User:Oeqtte/History of anarchism

Here I will briefly discuss the structure and section names of the article History of anarchism.

Precursors

Early history

This section seems fine though the section does briefly discuss pre-history as well as early and ancient history.

Middle ages

Here there are no structural issues and the text is very easy to follow through a simple chronology separated by geography.

Renaissance and early modern era

This one's a bit strange but it works well regardless. Slightly passes into the 17th and 18th century where influence to anarchism is still better classed as precursor than development of anarchism.

Development of classical anarchism

It should be noted that while the term classical anarchism often refers to the originary movement of anarchism, several sources use it also to refer to the schools of thought from this period.

The development of modern anarchism covers most of the Age of Revolution—from post-Enlightenment to the publishing of What is Property? (1840) and possibly including The Ego and Its Own (1845). I have not found any sources that would agree this development period should end before Proudhon's declaration as the first anarchist.

From the Enlightenment to the French Revolution and 1848

The entire section is absurdly fit under this one subheading which does not seem to be well justified.

The fact that the French Revolution does not get a section of its own might seem a bit ridiculous given how much weight it is given in historic sources. Perhaps this is not a valid concern though.

Again it is seen that the importance of the Enlightenment is less to do with the period itself than the influence of its philosophy that followed it. That is to say that the Age of Enlightenment itself would be better considered a precursor—but this is only a minor point.

Late 19th century to early 20th century: classical anarchism as a worker's movement

Not much has to be said here. The title is an obvious mess.

[Amendment: Not so obvious to some it seems, the content of the title simply does not justify its wordiness, nor does its verbosity serve to better describe the section. Length may not be an issue in itself but an 83 character title on a standard Wikipedia article ought to have at least some justification. For comparison, see other "History of" pages and their styles.]

This period coincides with the Second Industrial Revolution—a major force behind Marxism, labour movements, and inevitably anarchism—as is discussed heavily in historic sources. This ends pretty cleanly with the start of the post-war period.

Pierre-Joseph Proudhon and Max Stirner

Though the previous section had lead all the way to the Revolutions of 1848, suddenly the text jumps backward to 1840. It would fit much better at the end of the development of anarchism section since such development wasn't complete without the publications of early anarchist theory.

The section might be better titled after their works than the men themselves since Proudhon especially had greater importance than is contained in this one subsection.

First International and collectivist anarchism

While yes it is important to discuss the origins of major schools of thought within anarchism, to name a section after one is misleading—in isolating a school of thought within the chronology—as well as giving undue weight to any one side of a time period. Mutualists seem to have been relegated too far in the coverage of the First International.

I do not mean to suggest that anarchism be treated as a monolithic movement or political idea, rather that the article follow a progression that is more cohesive and less definitively sectarian.

Emergence of anarcho-communism

Again as above, though this time more as a reflection of the text. This section lacks dates as to follow the chronology and is largely out of order. The Conquest of Bread was published in 1892 whereas the latter part of this section discusses anything ranging from 1848 to 1890.

Organised labour and anarcho-syndicalism

Again, text is out of order and it just reads as a history of syndicalism rather than a following section of anarchist history.

Propaganda of the deed and illegalism

The article gets somewhat back on track here, but isn't necessarily placed correctly between its surrounding sections.

Anarchism in the colonial world

While I do think it is wholely reasonable to separate chronology for the sake of something like geography, this section still has some issues with internal chronology.

Individualist anarchism during the 19th and 20th century

Skeptical as to why this is separate from the rest of anarchist history. All this information would be better woven into the article as a whole.

Individualist anarchism in the United States

I have less problem with this section as is, given that it is separate from the major European currents of anarchism. Nevertheless it might be better placed elsewhere in the article.

European individualist anarchism and anarchist influence in bohemia and the arts

Heading is too wordy and doesn't connect the ideas of the section properly.

Post-war years

The appending of "years" is redundant and unwieldy—the era is more commonly termed the "Post-war period" or simply "Post-war".