Talk:List of anarchist communities
|Please place new discussions at the bottom of the talk page.|
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the List of anarchist communities article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
|Archives: 1, 2, 3|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
Because this is a prose article comprised of paragraphs, it doesn't fit WP:LISTS. But if it is a regular article, what is it about? History. It's a history article. So I renamed it accordingly.
There are 3 subjects floating around that appear to be related: anarchy, ungoverned population, and "anarchist community". This article ties into anarchy#ungoverned communities. But, perhaps it should instead tie into ungoverned populations which should in turn tie into the anarchy article.
Are "anarchist community" and "ungoverned population" and "ungoverned community" all the same thing? If so, we could also standardize the naming of these components so they integrate better. What common title fits all three the best? Once we find that, it can be added to Anarchist terminology. The Transhumanist 12:01, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- Pardon the late response. It would seem that members of the Anarchist Task Force are not watching this page. This page suffers from an original failing, when it was created as a list that tried to be all-inclusive. A certain level of exclusion is necessary to make a list meaningful. The original title told the tale: "List of anarchist communities." From its early conception, it should only have included communities that were comprised of anarchists or was an anarchist project, even if non-anarchists participated. By attempting to justify inclusions of non-anarchist communities by sub-sectioning those "with anarchist qualities", this left the page open to original research. A list should be restructured to be very tightly aligned with only communities in which anarchism was the guiding principal in its founding. Historians have noted a number of large and small scale anarchist projects in community building, from small Utopian villages; to regional counter-cultures; to multi-city socities. I specify all of this because while a list on this subject may be useful, the article as it is now titled isn't. The topic of a history of an anarchist community is best covered under the current family of "Anarchism in [Nation/Region]", or under specific articles for anarchist communities. This article cannot cover a history of anarchist communities because there is no history of a global historical movement in anarchist community building. There has been no generational culture of philosophers in "anarchist community", fundraisers, architects, or other logistical specialists in "anarchist community building". Every region has its own history, given its wide breath in time and distance from others. What relationship does an anarchist utopian community in the eastern United States in the 1910s have to an anarchist squat in Dresden in the 1990s? Nothing but philosophy. That said, the topic of community exists in anarchist philosophy: what the role of an anarchist community is in a non-anarchist society; what its role is in an anarchist revolution; and how an anarchist community can exist as a tool or tactic, in a larger strategy for revolution. A classic slogan gives suggestion to this: "Build the new world in the shell of the old." I choose not to elaborate further as this message is long enough as is. An article on "anarchism and community" might be useful, but on the subject of praxis— not history. This article should be retitled and a heavy-handed approach must be made to hammer down non-anarchist inclusion in this article. Any attempt to include non-anarchist communities should be understood to be original research. Strict citation should guide further inclusion. Should the Zapatistas be included. No. They aren't anarchist. No excuses. Should Argentina circa 2001 be included? No. They aren't anarchist. No excuses. Should a squat located in Argentina be included? Is it anarchist? Is it notable? If yes, please include it. I don't like seeing anarchists brush their politics over non-anarchist projects. It stinks of philosophical elitism. Any desire to elaborate on an anarchist critique of a revolutionary community should be property cited and included— in an article on that respective topic. Not here.--Cast (talk) 20:03, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
- It is accomplished! The Nuclear option! Now, please don't perform moves without first holding a discussion. I'm sure you acted in good faith, but reading the archives, there was a previous discussion regarding a move, and I don't see why there couldn't have been one here. If you were concerned with the lack of responses, I suggest requesting input from the Anarchist Task Force. Sadly, we seem to be somewhat inactive at the moment, so I'll be adding Template:Maintained and moving myself into a position to monitor future activity here. Hope you're now satisfied with the "restructuring." It took a bit of effort on my part, but I think it was worth it. --Cast (talk) 02:32, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
How does the topic failed state fit into all of this? The map on there makes it look like the entire world is on the brink of collapse, and possibly anarchy. The Transhumanist 12:51, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- It doesn't. A failed state does not an anarchist community make, although anarchists might hope to step into a power vacuum as a tactic within a larger anarchist strategy for revolution. However, those favoring this tactic acknowledge that a robust anarchist community needs to exist prior to a collapse to take advantage of the social rupture.--Cast (talk) 20:03, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
As I was reading this article there seemed to be lack of sources about some of the communities which lead to a lack of creditability of what is being said about these communities. Viceroy489 (talk) 07:50, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
- The story is told. I've finally ended years of wishy-washy attempts to justify non-anarchist communities in this list. Like wheat before the reaper, these prose descriptions in a list article have been eliminated. Those entries remaining are either unsourced because the main article presents citations on the subject; or are marked with a "original research?" tag because the main article itself lacks proper citation for notability, but not anarchist credentials. Everything else has been respectfully shunted into the "See also" section, which is appropriate for them. --Cast (talk) 02:13, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you both for your appreciation. I'm continuing my efforts and I have expanded the lead with more citations to justify statements made and shrink the extended "See also" list. I now have cited every statement I believe to possibly be contestable. Aside from statements of the obvious, which I've ignored, the article's statements should be verifiable. My future edits should now be mostly comprised of expansions to current section lists.--Cast (talk) 23:51, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Twin Oaks an anarchist community?
Why is Twin Oaks considered to be an anarchist community? B.F. Skinner was not an anarchist, and Twin Oaks does not present itself as an anarchist community. Ghostofnemo (talk) 13:36, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Korean anarchism and Korean anarchist 'communities'
Korean 'anarchism' -- your page says; 'there are only a few instances of mass society "anarchies" that have come about from explicitly anarchist revolutions, including the Free Territory of Ukraine, and the Shinmin autonomous region in Manchuria.'
That is blatantly false and misleading -- there was no 'anarchist revolution' whatsoever in Manchuria, Sinmin or parts of Korea -- ever -- at any time. It is fantasy inspired by vague half truths and bad research.
Korean so called 'anarchists' active in Manchuria/Sinmin such as Shin Chaeho and Kim Jwa Jin, were racially motivated extreme nationalists, who believed in concepts of 'racial purity', 'pure race', 'pure blood lines',and Darwinian struggle for survival which would lead to racial supremacy of 'the superior races', and so on :it is true that they -- briefly -- showed an interest in anarchism, but only because they thought it served their purposes at the time.
But that is really where the comparisons end.
The Korean 'anarchists' ( more accurate to call them racial nationalists) did, indeed, meet and mobilise in Manchuria ( Sinmin )but it is plain false to describe it as some kind of 'anarchist victory/utopia' -- the Koreans did indeed mobilise there, because it was an area that many Koreans lived in when Korea itself was occupied by Japan, and it gave them freedom of movement when Korea was being harassed by external forces ( traders and other subversive influences from the West and East, desperate to turn Korea into a submissive nation ) . And Koreans were also there for extreme nationalist reasons : many Korean nationalists considered Manchuria ( Sinmin ) to be Korean, and they dreamt of reclaiming it, because thousands of years ago, it was indeed, Korean ruled land ( read up on history of Kogu-ryo and Manchu).
So much absolute crap has been written about the so called Korean 'anarchists', mainly by poorly informed Westerners, who want to fantasise about 'Korean Anarchist revolutions and free autonomous Anarchist areas' and other such nonsense -- it is just not true, and it is misleading history. People should get informed by reading the KOREAN historians, and the KOREAN academics, who understand the period very well, and understand the complex cross overs between conservative nationalism, Confucian traditions, and the influences from nineteenth century western traditions of Darwinism, Fascism,biology and genealogy and -- to a very small degree -- anarchism. Read Shin gi wook, Choi Jang Jip and Professor Em. These KOREAN writers will tell you far far more than Western amateurs who want to imagine Korea was some kind of righteous or bohemian anarchist utopia for a period in the 1900s.
The truth is, the history of Anarchism in Korea is really tiny -- it is true, that anarchism was a passing influence on Shin Chaeho, and one or two others -- but only because anarchism coincided with already existing Korean ideas about peasant purity, peasant unity, cooperation, peasant economies based on sharing,and the Korean peasants/nationalists rejection of the individual destructive greed inherent amoral subversive capitalism and so on.
But that is where it ends -- as soon as Koreans decided that extreme blood and soil based nationalism suited their ends better, anarchism was sidelined as a very brief influence. In reality, Koreans are, historically, a people motivated and shaped, for the most part, by conservative forces and racial interests -- anarchism and internationalist ideals that rejected nationalism and rejected exclusive racial allegiances could never have taken hold in Korea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rutherfordlad (talk • contribs) 05:08, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
- Cool story, bro. Now get a source for all this and it can go somewhere. --Cast (talk) 02:23, 19 June 2012 (UTC)