Talk:List of anarchist communities/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Icelandic hirearchic?

Why have anarcho-capitalists as example of anarchist-society? Wasnt it so that the icelandic society was very patriarchic (and thus hirearchic) with all the familiy fights? — Foant, 2004-11-15t17:16z

Somewhat patriarchic. The system was based on a division. The women ruled the house and farm and the men handled external issues. Sort of the division in a minister of internal affairs and a foreign minister. // Liftarn

Why is the section on Iceland mostly about Somalia?--70.161.172.180 04:51, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I rewrote the section, with citations and eliminating the Somalia stuff. It is of course POV for anarcho-socialist sectarians to delete it (as they did) for being free market (capitalist). We don't need any more edit wars on that! PhilLiberty (talk) 18:09, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Nice work Phil. Skomorokh 18:37, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Move?

Shall we move the page to Anarchist communities? — Jeandré, 2004-11-15t19:55z

-- Yea, its not like theres a big list here of anarchist communities...

And remove the anarcho-capitalist examples or anarcho-capitalist communities, it isnt anarchism. Somalia isnt anarchist either...

Rather i was thinking, as it says, spain before and during the civil war, some russian villages in sibiria before imperial russias suffocation... The Gé (or was it Gá? atleast they lived where the even incas couldnt invoke their rule upon them, they put a stop to the inca empire to the south and east) talking people in south america where said to have no hieararchy and practicly was a anarchist-communitie. Thats what lead to such difficulties for the Spaniards to rule them, becouse these people where not used to paying taxes or being ruled. While Spaniards easily conquerord the incas and made them slaves, the people where used to beliving someone has to rule from above...

Dont know if i need the source for this claim or if i can just write it down on the page? I can look up the sources if needed and provide more info... -- Foant

I don't think that the move would be justified, in addition to that we are growing here. I think that we might even have to split the whole thing into Past anarchist communities and Present anarchist communities and this page would become a disambiguation. Beta m (talk)ň

Kowloon Walled City

Should this be included? Hardly a classical anarchist society, but it is often quoted as an example. Warofdreams 17:59, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

based on a quick look at the kowloon article, i would support its inclusion. i leave it to someone who knows more to actually do this, though (assuming they agree). --dan 17:00, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

kwangju

"combat cells and /leadership/ formed" how is that anarchistic??? Foant 17:35, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

anarchy doesn't mean there is no social structure at all. i know nothing about kwangju, but having leadership doesn't keep you out of the anarchy club. --dan 17:00, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Freetown Christiania

Should this be included? It is a "partially self-governing neighborhood in the city of Copenhagen, Denmark, which has established semi-legal status as an independent community." // Liftarn —Preceding unsigned comment added by Liftarn (talk • contribs) 2005-07-07T23:49:09

I have put the first paragraph of the history of Freetown Christiania in the Examples of projects and other movements with anarchist qualities section.. is that ok? - max rspct leave a message 21:49, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

needs wikifying/cleanup. im on it, anyone want to help? Gilgamesh Rex 22:05, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

how are they anarchist when they have rules like no hard drugs or cars? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.253.75.168 (talk) 06:13, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Somalia

A sentence says: "Most anarchists reject the claim that there is anarchism in Somalia, given that there exist proclaimed states who are governed by local war-lords." From what I understand some people are paying "warlords" for protection. If protecting is all they're doing, that doesn't constitute government. In the words of 19th century individualist anachist Victor Yarros: "Anarchism means no government, but it does not mean no laws and no coercion. This may seem paradoxical, but the paradox vanishes when the Anarchist definition of government is kept in view. Anarchists oppose government, not because they disbelieve in punishment of crime and resistance to aggression, but because they disbelieve in compulsory protection. Protection and taxation without consent is itself invasion; hence Anarchism favors a system of voluntary taxation and protection." RJII 15:20, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Laws and coercion are what make a government a government. It makes no difference whether it is a warlord or a king that runs things--both reign their terf. Kings put their laws into writing, while the laws of warlords are unwritten yet understood by those within his domain. Truly there is no real difference, in my opinion. Subversive 11:31, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Somaliland has no warlords, and Somaliland's anarchist-like culture is different than that of Somalia (there appears to be some confusion swince the two names are similiar). -- Anarchist42 15:50, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Somaliland has a government of sorts, which is attempting to become recognised internationally. 'Somalia', however, includes Somaliland as far as international recognition goes, so the source of confusion is less than because the names are similar. --Sam Francis 22:43, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Somalia is more an anarcho-capitalist society, and that is not even close to the same thing as an anarchist society.

And besides that, I think that many of the examples given in the articles actually are doubtful examples of anarchist communities. And the situationists were actually marxists, but influensed by anarchism too. But so are most marxists today (and most anarchists appriciate marxist thinkers too).

Even though i call myself a marxist communist and hold marxists like Marx, Bordiga, Pannekoek, DeBord and Dauvé in high regard, I still prefer anarchists in general over marxists. Half the "marxist" movement are full of crazy people like marxist-leninists. ;) Well, this i OT.

Somalia is fragmented - Africas Horn consists of the autonomous regions of Puntland and Somaliland. These have governments. Everything south of Puntland is under de jure control by the Somali government, but is split up between tribal warlords and Islamic clerics. Mogadishu is now under Islamic sharia law control. Joffeloff 01:03, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Spanish revolution (1936 to 1939)

The word "Socialist" ought to be in lowercase, "socialist", unless it refers to the Socialist Party--in which case the link ought to direct to the Spanish Socialist Party of that time. I would fix it, but I'm not sure which is meant. Subversive 11:33, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

up to 30 times??

in the part about ukraine, there is a statement that says: "The Makhnovists defeated on several occasions armies up to 30 times their size". where is the source for this information? thanks in advance. Odonian 21:05, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

MISSING INFORMATION

I consider this entire page to be incomplete. It's OK, but we need at least two more things to make it good.

1. Population numbers. An anarchy of a few hundred doesn't rate very high on the accomplishment list.

2. DETAILS about why they failed, and how they solved internal problems (some anarchies just shot the malcontents). Many "utopian" experiments were held together by the money and/or personality of one very strong leader (who might not have the title leader).

We need to include things like this or we are making the same mistake as describing Stalinist NCCP as a functioning communism.24.10.102.46 04:50, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Jesus

Christians are supposed to obey no other human, only God. This would in one sense classify them as anarchists. Knutars 23:19, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

i have read before that early christian groups lived in what was essentially communes. i have no source and little info on this, though. --dan 16:55, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Early Christian history includes, I've heard, many groups that should be included in this list of anarchist communities. Christians do not, however, classify as anarchists by default, as the Bible is self-contradictory over whether to submit as citizens of states or to live as anarchists - it is unclear over the status of the state "in God's eyes" as well as how Christians should behave. History has obscured any original, cohesive intention among the authors of the Bible, unfortunately, leaving us with a mixed account of what Christians should do and how they should live. Thus any political or economic label would have to be selective and therefore incomplete with regards to total Christian belief. (Not to mention different sects which may or may not include additional books in the Bible.) Zanturaeon 00:25, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Grenada?

The section on Grenada should be deleted. Nothing in that section has anything to do with anarchism. No evidence whatsoever is given that any experiment in anarchism was even attempted there. --Charles 04:19, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Housing Co-operatives

Should these be added? Most operate via consensus. They are a cross between communes and communities, with simpler levels of shared ownership. Seen sometimes as a compromise so as not to remove oneself completely from surrounding (usually capitalist) organisation...

You'd need to be specific since housing cooperatives in many areas such as Canada and eastern Europe are highly structured with clear levels of authority.154.20.137.51 16:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Celtic Ireland

I dispute this:

"All "freemen" who owned land, all professionals, and all craftsmen, were entitled to become members of a tuath. Each tuath's members formed an annual assembly which decided all common policies, declared war or peace on other tuatha, and elected or deposed their "kings." In contrast to primitive tribes, no one was stuck or bound to a given tuath, either because of kinship or of geographical location. Individual members were free to, and often did, secede from a tuath and join a competing tuath. Professor Peden states, "the tuath is thus a body of persons voluntarily united for socially beneficial purposes and the sum total of the landed properties of its members constituted its territorial dimension." The "king" had no political power; he could not decree or administer justice or declare war. Basically he was a priest and militia leader, and presided over the tuath assemblies."

The tuath's were based on allegiance's to said tuath, often by kinship, leaving the tuath was not allowed and deserting the tribe was a serious offence. The king's did have considerable power, they were always the richest of the tribe and could have many wives. Celtic Ireland was a highly inequitable society, women for example had no power whatsoever. I'm not sure what to do hear though, should I just delete the whole thing? It gives no references and no indication to who this 'Prof. Peden' is, I could email my history lecturer and he would tell how this is just a romantic, unrealistic version of Ireland before the English. I'm going to delete the thing, pending decent references. - Dalta 18:01, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

if you look in wikipedia under tuath and brehon and other bits about celtic irish society, you'll find that it was very hierarchical, the opposite of anarchical. anarchism isn't just the absence of a state, it's the absence of 'archy'. laws that change depending on rank, like in pre-cromwell ireland, are hardly anarchic. i'm definitely for deleting the whole 'celtic ireland' bit. it was a feudal society.195.75.254.123 13:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I find Professor Peden's theories (though they surface across the 'net in identical quotes, and are indubitably popular online) to be deeply unconvincing and to be unsupported even by his own arguments. In spite of stating that kingship - which he says entailed military authority, religious leadership and chairmanship roles in the communal assemblies - was restricted to a single family line in each tuath, he appears not to see this as in any way hierarchical. Likewise, he acknowledges that the rights he praises were held only by certain types of freemen - a distinction that confirms a hierarchy with power over both the "unfree" and others who do not meet the qualification criteria. Potentially awkward history is wholly ignored in his assessment of Celtic Irish activities: wars of conquest and attempts to acquire and defend dominant positions certainly were waged by individuals (e.g. Brian Boru to secure the high kingship) and families (e.g. the O'Neills' centuries of prominence) on a scale far above "petty brawls", quite apart from the points made in the preceding comments. At root, Peden seems to have combined idealistic blinkers with a reverence for his perception of tribal society to incorrectly identify some features as uniquely Irish, to deny the existence of others, and to paint a picture of an utopia. Perhaps work produced within the last 30 years by a specialist in Irish history would be more convincing as a basis for this section of the article? As it is, I can only back the call to delete it. WikiExile (talk) 23:26, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

sealand

sealand is indeed a monarchy, but as far as i know its only citizens are members of the royal family, and they don't even live there since it's basically a data haven and nothing else (if it's even that now?), so i'm not sure that's relevent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingnixon (talk • contribs) 2006-07-07T09:20:53

Pennsylvania

(deleted: I somehow skipped the section that was already included in the article) —Preceding unsigned comment added by KurtFF8 (talk • contribs) 2006-07-31T18:24:12

Grenada, once again...

Back in May, I raised questions about the inclusion of Grenada in this list, given the paucity of evidence for any so-called "experiment in anarchism" there. I received no response. Now, I've reread the section, and still see no relevance whatsoever, indeed, fully one-third of the article deals with the "Stalinist coup," the subsequent US invasion, and the reasons given for same. All of this can and should be included in the article about Grenada, but is of no importance or relevance here. If no one can give me a good reason for it to stay, I am going to remove it. Thanks. ---Charles 05:53, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Given the fact that no one could make a case for that section's survival, I have deleted it. ---Charles 03:03, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Modern Day Iraq or Afghanistan

Perhaps they would be considered anarchist? I know that they aren't exactly anarchist by choice. But they don't really have governments right now. Perhaps they deserve some sort of mention in this article? I could be wrong, though...—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.112.34.2 (talk) 2006-11-26T01:03:24

I do believe you are wrong. Iraq does have a government, as does Afghanistan. "Anarchy" is an ignorant misnomer perpetuated by capitalist, corporate media who either have no idea of what anarchy actually is, or willfully misuse it for strawman purposes, as with New Orleans. Zanturaeon 00:21, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

no purely anarchist societies

This page should be moved to Past anarchist communities -- having anarchistic qualities doesn't make it an anarchist community-- being an anarchy does that.--Urthogie 17:27, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

This article doesn't discuss "societies" (in the wide sense of the word) - it discusses communities, including movements. The discussion includes communities that are still alive and functioning. They don't fit under your proposed title. Are you suggesting a split? What would the other title(s) be? Thanks - Lentower 18:05, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

It seems like counting any community wouldn't be very encyclopedic. If we accept the definition of "stateless", then all online communities are anarchies.--Urthogie 18:43, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

This article isn't counting all such communities, just the notable ones. The criteria being used are more then "stateless"ness. And I don't agree with your conclusion about on-line communities - it's way too simplistic. Your second comment diverges from the first, which was just talking about renaming the article. And you have yet to address my point that your proposal about this article ignores that it discusses BOTH past and present anarchist communities. And a good encyclopedic article explores gradations of a topic, just not the purest examples. Lentower 20:29, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Statelessness is the only criteria mentioned before the article goes on to discuss such anarchistic (read: stateless) societies. I'm just holding the article to it's own definitions-- anarchy here is represented as a lack of a state. If we apply that definition to all comunities, we end up with online communities fitting the definition. And there surely are plenty of notable online communities. Therefore, I would argue this is a case of ad absurdum-- the definition of anarchy creates an absurd list of anarchies which seems to include wikipedia. If you think I'm wrong, please back up your claim that the article specifies any other criteria besides notability of the community and the community lacking a state. --Urthogie 21:21, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Many on-line communities are subject to a central authority, much like a state. Some states, e.g. China, actively cesnors their on-line communites. Perhaps the article needs to be edited to clear this up. Regardless, we don't have anywhere near a consenus: to change the title, split the article, etc. I suggest you and I let this rest a few days, and see if any others want to help form a consensus on this. It would also make sense to read the relevant articles in the "Anarchism" navigation box, and see how they interact with this article. Lentower 22:26, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

The point is that the article doesn't define anarchy. Any article that lists "anarchies" without defining them is absolute trash. I'm marking it as original research until anarchy is defined with sources. We'll decide whether to move it based on the authoritative definition we come up with.--Urthogie 00:13, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

The article links in several places to Anarchism which meets your requirements for defining anarchy. The definition in the article is a brief summary of that in Anarchism. Why isn't that sufficient for you? This doesn't violate any WP guidelines I'm aware of. It's pointless to duplicate all the text and notes in another article. I'm removing the OR for now. Lentower 15:47, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Linking to an article is not adequate. An article can't be not OR just by virtue of linking to another article. Copy over the definition from anarchism if you like. In the meantime, until that section is there or the info is in the lead, I'm reverting and leaving those tags there.--Urthogie 15:58, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

You wrote An article can't be not OR just by virtue of linking to another article. Please supply citations/links to the Wikipeida guidelines supporting this statement, with any commet or analysis you find necessary. This is my second request for these citations in this section. Lentower 17:09, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Reliable sources:

Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a source, and the responsibility for finding a source lies with the person who adds or restores the material. Unsourced or poorly sourced edits may be challenged and removed at any time. Sometimes it is better to have no information at all than to have information without a source.

From a CNET news article:

Wikipedia's founder, Jimmy Wales, has asked that college students refrain from citing Wikipedia as a source of academic research.

--Urthogie 18:27, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

These don't support your point that this article is orginal research or that linking to other articles is not sufficient. The CNET quote isn't from a WP guideline, and doesn't speak of original research at all. Lentower 01:15, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

You could have copied the definition over yourself. Improving Wikipeida is what we as editors are suppose to do. That is best done by editing, not by adding boxes to get other editors to do the real work, or adding lot's of unsupported demands and claims to talk pages. Lentower 17:09, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

My view is that its largely undefinable, and that a scholarly page would actually admit this, and then try to define anarchy in terms of several respected definitions. In the mean time, as per wikipedia policies, its better to have an article with warning boxes than one that doesn't, and that tells people things which are simply unverified original research.--Urthogie

I don't have time right now to chase down the sources for some of the communties noted in this article, beyond the one I did chase down. Slow incremental growth on Wikipedia is fine. Lentower 17:09, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

All you did was define anarchism in the article, which is the ideology. Anarchy is not defined. I'm not going to revert you because of WP:3RR, but logically speaking you must see how anarchism is the ideology and anarchy is the structure of government being discussed..? Please revert yourself until a definition for anarchy is added. By the way, I'm not trying to increase your stress, I actually want to see this article eventually analyzing several of the definitions of anarchy. I'm just trying to avoid misinforming people at all costs in the meantime. --Urthogie 18:27, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

With no dis-respect intended:

• You said above: Copy over the definition from anarchism if you like. ... --Urthogie 15:58, 27 December 2006 (UTC). When I did this, you complain and change your mind on what you feel the article needs. Lentower 01:15, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I meant for you to copy over the definition of an anarchy from that article, not the definition of anarchism from it. There was simply a mis-communication, I guess.--Urthogie 02:18, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Clearly, bad communication on your part, as there is no definition of anarchy in anarchism. There are several mentions of variants of it, which might be a starting point for the definition you want for this article. Feel free to go for it, but note new section below, first.

• You have regularly change what you feel the article needs in this section. It be better to start a new section for each topic. Lentower 01:15, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about that, but you must admit it's a purely aesthetic concern which I'll try to address in the future.--Urthogie 02:18, 30 December 2006

No, it's not aesthetic, it's good organization and process. It's far easier to discuss each item in its' own section. And for others to review in the future. Lentower 02:09, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

• Your analysis and requests are ill-founded and unsupported. (UTC) Lentower 01:15, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Prove it.--Urthogie 02:19, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I can't because of the poor quality of your writing and reasoning. It is an endless task, otherwise. I would have to list all the variants that I can see admist the cloud of possibilities, then refute them (my WP time is better spent working on content, and in discussions that are clear).. You have to be clear, first. Lentower 02:09, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

• Consensus and discussion require rational and logical writing and discourse. You have yet to show much ability to do so, which makes it's difficult for this discussion to achieve anything. Lentower 01:15, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I actually have the ability to do so, and plan on showing it :)--Urthogie 02:19, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I look forward to it. Lentower 02:09, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

• I continue to disagree with you that this article is original research. You have yet to provide any convincing quotes from WP guidelines on this (3rd request). Lentower 01:15, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

As per your request, I actually quoted Wikipedia:Reliable Sources above. If it's not convincing, you need to explain why. As far as original research, it's OR because there are no solid criteria for deciding what is considered an anarchist community. This is similar to the approach an original, creative essay would take-- arguing on the merits of each society, without having any definitive way of sorting out the anarchies from the non-anarchies. My suggestion is that we work together to find an authoritative secondary source to work off of to cite our definition/criteria and work from there.--Urthogie 02:19, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Please re-read what I wrote above. Lentower 02:09, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

• It be a more productive use of your time to add the definition of "anarchy" that you feel is needed, then to continue this discussion and reversions. Improve the content, in addition to asking others to do so. If you had spent the time on the content, that you have spent on this talk page, the article would be much better off now. Lentower 01:15, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

The reason I don't define anarchy is because I want to eliminate any possibility of you criticizing my definition-- this approach is based on my experience as a wikipedia editor in solving past disputes. If I imposed my own definition I'd be creating two disputes in the place of one-- because you would 1)likely disagree with my definition and 2)disagree with my removals based on my definition. I'm trying to get us to focus on the issue at hand-- namely that there isn't a definition. If you'll agree with me that there needs to be one for it not to be OR, we can work together and actually accomplish a very credible definition. I look forward to you accepting this proposal of teamwork.--Urthogie 02:18, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

We don't need a definition of anarchy. This article is about anarchist communities. Could perhaps use a better definition of that. See new section below. Lentower 02:09, 31 December 2006 (UTC)::

You wrote:

The reason I don't define anarchy is because I want to eliminate any possibility of you criticizing my definition-- this approach is based on my experience as a wikipedia editor in solving past disputes. ...

This is not realistic. This is Wikipedia, and once you change an article any editor can come in and edit your changes. It's a risk you run. If you don't want to run that risk, stop editing on Wikipedia.

Your assumption, that a definition that both you and I accept will be acceptable to all editors is flawed - the chance of that is very low. Too low, to make it worth my time to work on a definition with you

I will not further discuss adding a definition of anarchist community to this article in this section, please do so in a new section. Lentower 04:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

• I still thing it be better for us to stop adding words to this Talk page, and adding yet more boxes to the article, and wait for others to chime in. Many people do much less work on WP over the holidays, so it would make sense to just wait until Jan 3rd or 4th for others to catch up. Lentower 01:15, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I actually think we can solve this with just us or with other editors, whatever. I can see you're reasonable, and soon you'll see that I'm capable of reasoning here if you'll discuss the issue with me further. Your choice in this regard, though. I don't want to add to your stress, because I can see that I have already. I actually want this to be a better article, just like you.--Urthogie 02:18, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Make it better, and the rest of us will revise as necessary. Lentower 02:09, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

• BTW, I've been traveling for the holidays, and off-line the last few days. Lentower 01:15, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Understandable, sorry if I rushed you to get back on. Real life is always more important, so sorry if I caused any "wiki-stress." I hope we can get somewhere in discussing this.--Urthogie 02:18, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

There is no great hurry here. Note WP:TIND. Lentower 01:45, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

add {{unreferenced|date=December 2006}}

I added {{unreferenced|date=December 2006}}. This article need sources/citations on many of the sections. Lentower 15:47, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I also added sources to one section, added {{Unreferencedsect|date=December 2006}} to those sections that lacked sources, and added a few s. Lentower 17:11, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Rename to "List of Notable Anarchist Communities" ?

This article is a list of notable anarchist communities. It be clearer to rename it so. Perhaps some of the communities are not notable, but they can be deleted as that is found out. Lentower 02:09, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I have no objection to that, but I think we should also define an anarchist society first thing after the move.--Urthogie 03:07, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I will not discuss anything except possible new titles in this section. If you want to discuss adding a definition of anarchist community, please do so in a new section. Lentower 04:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I plan to wait a few days, for more comments, before any renaming. Lentower 05:28, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

One suggestion actually. Wikipedia:Notability is already a policy, so notability is implied. Why not just List of anarchist communities?--Urthogie 05:34, 31 December 2006 (UTC)