User talk:EpochFail/Sandbox

Anarchism... and community?

I'd like to put forth a new topic of interest sub-section on anarchist philosophy and community, as well as model analysis of non-anarchist communities. I've recently given the List of anarchist communities page a long-overdue trimming, and I'm now left with a page that has excluded man of the previously included non-anarchist model communities. To trim these from the page and appease any future editor who might try to add them back on, I wrote up a prose paragraph that neatly included many of them, explaining that they were looked upon as models for anarchist societies. However, this can only be included in the lead, and it's inappropriate for the list since the lead must reflect the body of content, and there is no room for non-anarchist communities in this new format. So, moving that content to this page and creating a sub-section would be useful, and appropriate given that the content spans several schools of anarchist thought, from Rothbard's research on early colonial America, to Kropotkin's collectivist appreciation of hunter-gatherer bands and medieval European towns. My basic concern is, am I getting ahead of myself here? Maybe this should go into another article. It's not much now, but if I haven't overlooked a more appropriate article to move this to, I think we can slap this paragraph here and let it improve over time. --Cast (talk) 04:28, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

As I see it now, this section you are proposing needs more references and better research. I think some of the unsourced affirmations there actually stand out when one reads this article which is so carefully sourced and actually rated as a "good article" within english wikipedia. Please try to improve this section as soon as possible, otherwise it might be better to delete some affirmations of this section. Personally, I would have suggested presenting a draft of this section here on the Talk page first, both for debate and collective improvement, rather than adding it as it stands now.--Eduen (talk) 05:44, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

One of the reasons why it is unsourced is that there is no high quality reliable source that is followed in generating this section, it is synthesis by collation. Additionally, when first added, a large number of citations were to clearly unreliable websites. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:14, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

It might be better to remove this section which doesn´t mean excluding the possibility of adding one in the future on the same subject better sourced and researched. I think as it stands now it is the weak point of the article.--Eduen (talk) 13:45, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I concur with Eduen. At this stage new sections added to the article ought to be added after the Main article specifically covering that topic has already been made and is of an equivalent quality to this article. Fifelfoo (talk) 14:31, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Anarchist philosophy and Anarchist movement: two topics/one article?

Revfiewing an old afd debate at [[1]] I find myself agreeing that the topics are separate and distinct. Are there separate and distinct articles somewhere or has that been overuled at WP? Please give me a heads up at my talk page if you would like a prompter response thanks. Bard गीता 22:14, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

The word "anarchism" makes everyone think of both a philosophy and people and movements who identify with that philosophy. It is better for me for the uninformed person who comes here to know in the same article of both the anarchist movements and the philosophy that informed that practice. Anyway there is already an article called "anarchist schools of thought" and another called "history of anarchism". The weaker one of the two is "history of anarchism" which deserves our attention.--Eduen (talk) 21:24, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with a lot of this (esp. the loving care needed by the lamentable history article); I have been concerned at the relative prominence of the philosophy in our article compared to most non-polisci sources which seem to characterise it as a social movement first and foremost. Because Wikipedia is written overwhlemingly by nerds, who are systems-thinkers, the treelike structure of the schools of thought megasection, with its contrasts and delineations, has proven very appealing. It regularly grows far out of proportion, though I've tried to mitigate that in the past by exporting less crucial elaborations to anarchist schools of thought (a task which is, again, overdue). I have considered putting the (increasingly comprehensive, thanks to your entries) social movement section ahead of the philosophy one, but the former is too scattershot and segmented, lacking a unified chronological narrative, to function adequately as an overview. Skomorokh 01:53, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Image for Post War section

As it stands now this recently created section has no image. I will love to have this image of the establishment of the Federazione Anarchica Italiana in 1945 here. If someone who knows the process of doing that could do it it will be awesome. Otherwise of what is already available in wikimedia commons there is this nice photo of the great american anarchist thinker Paul Goodman who was an influential anarchist of this period. . So i leave this here in order to listen to your opinions or other suggestions.--Eduen (talk) 03:56, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Pardon the late response. Yes, I also would like the FAI image, but to secure it we would need to go through the process of securing the permission from the image owner, or prove that there is no image owner. I second that we move past this process for now and throw in the Goodman image. On a separate note, anyone else notice that the images on this page suffers from a severe vitamin E deficiency? Estrogen, that is. Only two women out of fourteen images. One is a cartoon. I suppose the black bloc kids shouldn't count, since we can't confirm sex under that frumpy clothing. What up with that, broseph? Where all my fly honeys at? Nobody told me this party was going to be a total sausage fest, bro! Ahem, all joking aside, some of the most appropriate images for each section will predominantly include men, and in general we do suffer for a lack of historical images since Wikimedia insists we prove anarchists won't sue for including anarchist images we "own". So anarchist women, as well as anarchist images from foreign language cultures, such as Japan, are getting shafted here. --Cast (talk) 16:35, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Byelf2007

1. Anarchism is not merely anti-statism

User:Byelf2007 says the following:

"your assertion is at odds with the article's definition of "anarchism" (so take it to discussion)"

He or she can only refer to this that i said in order to support my latest edition:

"anarchism is not reducible to anti-statism. the word anarchy refers to "rulers" in general)"

I invite User Byelf2007 and anyone interested to read the section of THIS article called "Etymology and terminology". There anyone can see this supported affirmation "The term anarchism derives from the Greek ἄναρχος, anarchos, meaning "without rulers",[22][23] from the prefix ἀν- (an-, "without") + ἀρχή (archê, "sovereignty, realm, magistracy")[24] + -ισμός (-ismos, from the suffix -ιζειν, -izein "-izing")."

The word "Rulers" doesn´t refer only to the state as the only possible ruler but can refer to any type of hierarchy or authority that one will encounter in different social contexts such as bosses, parents, hierarchies in bureaucracies, priests, the pope, teachers, husbands etc. This is the reason why anarchists have also been involved in activism to fight againts these hierarchies and so there have been anarchists involved in anti-psychiatry, anti-mass schooling, free thought and anti-religion activism, there is something called anarcha-feminism and something else called anarcho-syndicalism etc. All these hierarchies refer to non state hierarchies. This is the reason why this sentence that user Byelf2007 does not want to stay but that has a long time in the introduction already, has to stay:

"Anarchists seek to diminish or even abolish authority in the conduct of human relations,"

So anarchism is not just anti-statism. This is why I reverted your edition. Anyway it is only one sentence so it doesn´t take too much space but informs the uninformed reader about anarchism more exactly than the way this previously mentioned User wants. I think maybe the case is that User Byelf2007 is not informed too well on anarchism history and its philosophy. Frankly it is rather easy for me to find more references in order to support this important conceptual sentence. This is the reason I will proceed to add that sentence and shortly it will have more references to support it so there is no doubts.

Your argument is that "the word anarchism is derived from X, therefore, it means X." But it's just derived from something else. The definition of anarchism is whatever it is, regardless of what the word was derived from. If anarchism really is what you say it is, you need to explain why your panarchy link is better than the two we have already (in the first sentence of the article, this: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/anarchism, and the fact that anarchism has historically meant opposition to the state). byelf2007 (talk) 27 July 2011

Again. The word "anarchy" means "without rulers" and so than has been interpreted alongside no state also as having no bosses in workplaces, no capitalist or landowning feudal class, no authoritarian husbands, no parents deciding who their sons should marry or to overdirect their personal interests, no churches deciding personal morality, no authority in associations, no forcing of heterosexuality on homosexual people, etc. So anarchism considering both etymology and its history means "againts authority", not just "the state." Your pretention of "traditional" definition I think comes from poor information similar to a caricature, a prejudice or a vulgar notion of uninformed people. Considering the definitions that this dictionary.com includes this "definition" of anarchism "the methods or practices of anarchists, as the use of violence to undermine government". So of course this being a quick passing definition it will give you oversimplifications such as these which recall the old societary prejudice which sees anarchists as "violent people who put bombs" ignoring such things as anarcho-pacifism and christian anarchism and really the whole activism which is not violent per se that anarchists do.

This place being not a "dictionary" but an encyclopedia should go beyond prejudice, vulgar definitions and such and present a more full exposition of a subject. This means it cannot rely only in quick dictionary definitions.

Your obsession on erasing one sentence is really strange by this point. The sentence being of course "Anarchists seek to diminish or even abolish authority in the conduct of human relations".

But now you are proposing a big change in the structure of the article. Certainly this cannot go until you can obtain more adhesions to your proposal in this discussion section. I really don´t want the lowering of quality of this Wikipedia:Good article. I suggest presenting a draft of your proposal here first for evaluation, possible colective improvements or rejection.--Eduen (talk) 23:49, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

"The word "anarchy" means "without rulers""

No it doesn't. Maybe it did in ancient Greece, but about 99% of people in the last two hundred years (including most anarchists) have used it as being anti-state. Your argument is like saying "faggot" can only mean "a bundle of sticks."

"has been interpreted alongside no state also as having no bosses in workplaces, no capitalist or landowning feudal class, no authoritarian husbands, no parents deciding who their sons should marry or to overdirect their personal interests, no churches deciding personal morality, no authority in associations, no forcing of heterosexuality on homosexual people, etc."

According to whom? Some guy? What about the 100 other guys who say it's anti-state?

Anyway, taking a cue from the "anarchy" page, I'm going to change the first paragraph to include "has been variously defined by sources." byelf2007 (talk) 30 July 2011

It seems we cannot progress here. Somehow User talk:byelf2007 has an specific interest on reducing anarchism to anti-statism even though i have provided the reasons why anarchism is againts authority is general. Either whim or ideological reasons look like is the case here.--Eduen (talk) 01:23, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Your reasons are (as near as I can tell):

1 - "Anarchy" is derived from "no rulers", therefore, "anarchism" means "a world with no authority/rulers."

2 - And here are a couple guys who define it that way.

Just because the word anarchy originally meant "no rulers" doesn't say anything about what the word "anarchism" means--it means whatever people come to a consensus about it meaning. Again, recall my example of how the most popular definitions of words change all the time. What you'd need to do is find a lot of sources that define anarchism the way you think it should be defined (basically social anarchism), go over how the vast majority of the first big wave of anarchists in Europe in the 19th century were social anarchists as opposed to individualist anarchists, etc.

I'd also like to point out that the "anarchy" article (which I'm pretty sure I've never edited, at least not for a long time), says that there's various definitions, so your premise about it meaning "no rulers" looks to be false, not that it really matters.

I also don't think it's fair to say all anarchists seek to "diminish" authority in human affairs (what about the anarcho-capitalists? surely the private defense and court firms have authority, as well as the owners of large corporations, etc). Either the definition is your preferred definition, my preferred definition (which is currently the most popular one, right or wrong), or there's no definition which people have come to a consensus about. From what little research I've done into this issue recently, the latter looks like the case.

Furthermore, the revert change you made to the article makes it unclear. If anarchism means "no rulers", then no state seems to be a pretty obvious consequence. And if it's okay to just "diminish it" and be an anarchist, isn't that contrary to your "no rulers" argument?

My "whim" is simply for this article to be as accurate as possible byelf2007 (talk) 31 July 2011

2. Anarchism without adjectives

I don´t see a problem for that sentence to stay. I suggest User Byelf2007 to present here his arguments so as why that sentence shouldn´t go in the introduction. The inclusion of that reference has a long history of consensus.

The sentence says "X organization thinks thus and so and seeks to do thus and so." and I'm pointing out it does nothing to explain what anarchism is. I'm fine with it being in the article, but it shouldn't be in the overview--that's reserved for saying what anarchism is and nothing else. byelf2007 (talk) 27 July 2011

3. Socialism in individualist anarchism and individualism in anarcho-communism.

These two sentences clearly don´t mean the same thing:

"Some individualist anarchists are also socialists"

"some anarcho-communists are also individualists."

And they don´t take too much space but informs uniformed readers better about the spirit of anarchism. Individualist anarchism and anarcho-communism are not the same thing and so they have long different articles. Since these two afirmations don´t mean the same thing there is no redundancy.

But I don´t know why User Byelf2007 wants to keep "Some individualist anarchists are also socialists" and not "some anarcho-communists are also individualists." I hope this is not because of personal ideological preferences but the second sentence that User Byelf2007 is well supported by references and so he does´t have a good justification to take it out.

So I will proceed as mentioned before. User:Byelf2007 can very well defend his positions here and so i hope we will work here for the good of this article.--Eduen (talk) 04:47, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

My point was that saying "Some of X is also Y" and "Some of Y is also X" is clearly redundant. "Redundant" doesn't literally mean "the same". However, as communism and socialism aren't the same thing, I should really amend it to "Some individualist anarchists are also communists or socialists." byelf2007 (talk) 27 July 2011

That seems to miss the emphasis of "some anarcho-communists are also individualists", which implies 'I am first and foremost a communist anarchist, but also an individualist"; it also conflates anarchists who identify as individualists with the distinct ideology of individualist anarchism, which is problematic in itself. Skomorokh 01:45, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

These are good points. What do you think is our solution? I think the way it was originally worded was vague and cumbersome.byelf2007 (talk) 31 July 2011

After years of following this article, I came to the conclusion that every point made about the mutually hostile schools of thought was so intricate and controversy-prone that the best option often ended up being to stick as rigourously to the wording of the sources as possible. Sadly, this leads to sloppy or overwrought phrasing, you are right, but that's a bullet we've traditionally bitten. The better solution, I suspect, would be to hunt for reliable sources which directly address the issue in a nuanced way. Skomorokh 02:21, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

As far as perhaps the two most influential contemporary insurrectionary anarchists Wolfi Landstreicher and Alfredo Maria Bonanno, both have written a lot on Stirner and Landstreicher recently translated Stirner´s critics (Stirner´s reply to his critics of his time). Individualist anarchism and anarcho-communism have had both close friendly relationships (for example in Emma Goldman who admired both Kropotkin on the one hand and on the other Stirner and Nietzsche and campaigned a lot about "individualist" issues such as free love) and criticisms of each other. I didn´t add the part that was before in the introduction on anarchism without adjectives but I guess those who added it were motivated so as to show how people like historian of anarchism Max Nettlau has characterized all anarchism. As being in a sense both "individualist" (defense of individual liberty) and "communist" (for the common good). See for this Max Nettlau. "Anarchism: Communist or Individualist? Both" even though some anarchists will emphazise one thing over the other but anarchism without adjectives also points out that this separation between "social anarchists" and "individualist anarchists" is too simple and does not do justice to the complexity of anarchist schools of thought. ¿Are christian anarchists social or individualists anarchists? I could say both. ¿Are anarchopacifists individualists or communists? There have been both. ¿Are green anarchists individualists or communists? Thoreau was both an individualist and an early modern ecologist while Murray Bookchin was strongly Kropotkinist and founder of social ecology. ¿Is post-left anarchy communist or individualist?

So maybe we might have to deemphasize this separation between "social and communist anarchism" and individualism maybe providing information in the introduction about more recent schools of thought which do not adjust too easily within this "social vs. individualist" separation of Old Classical Anarchism and so I also argue for a mention of anarchism without adjectives in the introduction also for this reason. Anyway this discussion between "individualists" and "anarcho-communists" after the spanish civil war actually lost importance and the discussion between platformism and synthesis anarchism became more important as anyone can see by visiting the articles anarchism in Italy and anarchism in France. In the case of France after WWII in the establishment of the Fédération Anarchiste (which is a large organization that exists until today) it happened that anarcho-communists like Maurice Joyeux and individualists like Charles-Auguste Bontemps actually became allies against the platformists. --Eduen (talk) 03:42, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Re. Inline note

The following is an inline comment referencing a portion of the article. ^WG

This is a test note to serve as an example. --EpochFail^(talk|work)

Re. Inline note.

The following is an inline comment referencing a portion of the article. ^WG

testing from cmu

Dlsaldasndalsk

Test.

This is a test --EpochFail^(talk|work) 14:14, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Header	Header2
Foo	Bar
Hep	Derp

Creating note page for User:EpochFail/Sandbox

Creating note page for User:EpochFail/Sandbox

Creating note page for User:EpochFail/Sandbox

Re. Inline note

The following is an inline comment referencing a portion of the article. ^WG

test again

Re. Inline note

The following is an inline comment referencing a portion of the article. ^WG

Please cite John Riedl's work on anachronism. --EpochFail^{(talk • work)} 16:59, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Test

Test --EpochFail (talk • contribs) 16:27, 22 August 2017 (UTC)