Talk:Issues in anarchism
|WikiProject Philosophy||(Rated B-class, Mid-importance)|
|WikiProject Politics||(Rated B-class, Mid-importance)|
Really repetitive line
There are two phrases in this article that are nearly identical. The first, under "Ends and Means" reads
Anarchists have often been portrayed as dangerous and violent, possibly due to a number of high-profile violent actions, including riots, assassinations, insurrections, and terrorism committed by some anarchists as well as persistently negative media portrayals.
The next occurrence, under "Violence and non-violence" goes
Anarchists have often been portrayed as dangerous and violent, due mainly to a number of high-profile violent acts including riots, assassinations, and insurrections involving anarchists.
Appears to contradict article Patriarchy
I have tagged this article because it appears to contradict something stated in Patriarchy. Please see the discussion on that article's talk page for full details, and reply there if you want to comment. Thanks.—greenrd 18:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
It's probably just me
Sounds like a good idea. I was about to propose the same. Jacob Haller 16:41, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Note to anarcho-wikipedian otaku for historical posterity: the merge referred to is Major conflicts within anarchist thought to this article. Skomorokh incite 23:54, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Proposed merge from definitional concerns in anarchist theory
Definitional concerns can uncontroversially be said to be issues in anarchism; the question I am posing is whether it is better to give definitional concerns in anarchist theory it's own article, or to make it a major section of this article. The main issue, I think, is that that article is far from comprehensive; it has a lede of acceptable length and a rather good section on the Zaxlebax problem, but the remainder of the article is made up of stub sections. I favour merging all non-discrete underdeveloped articles on aspects of one topic into a single article, beating that article into shape, and then re-splitting sections into their own articles as appropriate once they become fully developed. Isolated articles have too few eyes on them and tend to be the forgotten projects of a small handful of editors, whereas articles like Anarchism for example are frequently revised and updated. Please indicate your support or opposition to the proposed merge here. Skomorokh incite 14:27, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- Support, I think it is a good idea to merge these two articles creating a Definitional concerns section in the Issues in anarchism article. The Definitional concerns in anarchist theory may be a remnant of the Anarchist POV wars as it seems to be intended to clarify the terminological fallacies and misunderstandings. Lord Metroid (talk) 15:57, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- Support. definitional concerns in anarchist theory was a way to address substantive terminological issues which editors were gaming to impose particular POVs on articles. The issues there need to be addressed somewhere, but, as these definitional issues are, in fact, current issues for the movement, this page seems to be a fine place to address them. Libertatia (talk) 19:08, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Leftover material from merge
The following is unused content from the now-merged definitional concerns in anarchist theory. If you can think of an appropriate place to use this, list of basic anarchism topics perhaps, please feel free. Skomorokh incite 22:55, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Many terms can either designate specific forms of anarchism or broader trends within anarchism. In rough alphabetical order:
- "Agorism" can refer to a counter-economic strategies or to market propertarian left-libertarianism.
- In the socialist tradition, "collectivist anarchism" refers to those forms, outlined by Mikhail Bakunin, among others, which combine community ownership of most or all of the means of production with community payment for labor. In certain other traditions, "collectivist anarchism" refers to social/communal anarchism in general.
- "Communal anarchism" refers to collectivist anarchism, communist anarchism, and collectivist or communist forms of other schools (e.g. of anarcho-syndicalism).
- "Social anarchism" most often refers to collectivist anarchism, communist anarchism, and collectivist or communist forms of other schools (e.g. of anarcho-syndicalism). It can also refer to the circle around the periodical "Social Anarchism."
- In the socialist tradition, "socialist anarchism" refers to any form which opposes presently-existing capitalism and consciously favors a more egalitarian society, e.g. some forms of agorism, collectivist anarchism, communist anarchism, most forms of mutualist anarchism. In some other libertarian traditions, "socialist anarchism" may be limited to non-market forms of socialist anarchism.
- "Syndicalism" can refer to labor-union-centered strategies, or specifically to social anarchist versions of these.
- "Voluntary socialism" was Francis D. Tandy's term for his form of individualist anarchism.
- "Distributism" is a Roman Catholic tradition which is sometimes considered a form of left-libertarianism.
The following two sentences convey a biased view:
Historically, anarchists considered themselves socialists and opposed to capitalism. Thus, anarcho-capitalism is considered by many anarchists today as not being true anarchism.
The terms "socialists" and "capitalism" seem to be used in a modern way, creating somewhat an opposition between the invidual anarchists, which seem to be included in the categorial term "anarchists" in the cited sentence, and the anarcho-capitalists. But that's not true, as one can truly see by reading the works of Spooner and Tucker cited on this page. Capitalism unterstood as a model of a free-market consisting of bargaining individuals free of coercion through states or the likes of them was in the mind of Spooner and Tucker (just read the cited paragraphs). So creating a fake opposition between anarcho-capitalists and individual anarchists is just original research and pushing an anti-anarcho-capitalist position
The term "socialist" in its historical context is NOT the same as it is used today, or even compared to the "socialists" of e.g. China or former Soviet Union. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Issues_in_anarchism#The_.22Zaxlebax.22_Problem
Please read these better formulated paragraphs:
Zaxlebax: Undue Weight
Why do we have an entire section devoted to explaining the use of a term that is not even the subject of the article? It would be better if we simply summarize the zaxlebax problem in a sentence or two... "The word anarchism is used in different ways by different people (what Roderick Long has referred to as the "zaxlebax problem")." Interested readers can link from there to the full discussion on the actual article about the zaxlebax problem. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 05:53, 21 July 2009 (UTC)