immediately if some people had not been debating endlessly about it on this talk page. European law takes its name from the European Community, it's no more communitarianist than communist... It's a community of States, not of individuals. It gives rules about everything from free trade to cheese, but it has no particular position on the priority of the community vs. the individual which is what defines communitarianism. European law is not different from national law, except it applies to 25 differents states at the same time. Either I understand nothing about communitarianism, or any reference to European law and institutions should be completely removed from this article. Thbz 22:53, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Believe me, I more than agree. Juan Ponderas
Yeah, you're absolutely right that the acquis is nothing to do with commmunitarianism. Some other European Union co-operation policy mode manifestations are similar to it though. Hauser 09:49, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Since we agree, I removed the references and, by way of consequence, several external links (which not even good links about the European community!). The remaining links seem of dubious interest to me, but I'll let other people check them. Thbz 23:08, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
I can't believe you people removed the link because you don't understand communitarian law. I thought this issue was already settled. Then somebody who claims to knownothing about the law comes along and deletes the whole section. I find it very interesting that Wikipedia allows censorship of factual information that can so easily be verified. How did Zygmunt Brett (http://www.ariaslaw.com/site/en/servicedetail1.php?id=35&pais=4), a Partner at Arias & Muñoz study "Communitarian European Law in Salamanca" if it doesn't exist? Here are but a few of the thousands of other places online that refer to EU Communitarian Law.
<a target=_blank href=http://nainfo.nbs.bg.ac.yu/sfoa/clanak.php?issn=0039-2138&je=en&prv=1&zad=7&id=0039-21380201157V>

Emergence and development of institutions of the European integrations and sources of law of the European Union</a> by Varga Siniša Strani pravni život 2002, No. 1-3, pp. 157-177(article in Serbian) Abstract: "EU is a stage in the process of European integration. Realized in dynamical sense EU was established under influence of ideas of European movements, in conditions of a hard economical situation and intricate political relationships. The first European community was established in Paris on 18th April 1951. It was European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC). The other European communities were established in Rome on 25th march 1957. Those are European Economic Community and EUROATOM. EU was established by Treaty on European Union that was signed in Mastricht, a small Netherlands's town, on 7th February 1992. It was done a reform of European communities by Treaty on EU as well. There had already been reforms of EC. The most important was this one done by Single European Act (1986). Last reform of EC that described in the article was done by Treaty of Amsterdam (1997). Institutions of EU are: European parliament, Council, Commission, Court of Justice and Financial court. Council is not the same as European Council, a political body regulated by Treaty of EU. First instance court was added to Court of Justice on 1989. Consultative bodies of EU are: Economic - social Committee and Regional Committee. An important financial institution of EU is European investment bank. Organ for administrative control is Ombudsman. Sources of EU law are divided on primary and secondary ones. Primary sources of communitarian law are: establishing contracts, international agreements among EU-member-states and international agreements between Community and non-member-states or international organizations. Secondary legislature of EU are: regulations, directives, decisions, recommendations and opinions. There may exist sui generis legal acts. Particularly mentioned: general legal principles and precedents. At the end author concludes that EU law has a supremacy above national law of member states."

<a target=_blank href=http://www.aals.org/services_sections_lcs.php>Section Law and Communitarian Studies</a> by the Association of American Law Schools.
<a target=_blank href=http://www.euromoneyforyou.com/Useful_Links.html>USEFUL LINKS OF THE EUROPEAN UNION</a> euromoneyforyou.com includes a link to Communitarian Law.
<a target=_blank href=http://www.richtervereinigung.at/international/justice3/justice317a.htm>Human Rights and Courts</a> By CARDONA FERREIRA, President of the Portuguese Supreme Court of Justice: "Meanwhile and concerning the European Union, the Court of Justice and the Court of 1st Instance, both settled in Luxembourg, continued their activity, keeping up with the growth of influence of the Communitarian Law. The influence of jurisprudence is so significant that many people know by "Bosman Law", followed without discussion, what is only a decision of the Court of Justice, concerning a person called Bosnian."
<a target=_blank href=http://www.uch.ceu.es/principal/englishversion/degrees/doctrines/europe.asp> The General Principles of the Law in the European Communitarian Law</a> Universidad Cardenal Herrera-CEU.(user:Niki Raapana) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.161.168.158 (talk • contribs) 04:35, 3 December 2006 (UTC).

We've been through this before, but not lately. Almost everyone except you who commented considered "communitarian law" in this sense to be a different topic. I, for one, don't necessarily see a problem with introducing a separate article, and possibly a disambiguation, but please do not hijack this article. - Jmabel | Talk 02:25, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Socialism

Recently the statement was removed that communitarianism opposes some aspects of socialism. I believe this statement should be reinserted. While the two could share certain ideas, they differ in others including the communitarian emphasis on non-government solutions to social problems. And to my knowledge, no socialist groups consider themselves communitarian. Perhaps this could be expanded in a subsection of "Comparisons to other political philosophies". Juan Ponderas 05:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Michael Lerner

When I think of recent, popular, American Communitarianism, I think of Michael Lerner and Tikkun (magazine). Yet he is conspicuously absent from this article, and his article is conspicuously silent about Communitarianism. Yo, what's up with that? Lethiere 03:09, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

No idea. Yes, he should be mentioned here & vice versa. - Jmabel | Talk 19:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

David Cameron?

It seems a lot of the ideas in the article suggest a lot of what David Cameron has been saying. Thoughts? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 90.199.160.111 (talk) 17:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC).

Canadian communitarianism

An excelent Canadian/Russian case study is the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doukhobor

Additional Canadian communitarianism examples include the Hudderites and Mennonites.

Wundurgrrl 14:28, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is incredibly redundant when it comes to politics

We have waaay too many separate and quite lengthy articles about extremely similar and really very hard to tell apart ideologies... its extremely jargon laden as well. They need to be streamlimed enormously. There is absolutely no need for like 100 different types of anarchism, libertarianism, socialism, communism, etc etc etc. In practical real world, hardly any of these ideologies have ever even come close to being implemented. Why would something like 80% of the ideologies represented on wikipedia never even be in real practice? This makes wikipedia seem really self indulgent and foolhardy in my opinion. its howdy doody time !!! (talk) 06:38, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

POV

"If they are correct in this, then communitarian doctrine reduces to little more than traditionalism and cultural moral relativism"? Hardly neutral, objective writing. - Jmabel | Talk 05:33, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Missing?

Odd that Pierre Elliott Trudeau isn't mentioned in this article. He was a communitarian. His Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms has a basic communitarian element, the "balancing clause" as section 1, which is the "guarantee and limitation" clause subjecting individual rights to community priorities.

One French Canadian author who discusses Trudeau's Communitarianism is ANDRE BURELLE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.178.183.222 (talk) 06:05, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Strengths and Weakness of Article

This article starts strong, but in the second half virtually falls apart. Some of the later personages mentioned as communitarians have links, so you can check them out, but they are obscure, and there is nothing to indicate that they are really communitarians, and not just Rightwingnuts (not very interesting ones at that). The section on the responsibility to pay taxes is particularly confusing. The arguments mentioned sound like they could come from any liberal, especially John Rawls. Alasdair MacIntyre is mentioned in the first half as a representative communitarian philosopher, and he would certainly not agree with Rawls. If fact, disagreement with Rawls is a hallmark of MacIntyre's position.Beau in NC (talk) 23:00, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I have found why the article is so biased. The libertarian magazine Reason is somehow connected, thus making the definition of communitarian here only a strawman. They define it as "all the flaws of liberalism plus meddling in our personal lives," which is only a biased setup and not representative of most real communitarians (like MacIntyre). Also, the conspiracy theories are stupid and have no place here, so keep them out.Beau in NC (talk) 16:19, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I removed the broken link to "American Atheist" (http://www.atheists.org/magazine/supplement/communitarianism.html). I was looking through the other links and thought that this section could use some cleaning-up. Ellensn (talk) 14:51, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Also I removed the link in the "Opposition" section to "Democrats Against UN Agenda 21, grassroots blog to stop communitarianism" as it links to some totally irrelevant conspiracy theory. Or maybe I'm just part of the conspiracy. 65.188.210.48 (talk) 07:02, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Exactly what'conspiracy theory' did you think it links to? Democrats Against UN Agenda 21 addresses actual real-world issues in Communitarianism. UN Agenda 21 is not a conspiracy theory, it is a plan formed in 1992 by the UN and signed onto by 179 nations, including the US. Agenda 21 is primarily implemented as a land-use plan that impacts all aspects of government including private property, water rights, food production, energy consumption and more. Your need to purge this site is unfortunate considering the relevance of Democrats Against UN Agenda 21 to the explanation of how Communitarianism is affecting our world today. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.130.47.2 (talk) 15:13, 10 February 2011 (UTC) GOOD FOR YOU. Some of the lunkeads that get a power kick out of editing out reality need a wake-up call.

I think this business about Niki Raapana and Democrats Against UN Agenda 21 really does not belong on this page and so I have removed it. It seems doubtful to me that she should even have a wikipedia page in the first place, but I will not claim the right to make that decision. This article is about academic political philosophy. Communitarianism is not a "movement" any more than utilitarianism or Rawlsian "justice as fairness" is a movement. The anti-communitarianism league does not have substantiative contributions to make to the academic dialogue about political philosophy, only a bizarre preoccupation with UN Agenda 21. Their use of the word communitarianism is incorrect. In case someone in this movement thinks that I'm part of the conspiracy, I'm a student writing a term paper about about communitarianism and deliberative democracy. Please read Walzer's "Spheres of Justice" and familiarize yourself with Rawls, Sandel, and MacIntyre before you consider adding this section back or telling me that I'm "getting a power kick out of editing." On the other hand, if you think I'm a conspirator, there's probably nothing that's going to change your mind. This is the problem with people on the internet with too much time and the tendency to think that cursory research about a complex subject entitles them to form strong opinions.Hyphessobrycon (talk) 05:50, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Secularism

There should maybe be a note on the role of communitarianism on the debate about secularism. Some proponents of communitarianism have been accused of being anti-secular because they knowingly defend the existence of large human communities outside the secular State, many of these communities being religions, such as Christianity, Islam, Judaism or Buddhism/Hinduism. Conversely, secularists will often adopt a position which is best described as statism, because they feel that the State is the sole legitimate social organization that is based on the Enlightenment's ideal of the rule of law, while other communities such as religions tend to integrate philosophical principles that are not necessarily compatible with those ideals, such as theocratic legislation where everything is in relation to the divine, or specific gender rules for women that go against modern norms of gender equality. ADM (talk) 21:34, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Hyphenation Consistency

This is a small issue, relevant only to one section, as far as I can see (Ideological Communitarianism: Positive Rights). The second sentence of this section reads: "These may include state subsidized education, state-subsidized housing, a safe and clean environment, universal health care, and even the right to a job with the concomitant obligation of the government or individuals to provide one." Notice how education is "state subsidized" but housing is "state-subsidized." I personally don't know which is correct, so I though I would bring it up for someone more knowledgeable to correct. Lithrium (talk) 17:29, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Introduction

The first sentence is incredibly uninformative--"Communitarianism emphasizes the need to balance individual rights and interests with that of the community as a whole, and argues that individual people (or citizens) are shaped by the cultures and values of their communities."

Is there a political philosophy that exists that denies that "individual people are shaped by the cultures and values of their communities"? That's a simple truism that could go at the top of literally any article about a political philosophy. Ditto for the need to "balance individual rights and interests with that of the community as a whole." It seems like a communitarian wrote that sentence as a way of making it seem like their philosophy is obviously true. 65.96.114.192 (talk) 19:09, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I think what should be said is that communitarians believe other ideologies have not properly understood human nature, and so their social policies are doomed to failure. I would restate it this way: "Communitarianism begins with the proposition that other ideologies have failed to properly emphasize the complex relationships between individual persons and the communities in which they live, and so, therefore, social policies of other ideologies (both of the left and the right) are deeply flawed."Beau in NC (talk) 22:52, 2 February 2012 (UTC) cpn.org is called "civic practices network", not "civil practices network". Also, the link is dead.

Criticism

I'm not very into the subject of political theory, but the criticism-section here seems to me very short. I just found a critic by Zizek in "The Ticklish Subject": "The communitarians' problem is that in today's global societe theire position is [...] marked by a split between enunciated and enunciation: they themselfes do not speak from the particular position of a closed community, their position of enunciation is already universal [...]." (Chapter 4, p. 171) Shouldn't this type of critic (which, i think, is a typical post-structuralist one?) be implemented in the article? --Kommerz (talk) 15:58, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Karl Roveness

this article feels -- nay -- probably HAS BEEN edited by corporate shills -- i read this to get a Wikipedia article version of communitarianism, & it mentions "the invidual" & "individualism" 100 times it seems, half questions 'if there is such a thing as community'... how sad.

it just reads like it has been combed thru & de-natured into some individualism compatible article, which is the exact thing it is a counterpoint to. someone keen on community & the modern movement against individualism should patrol this article. this read likes Karl Rove is describing it from behind a curtain. in my opinion lakitu (talk) 07:25, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Socialist/Social Democracy sidebars

The gist of this article is that Communitarianism is NOT a form of socialism or collectivism. So shouldn't the Socialism and Social Democracy sidebars be removed? Ghostofnemo (talk) 09:27, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Communitarianism/Archive_2&oldid=890070318"