Revision 172665867 of "Talk:.ľ-ľAGGĖR.??" on enwiki

{{talkheader}}
{{ArticleHistory
|action1=FAC
|action1date=21:45, 1 Mar 2004
|action1link=Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/Index/June 2003 to January 2004#Anarchism
|action1result=not promoted
|action1oldid=2588948

|action2=GAN
|action2date=01:40, 21 March 2007
|action2link=Talk:Anarchism/Archive 49#Good article nomination
|action2result=not listed
|action2oldid=116671833

|currentstatus=FFAC
}}
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=
{{philosophy
|small=
|nested=yes
|class= A
|importance=High
|A-Class= 
|social-and-political=yes
}}
{{WikiProject Sociology|nested=yes|class=B|importance=High}}
}}
{{Round In Circles}}
{{calm talk}}
{{WP1.0|v0.5=pass|class=A|category=Philrelig|VA=yes|small=yes}}
{{controversial|small=yes}}
{{archivebox|auto=yes}}

__TOC__

==Archives==
A descriptive list of talkpage archives can be found here:[[Talk:Anarchism/Archives]]

== See also section trimmed ==
In the interests of shortening the article, I have removed the following from the "See also" section:
;Historical events;
* [[Paris Commune]] (1871)
* [[Haymarket Riot]] (1886)
* [[High Treason Incident]] (1910)
* [[Ukrainian Revolution]] (1918-1922) (see also [[The Free Territory]])
* [[Kronstadt rebellion]] (1921)
* [[Amakasu Incident]] (1923)
* [[Sacco and Vanzetti]] trial (1927)
* [[Past and present anarchist communities#The autonomous Shinmin region .281929-1931.29|Shinmin Free Province]] (1929-1931)
* [[Spanish Revolution]] (1936) (see also [[Anarchism in Spain]])
* [[May 1968]], France (1968)
* [[WTO Ministerial Conference of 1999 protest activity|WTO Meeting in Seattle]] (1999)
* [[December 2001 riots (Argentina)|Argentine riots]] (2001)

;Books
{{main|List of anarchist books}}
* [[Mikhail Bakunin]], ''[[God and the State]]'' [http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bakunin/godandstate/godandstate_ch1.html]
* [[Emma Goldman]], ''[[Anarchism & Other Essays]]'' [http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/goldman/GoldmanCW.html]
* [[Peter Kropotkin]], ''[[Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution|Mutual Aid]]'' [http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/4341]
* [[Pierre-Joseph Proudhon]], ''[[What is Property?]]'' [http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/360]
* [[Rudolf Rocker]], ''[[Anarcho-Syndicalism (book)|Anarcho-Syndicalism]]'' [http://www.spunk.org/library/writers/rocker/sp001495/rocker_as1.html]
* [[Murray Rothbard]], ''[[Man, Economy, and State]]'' [http://www.mises.org/rothbard/mes.asp]
* [[Max Stirner]], ''[[The Ego And Its Own]]'' [http://www.df.lth.se/~triad/stirner/]
* [[Leo Tolstoy]], ''[[The Kingdom of God is Within You]]'' [http://www.kingdomnow.org/withinyou.html]
* [[John Zerzan]], ''[[Future Primitive and Other Essays]]''

Please feel free to integrate anything useful here into the main body of the article. <font color="404040">[[User:Skomorokh|Skomorokh]]</font> <sup>''[[User talk:Skomorokh|<em style="color:#000000;font-style:normal">incite</em>]]''</sup> 14:17, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

:The following external links have also been removed:
* [http://libcom.org libcom.org] - Anarchist forum, library, and news service based in the UK.
* [http://www.greenanarchy.org GreenAnarchy.org] - a magazine site of the green anarchism branch
* Jesse Cohn [http://neme.org/main/310/anarchism-representation-and-culture Anarchism, Representation, and Culture]
<font color="404040">[[User:Skomorokh|Skomorokh]]</font> <sup>''[[User talk:Skomorokh|<em style="color:#000000;font-style:normal">incite</em>]]''</sup> 14:31, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

:: The removal of these sections really damages this article. An an '''encyclopedia''' entry should be encyclopedic and not trimmed for arbitrary reasons. You are also wrong to remove links to Libcom and Green Anarchy, two of the more prominent anarchist websites out there. [[User:Chuck0|Chuck0]] 18:23, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

:::Thanks for commenting, Chuck. The See also section was not trimmed "for arbitrary reasons" - see also sections are for links to a limited number of related articles that are unlinked to in the text. [[:Template:Anarchism]] renders the Historical events section entirely redundant. What would you like to see done with the books exactly?

:::I'm willing to accept that those websites might be important; I only removed those because they seemed too narrow - libertarian communism and green anarchism are not the subject of this article. As for the Cohn article, it could very well be accommodated here, but as a reference, not an external links. Wikipedia has very particular [[WP:EL|policies on external links]] - they are for general resources that are not [[WP:RS|reliable sources]] but provide extensive info on the subject. Looking forward to hearing your constructive suggestions. Regards, <font color="404040">[[User:Skomorokh|Skomorokh]]</font> <sup>[[User talk:Skomorokh|<span style="color:black">incite</span>]]</sup> 19:30, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

== Structure of the article ==

At present, the article is structured broadly as follows: Intro, Origins, Schools of thought, Social movement, Issues, Criticism. Is this ideal? Should more weight be given to some areas and less to others? Given that anarchism has historically been much more prevalent in previous centuries, should the article, as [[User:Bacchiad]] suggests, take a predominantly historical approach? We could for instance, incorporate the Social movement and Schools of thought into a main History section, followed by an expanded "Anarchism today"/"Contemporary movements" section, Issues and Criticism. 

The article at present practically ignores anarchist acitivism since anti-fascism in Spain, when I would that argue anarchist activism ([[Battle of Seattle]], [[Black Bloc]], [[27th G8 summit|Genoa protests]] etc.) is the primary association most uninitiated readers would have of anarchism.

How are scholarly overviews of anarchism structured? What would an ideal Wikipedia article on Anarchism look like? Thoughts, opinions, comments welcome. <font color="404040">[[User:Skomorokh|Skomorokh]]</font> <sup>[[User talk:Skomorokh|<span style="color:black">incite</span>]]</sup> 13:36, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

:We'd want, I think, to avoid a purely chronological approach.  That's for [[History of Anarchism]].  The breakdown here should indeed be more thematic, but yeah, I think we could take a less abstract/theoretical approach in general.  Let's take some time to look over other broad overview articles and see if we come up with anything good.  [[User:Bacchiad|Bacchiad]] 14:13, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

== Reliable sources ==

For the new contemporary anarchism article/section, I think we need to proceed very carefully with our sources, otherwise nobody will be satisfied and it'll be a waste of time. My suggestion is that we itemize the criteria found in wikipolicy and whenever new source is used, we come to a consensus about which criteria that source satisfies. We should probably decide ahead of time how many of the criteria a source should meet before it is conisdered reliable for the purposes of the article. This way, all sources are judged by the same standards. [[User:Aelffin|Aelffin]] 21:22, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
:Excellent idea. <font color="404040">[[User:Skomorokh|Skomorokh]]</font> <sup>[[User talk:Skomorokh|<span style="color:black">incite</span>]]</sup> 18:32, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

== Topics in Contemporary Anarchism ==

Looking through this page and the other anarchism articles on Wikipedia, I've made a list of some of the more recent topics in anarchism (roughly in the last 15-20 years). This list is in no particular order, but I think the best order for the article would be reverse chronology, starting with the very recent Common Ground Collective and moving back toward Anti-Racist Action, Love & Rage, RAAN, and ending with a "related articles" section that points to articles on historical anarchism. [[User:Aelffin|Aelffin]] 03:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

*[[Food Not Bombs]]
*[[Anti-Racist Action]]
*[[Alter-globalization]] / [[anti-globalization]]
*the [[Fair Trade]] movement
*Anarchism on the [[internet]]
*[[WTO]], [[G8]], [[World Bank]] riots & [[protest]]s
*anarchists in the [[Anti-war]] movement
*[[Guerrilla News Network]]
*[[Common Ground Collective]]
*[[Institute for Anarchist Studies]]
*[[NEFAC]]
*[[RRFM]]s
*[[Pacifica Radio]]
*[[Love and Rage]]
*[[SALA]]
*[[Institute for Social Ecology]] / [[Municipalism]]
*Recent books about anarchism / mention of anarchism in the mainstream media
*[[Bob Black]]'s writings
*[[Murray Bookchin]]'s theories
*[[Noam Chomsky]]'s political writings & talks
*[[Howard Zinn]]'s history writings
*[[David Graeber]]'s [[Fragments of an Anarchist Anthropology]]
*The [[Battle in Seattle]]
*The [[Poll Tax Riots]]
*the [[A-Infos]] radio project
*[[Red & Anarchist Action Network]]
*[[Biotic Pie Brigade]]
*[[Black Bloc]]s
*Anarchist [[book fair]]s
*[[Infoshop]]s
*[[Infoshop.org]]
*Influence from Italian & (especially) German [[Autonomen]]
*Influence from Ghandian pacifism
*Influence from Quaker peace activism
*Influence from South America
*[[Argentina]]'s [[post-privitization]] collapse
*[[Zapatistas]]
*[[Especifismo]]
*[[Social Insertion]]
*The revitalization of South American socialism
*[[Crypto-anarchism]] / [[Linux]] / [[hacking]] / [[P2P]] technology
*[[The Yes Men]]
*[[Erase the Border]] movement
*[[Michael Albert]]'s [[Parecon]]
*Seattle's [[Tent city|tent cities]] & [[Street family|street families]]
*[[Travelers]] & [[trainhoppers]]
*[[Burning Man|Burner]] culture, [[gift economies]], and anarchist [[gathering]]s
*[[RABL]]
*[[Arsenal magazine]]
*[[Zmag]] / [[Znet]]
*''[[Green Anarchy]]''
*[[Green Anarchism]]
*Anarchist takes on [[veganism]]
*[[Zerzan]], [[Feral Faun]], & controversy over [[anarcho-primitivism]]
*The enduring legacy of [[anarcho-punk]] ([[Rage Against the Machine]], [[Against Me!]], other bands)
*[[Freeganism]]
*the [[DIY]] movement
*[[Libertarianism|American Libertarian]]s, [[Mises Institute]], and controversy over [[anarcho-capitalism]]
*[[Temporary Autonomous Zone]]s
*[[Democracy Now!]]
*[[CrimethInc]]
*[[Critical Mass]]
*[[AK Press|AK Books]]
*revival of [[Students for a Democratic Society]] 
*[[World Social Forum]]

:Much of this is not specifically anarchist in character, and the rest looks mostly like material for a sub-article or articles. [[User:Libertatia|Libertatia]] 19:30, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

::I believe all of these have had enough influence on recent developments in anarchism to be mentioned. Some more than others, sure. But anarchism isn't isolated from the culture at large, and its increasing overlap with the broader left and others has been a major shift in recent years. [[User:Aelffin|Aelffin]] 21:43, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
:::Anarchism has ''never'' been "isolated from the culture at large," though arguably it may be ''moreso'' now than it has been in other periods. The point is that while all of these more-or-less "anarchist" issues are interesting, they're not for the most part essential to an understanding of anarchism ''per se'', which is the subject of this article. A separate article sounds useful. [[User:Libertatia|Libertatia]] 18:04, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
::::Oh sorry, this is in reference to the above conversation where I did suggest making a new article about contemporary anarchism. Actually, I suggested either making a new article ''or'' rewriting this one to be about modern anarchism and moving most of the content of the current article to entries on the history of anarchism and anarchist theory.  [[User:Aelffin|Aelffin]] 11:39, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
:::::As far as anarchism being isolated from the culture at large... That may have been true twenty years ago, but it's definitely on the upsurge of one of its many waves. So you can see where I'm coming from here's my anecdotal history of anarchism in a nutshell: Early on, it was mainly theoretical, but it became caught up in the broader socialist/labor movement of the late 19th century. It reached a peak just before the first Red Scare, then went back to being mostly theoretical in the 1950s. By the 60s, the second Red Scare had driven anarchism and socialism at large almost totally underground. It had a brief resurgence when it got caught up in the counterculture of the late 60s and then went through a sort of dark age in the 70s and 80s, when nobody paid attention to or understood the movement, even most people who identified as anarchists. During that period, it found a home among the punk DIY folks, who are really responsable for keeping it alive. However, the relative lack of theory and practice led to a whole array of reinterpreted niche versions of anarchism, some of which bear little resemblance or connection with anarchism proper, but all of which has fed into the current revitalization. At the end of the 80s, there was a brief spurt of activity with a few localized activist groups. Soon, there was an explosion of new anarchist organizations that spread really quickly. I think the reason for the spread was that anarchism found a comfortable home among the Burners and piggybacked on their cultural vitality, and spread with the help of their development of early online organizations, like the Well. Once that happened, and propelled by successes in Seattle and online, anarchism broke out of its relative isolation and became a moving force again. These days, you can't swing a dead cat at a meeting of *any* kind of activist without hitting somebody who calls themselves an anarchist. So, maybe it's more isolated than in its heyday of the early 20th century, but it's definitely undergoing a renaissance. Hell, we're in an era where anarchists run their own media outlets, Hollywood promotes anarchism on the big screen and anarchists run the first relief organizations to start rebuilding New Orleans. At the very least, we're in the second or third largest wave of anarchism. I would say there's a strong case for the 2000s eclipsing the 1910s as the real heyday of anarchism... but I have a feeling we ain't seen nothin yet. :) ...oh, and I should mention that this is all relevant to North American anarchism. South America is a whole different world, and anarchism there has really had a life of its own (and probably what instigated the current revitalization in the north). I think of European anarchism as being a bit stagnant, African anarchism as almost nonexistant, and Asian and Austrailian anarchism as outgrowths of North American anarchism. [[User:Aelffin|Aelffin]] 14:22, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
::::::Well, that's about as ''ahistorical'' an account of anarchist history as I've encountered, being even more presentist and self-congratulatory than most contemporary accounts. It certainly strengthens the case for making the contemporary anarchism article ''separate'' from this one. [[User:Libertatia|Libertatia]] 15:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
:::::::Haha... well, admittedly it's the impression of somebody who's optimistic about the future of anarchism. But I'm wondering what strikes you as ahistorical about it. Regarding "presentism"; it is without a doubt a vital and active movement today and I know from personal experience that this is a major shift. Can I back that up with reliable resources? I think I probably could. How vital it is compared to earlier times is anyone's guess and I gave my guess above. Still, I think the main article for any active movement should cover the current state of that movement, and history and theory ought to be relegated to articles on those topics. But that issue is one that needs to be hashed out by a larger group of editors. So, I'll make you a deal... I won't stubbornly insist on my point of view if you don't stubbornly insist on yours. [[User:Aelffin|Aelffin]] 22:05, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
::::::::Optimism about the future of anarchism is one thing, and has little or nothing to do with analysis of its present or past circumstances. The present and historical vitality of the movement, and its "isolation from the culture at large" are not "anyone's guess." They're questions that can and should be answered based on real data. The only thing I'll "stubbornly insist on" is that we do not significantly edit an article that represents a long process of research, conflict and compromise on the basis of "optimism" and an apparently stubborn indifference to the data, except as it advances some current "optimistic" agenda. That is presentism. [[User:Libertatia|Libertatia]] 16:21, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
:::::::::*'''On Rewriting''': I'm not saying that we need to radically rewrite the current article immediately. But I do think that focussing on modern developments is the direction we should be moving. It would be more informative for your average Wikipedia browser, and it would hold the dusty history lessons off for those hearty souls who truly want to dig in. Call it presentism if you like, but I call it providing the most useful and relevant info up front. I mean, should we start the article on President Bush with a geneology dating back to the pilgrims? Of course not; it makes more sense to start with "George W. Bush is the current president of the United States". Same approach goes for most articles IMHO. 
:::::::::*'''On Data''': Do you have academic studies that deal with statistically significant samples to compare the numbers and activity of anarchist activists over the last two centuries? If you do, ''please'', put it in the article. I would pay to see such a study (actually, I'd prefer to do a work-trade thing). The fact is, you don't have real data either because real data on this subject are almost nonexistent. You have what I have... anecdotal accounts, and the interpretation of these accounts to draw broader conclusion is, in fact, anyone's guess. The literature is filled with stories of individuals and groups and what they did when. The literature is singularly devoid of sociopolitical analysis of the movement itself. By Wikipedia rules, all that can be presented is a representation of what the literature holds. So, the main question is which era of literature should we focus on? I maintain that we should focus on the modern literature, but I'd be happy to just get a little bit of balance for starters. [[User:Aelffin|Aelffin]] 14:39, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
::::::::::Apples and iguanas. If George W. Bush had been born among the pilgrims, then ''yes'', of course we would start there. Anarchism dates to the 1840s, and most of its basic tenets and insights were formulated prior to the 1940s (even though the term "anarchism" did not itself get much use until the 1870s.) You won't find the "statistically significant academic studies." They're not out there, and thus don't enter into the question one way or another. But the notion that, in the absence of those, the interpretation of vast amount of primary source material is "anyone's guess" is laughable. In any event, the question of what should be in ''this entry'' is fairly straightforward, given Wikipedia's particular guidelines and biases. Freeganism and Burning Man might have some connection to anarchism, but they do not in any way define it, and significant academic studies suggesting that they do will probably be more elusive than anarchist demography. An article on ''stuff anarchists do'' or ''stuff anarchists dig'' is fine with me, but that stuff is not the most significant information about anarchism. Rage Against the Machine fans might disagree, I suppose. We've been working for some time now to create a lean overview of the basic history (to the extent it is citable) and the basic theoretical issues. It is already difficult to adequately summarize those things, so that we can get readers off to the sub-pages where the real information is. What you seem to be proposing just clutters that up, and there are other ways to represent these contemporary and only more-or-less anarchist issues. [[User:Libertatia|Libertatia]] 19:36, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
:::::::::::Apples and iguanas indeed. And do we fill those articles with the paleontologic history of apples and iguanas? Of course not; that would be bass ackwards. So why should we do it with anarchism? Again, the interpretation of a vast amount of source material to extrapolate to broad conclusions on the vitality of the movement in different eras is firstly, so subject to interpretation that it might as well be anyone's guess (our differing opinions illustrate that), and secondly, original research. Burning Man and Freeganism may indeed be less significant than, say, the Common Ground Collective and IndyMedia, sure. Nonetheless, most of the above topics ''are'' either areas of significant anarchist activity today, or have had significant impact on modern anarchist theory and practice. My point is that it makes more sense to start with anarchism as it is today. From that starting point, we can delve into the historical precursors of modern anarchism and the theoretical minutiae that shaped its distant past. [[User:Aelffin|Aelffin]] 07:07, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
::::::::::::''Right''. We start with "the enduring legacy of anarcho-punk," and add a little Proudhon as it seems useful. Your assumption that the current content is "paleontological" tells it all. I myself might prefer listening to A.P.P.L.E. to reading Godwin, but that's no criteria for inclusion in an encyclopedia article. [[User:Libertatia|Libertatia]] 17:54, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
:::::::::::::Look, you can caricature me all you like, and you can accuse me of trying to push an agenda or whatever, but aside from [[WP:AGF]] issues, the fact remains that you have only brought up two serious arguments. '''(1)''' It would be a waste to throw the current article out the window since a lot of work has gone into it, and '''(2)''' that the defining features of anarchism were developed early in its history. 
:::::::::::::*'''Point 1''' As I already said, I agree; the current article should not be scrapped and replaced immediately. Rather, I think that any future state of the article should also be the result of a long process of research, debate, and compromise. As should all Wikipedia articles. But it's asinine to construe that point into an argument against ever significantly rewriting an article. The better approach is to debate the merits of a number of possible structures, and allow the structure to evolve as a result of the consensus process. To that end, I am trying to get the ball rolling on a debate over one possible structure.
:::::::::::::*'''Point 2''' Again, I agree. The defining features of anarchism have been present from its inception as a political movement. Namely, opposition to "masters" and "sovereigns" as Proudhon put it. The interpretation of what constitutes a master or a sovereign has changed over time. But most of current anarchism grows directly out of this basic tenet. As a matter of fact, these changing interpretations are exactly what have propelled the historical development of the movement. And *that*, I think, is the legitimate subject of this article. We should spell out how modern anarchists conceptualize their tenets, and then move backwards into earlier interpretations of those tenets. 
:::::::::::::Anything less is pastism. [[User:Aelffin|Aelffin]] 19:55, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Now, can we please debate the actual merits of these two differing approaches instead of simply dismissing them based on personal opinion? As I see it, the main advantages of the current approach are that it presents a very large overview of a huge time period in a relatively small amount of space, and that it relies on very well established literature. The main drawbacks are that it presents a highly stilted view of anarchism as a set of interrelated theories rather than as an evolving social movement, and that it almost totally ignores the present state of that movement. On the other hand, my approach would have the weakness of any chronological approach (namely, that it would be more difficult to skim the article for specific bits of information), and it would involve very carefully coming to consensus about citability of sources since some of the more recent sources (though there are many) are less well established. The biggest advantage is that it presents the information most relevant to your average reader up front. (I say this because I think that the average reader is probably coming to this article to research a movement they most likely heard about from internet debate, an anarchist friend, or a news report, which means they're coming here to research modern anarchism.) Another advantage is that it would present anarchism in an historical context, spelling out its relationship to other political movements. And last, but not least, I think it would go a long way towards alleviating the endless arguments between anarcho-capitalists and socialist anarchists. It would appease the anarcho-capitalists because it would dedicate a larger amount of space to the subject since that is one of the most widespread debates in the movement today. Yet, at the same time, it would appease the socialist anarchists because it would highlight the contested nature of anarcho-capitalism. I think these strengths outweigh the weaknesses. [[User:Aelffin|Aelffin]] 20:37, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Reasons to oppose the proposed changes:
*1. Many of the topics proposed are simply not anarchist in character, though they may be of interest to anarchists
*2. The sense of anarchism as "an evolving social movement" is actually the very thing that the historical approach we are currently taking was designed to deliver. The degree to which the entry currently fails in that probably has more to do with the constant pruning of "inessential" elements than with basic flaws in the design of the article. With the rather artificial length limits imposed on the article, there will always be these pressures. The inclusion of anarcho-punk will necessitate the exclusion of some other element, perhaps equally deserving of main-article inclusion. It would be nice to see anarcho-punk and pantarchism included in this summary article, which should, ideally, be as inclusive as possible ''within the limits of its actual topic''. That means, in practical terms, not including things which are not essentially anarchist in character. 
*3. The separation between "modern anarchism" and the material presently included is partisan, unnecessary, and involves an evaluative process that can almost certainly not be supported by appropriate sources. 
*4. It is probably desirable that an encyclopedia entry not simply cater to the sense of "anarchism" our relatively uninformed readers bring with them, before they have read the entry. This isn't a recruiting tool, and doesn't have to pander to any standards of hipness.
*5. Our an-cap editors seem to be equally convinced that all that matters is present-day forms of anarchism. Unfortunately, they are also convinced that they are representing the contemporary mainstream of anarchism. The presentist approach is likely to only increase the amount of sectarian nonsense here. 
I am not against articles on any or all of these topics, but I am against turning this encyclopedia entry on its head by making dubiously anarchist material the focus. [[User:Libertatia|Libertatia]] 15:57, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

:I took the liberty of numbering your responses so I can reply:
:*1. The relevance and significance of the topics I suggested can and should be debated on a topic-by-topic basis. As far as this illusive “anarchist character” you refer to… I just don’t understand the distinction you want to draw between “things that anarchists do” and whatever sorts of activities it is that you consider to have some essential “anarchist character”. Seems like a false essentialism. My view is that anything that anarchists do that is consistent with the central tenant of opposition to “masters” and “sovereigns”—however those things are interpreted—is in fact anarchist activity, whether or not it has the root “anarcho-“ appended to it. Obviously, taking a dump is not going to be treated, but not because it is a "non-anarchist" activity, but because it isn't a rallying point for anarchists. Some other things that may not be explicitly anarchist are significant enough rallying points that they ought to be treated. So, for example, the regional burns that have been happening all over the country may not be explicitly anarchist, but they are working examples of gift economies, a topic so closely related to anarchist economics that you can hardly talk about one without talking about the other. 
:*2. You say the article is intended to portray anarchism as an evolving social movement, but you forget that “evolving” is in the present tense, and you aren’t recognizing the difference between a ‘’social movement’’ and a ‘’political philosophy’’. A political philosophy is what happens on paper. A social movement is what happens on the ground. They’re related, but they are not the same thing. What the article currently shows is anarchism as a strictly book-bound political philosophy that at some time in the past evolved to a certain state and froze there around 1935 (with a special exemption clause for Murray Rothbard, whose work gets to extend well into the 1950s). 
:*3. While I agree that modern anarchism and older states of the movement should not be treated in isolation, I think a cursory look at the literature (not to mention common sense) shows that the character of anarchism has changed constantly throughout its history. I think you’re actually much more guilty of drawing a false separation by insisting that some concocted ideal past state of anarchism is worthy of discussion in the article while dismissing everything that’s happened in the last half century as though the two topics could somehow disentangled. I’m not sure what you mean about “partisan” in this context. Care to elaborate? 
:*4. ''Pandering'' to the ill-informed is not something I advocate. So, of course we don’t want to encourage the stereotypical Molotov cocktail caricature of anarchism except to explain where that view comes from. But it is emphatically *not* ill-informed to recognize that anarchism is a living movement. (In fact, it is ill-informed to imply the opposite.) ''Catering'' to the ill-informed, on the other hand, is the very purpose of any reference work. An encyclopedia informs people. The functionality of an encyclopedia is proportional to how accurate it is ''and'' how well it directs you to the topic you’re looking for (not to mention how comprehensive it is). It sounds like you’re saying that if a person says to you “So, what about those anarchists at the G8 protest?” your reply would be “Wrong. Read Kropotkin.” I don’t understand that position at all. As far as citable sources goes, I’ve already admitted that it will make our jobs much harder to rely more heavily on recent sources. But I think we’re up to the job. 
:*5. Believe me, the last thing I want to do is throw a bone to the an-caps. However, we have to accept that their insistence on being part of anarchism is causing a lot of friction within anarchism proper. I think the best way to alleviate that friction is to clearly spell out the terms of the debate: Ancaps say they are the legitimate heirs to individualist anarchism, and all other anarchists say that anarcho-capitalism is not anarchism at all. I can see how focusing on the arguments could lead to more friction, but pretending we’re all one big happy family would be lying. The fact is, no matter which side is right, nobody can deny that it is a major debate. At least if we deal with it up front, nobody will be able to accuse the other side of censoring their views. 
:I'll try and reply tonight to your earlier criticisms on some of the specific topics on my original list. [[User:Aelffin|Aelffin]] 17:18, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
:::Listen. Most of the things you are proposing to discuss are being discussed. Not all of them belong on this page. If the terms of the debate between anarcho-capitalists and social anarchists (and the dozen shades of gray in between) could be addressed in summary form on this page, trust me, we would have done so by now. I have said, and will say again, that I am not in any way "dismissing everything that's happened in the last half century." I've been a fairly active participant in a number of those decades, thanks. As for the "book-bound" character of the entry, I think you're just responding to Wikipedia's "summary style," which is essentially required for this sort of top-level entry, and to the fact that Wikipedia edit wars tend, nearly always, to reduce the details that bring a social movement to life on the page down to a bare minimum. Beyond that, I think I've said all I care to. Edit or don't. See if anyone else will buy your model for reorganization. If you can get consensus, I'll simply move my attention to other pages, where the job to do is more clearly defined and labor is unlikely to be simply wasted. [[User:Libertatia|Libertatia]] 18:46, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
::::Well, in the event that some indutrious editors start acting on my advice, I hope you'd consider sticking around in order to help develop some clearly defined goals and to ensure that the work that went into the current version doesn't get wasted, but gets smoothly incorporated into future versions of this or another article. Wouldn't it be more of a waste to throw in the towel? Anyway, it's a moot point right now since you and I are the only ones discussing it. Is there some alternate way to add more up-to-date information to this article that you ''would'' be in favor of? [[User:Aelffin|Aelffin]] 00:16, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

== Newer schools of thought ==

Anybody oppose changing the header '''Contemporary schools of thought''' to something like '''Recent schools of thought'''? The way it is implies that older schools of thought are not held by contemporary anarchists. [[User:Aelffin|Aelffin]] 23:29, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
:It doesn't sound like a professionally-written encyclopedia exactly. <font color="404040">[[User:Skomorokh|Skomorokh]]</font> <sup>[[User talk:Skomorokh|<span style="color:black">incite</span>]]</sup> 23:42, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

:I agree with Aelffin's reasoning here, but I think the "Contemporary schools of thought" title should be changed to something like "Other schools of thought." I don't see any good reasong to partition off the other schools of thought above that section as if some of them aren't contemporary. [[User:Operation Spooner|Operation Spooner]] 06:17, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

::I agree. Current title implies that all other schools are now extinct. [[User:Vision Thing|-- Vision]]  [[User_talk:Vision_Thing|Thing --]] 18:00, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

:::The issue here, I think is that the monstrosity of a Schools of thought section isn't quite sure whether it is a historical or theoretical section. If historical, anarcho-capitalism and green anarchism at least should be relocated to the contemporary/20th century section. Anarcho-syndicalism has, it seems, died off as a potent force, while the outcome of the discussion above seems to indicate that mutualism and individualist anarchism only live on significantly in Carson and the anarcho-capitalists respectively. If theoretical, I'm not sure what right anarchism without adjectives or collectivist anarchism have in terms of notability to be included, or what the point is in dividing by school rather than by distinctions such as individualism vs. collectivism, tactics, economic theories, etc. Thoughts? <font color="404040">[[User:Skomorokh|Skomorokh]]</font> <sup>[[User talk:Skomorokh|<span style="color:black">incite</span>]]</sup> 18:37, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
::::The most significant issue is OR informing editorial direction. It may seem to you that individualism is no longer significant, but I spend my days corresponding with a very large network of individualists and mutualists. Some of our an-caps think social anarchism is in its death throes, but I'm not convinced. My IWW friends probably don't think anarcho-syndicalism is irrelevant. Aelffin seems to think the historical record of anarchism is so inconclusive that no solid conclusions can be drawn. As a movement historian, I have a different sense. But Wikipedia has set us guidelines that make all of this fairly straightforward: we can only include the most oft-repeated material from the secondary sources, or correct them with the most uncontroversial of primary material. A developmental, quasi-historical approach at least gives us a narrative spine--movement history--that's relatively uncontroversial. Any topical arrangement is going to be subject to ultimately intractable debates about the meanings of terms, the validity of dichotomies, etc. Take "individualism vs. collectivism," for example. Both terms have contested meanings in the literature. "Collectivism" refers to a specific school, as well as a tendency identified by ''some'' observers. All we can really hope to do with this page is to create a link-rich summary. Readers can then decide ''themselves'' whether they're more interested in pantarchism or peace punk. [[User:Libertatia|Libertatia]] 20:23, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
:::: Do I need to remind people that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a popularity contest nor a forum for original research on which strains of anarchism are alive or dead. Given Wikipedia's thousands of articles on trivial topics, a section on "anarchist schools of thought" should certainly be as comprehensive as possible. There may not be many anarcho-syndicalists out there, but they probably outnumber the "anarcho-capitalists" out there. Our polling at Infoshop (a widely respected primary source in the anarchist movement) indicates that there aren't as many anarcho-syndicalists as there used to be. But a section on anarchist schools of thought would be a flagrant joke if it didn't include a section on anarcho-syndicalism. One of the more prominent anarchist journals in North America is Anarcho-Syndicalist Review, so you can dismiss a school of thought that has at least one regularly publishing magazine. [[User:Chuck0|Chuck0]] 04:27, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
:::::Realistically, there are probably still more anarcho-syndicalists around than most of the other branches combined. They just tend to be quite a bit older and therefore have less of a web presence than some of the more ''ahem'' marginal schools. [[User:Aelffin|Aelffin]] 05:56, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
::::::The problems are (1) anarchosyndicalism doesn't have one defining post-revolutionary model, like the other schools, it has one common revolutionary strategy, and several different post-revolutionary models, (2) many authors who are considered anarchosyndicalist contrast their positions with narrower definitions of anarchosyndicalism; many anarchist or anti-state Wobs did so, (3) many authors who are not considered syndicalist in any sense called their positions syndicalism, e.g. Sorel, the Falange, etc. (4) "Anarchism in the labor movement" and anarchosyndicalism almost completely overlap. - M.U. [[User:72.66.34.151|72.66.34.151]] 04:14, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
:::::::...which is to say that anarcho-syndicalism is a broad concept with fuzzy borders, like most other trends in anarchism. Weeee! Always keeping things interesting. :D [[User:Aelffin|Aelffin]] 20:48, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
::::::::I don't see, however, that the fuzziness is really a ''problem'' when it comes to what we include on this page. It can be addressed on the appropriate subpage. Here, we just need to get readers ''to'' that page. Chuck0's comments on inclusion seem about right on in terms of inclusion. [[User:Libertatia|Libertatia]] 21:08, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
:::::::::There's a thematic unity to mutualism, individualism, communism, and collectivism, as well as anarchism-without-adjectives; they describe various modes of economic organization ''in anarchism''. And when green anarchism discusses economics, it often does the same. But syndicalism describes certain modes of economic organization ''to get out of capitalism''. After that, different syndicalist writers propose different solutions. [[User:72.66.34.151|72.66.34.151]] 06:38, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
::::::::::It would be easy to contest, to take one example, the characterization of mutualism as primarily economic, or its focus on organization "in anarchism." But even allowing the "thematic unity," the question is about including ''anarcho''-syndicalism, not syndicalism in general. [[User:Libertatia|Libertatia]] 17:56, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

==Green Anarchism==
I don't think that the section on green anarchism is fair. It presents green anarchism as a current wich is more or less primitivist and/or anti-civlizationist. As there are a number of green anarchist currents and some, perhaps most notably, social ecology and inclusive democracy, are neither anti-technology nor anti-civilization I think this section needs to be updated. I might not be the person for the job though since my English isn't the best. [[User:Joje86|Joje86]] 10:42, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
:I agree, the article seems to use "Green anarchism" as though it is synonymous with "anarcho-primitivism". This is a little tricky, because a lot of anarchists ''do'' use the two terms interchangeablly. For the sake of clarity, I think the article needs to explain that there is a huge spectrum of green anarchists from pro-tech environmentalists all the way over to anti-civilization/anti-culture/anti-language (and even anti-''thought'') extreme primitivists. But in the loosest sense, almost all anarchists are "green anarchists" in that most throw in with the mainstream of the environmentalist movement. [[User:Aelffin|Aelffin]] 20:45, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
::The section is marked as in need of a rewrite; perhaps if one of you were prepared to summarized the referenced elements of the [[Green anarchism]], the issue might be resolved? <font color="404040">[[User:Skomorokh|Skomorokh]]</font> <sup>[[User talk:Skomorokh|<span style="color:black">incite</span>]]</sup> 00:33, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
:::I'll try and make it down to the local infoshop to pick up some materials. Just a little busy for that lately. [[User:Aelffin|Aelffin]] 11:48, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
::::Have made a start. [[User:Bobfrombrockley|BobFromBrockley]] 13:12, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
:::::If at all possible, can we try to avoid [[weasel words]]? "Some green anarchists are x, while some are y" is an uninformative formulation. Better to say "Anarcho-primitivists are green anarchists which X, while eco-anarchists..." etc. <font color="404040">[[User:Skomorokh|Skomorokh]]</font> <sup>[[User talk:Skomorokh|<span style="color:black">incite</span>]]</sup> 13:16, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
::::::I agree that the more specific the better, but I think you misunderstand the term ''weasel word''. A weasel word is "a word that is intended to, or has the effect of, softening the force of a potentially loaded or otherwise controversial statement." The statement "Some green anarchists are anarcho-primitivists while some are eco-anarchists" is indeed informative, though not as informative as giving actual percentages or precise definitions. But in neither case is there a weasel word. (Notice that the word "some" does not appear on the list of weasel words.)-- [[User:Aelffin|Aelffin]] ([[User talk:Aelffin|talk]]) 19:20, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
:::::::You're inference is flawed. Regards, <font color="404040">[[User:Skomorokh|Skomorokh]]</font> <sup>[[User talk:Skomorokh|<span style="color:black">incite</span>]]</sup> 18:41, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
::::::::How so? [[User:Aelffin|Aelffin]] ([[User talk:Aelffin|talk]]) 02:23, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
:::::::::I believe he meant the request regarding weasel words and the request for clarity to be taken as seperate ideas. But this is only my assumption, and it does read rather as if the sentences are related. ~ <span style="font: small-caps 14px times;"><b>[[User:SwitChar|<font color="#FF0000">Swi</font><font color="#000000">tch</font>]]</b> <font color="#800099">([[User talk:SwitChar|<font color="#800099">✉</font>]][[Special:Contributions/SwitChar|<font color="#800099">✍</font>]][[User:SwitChar/Gallery|<font color="#800099">☺</font>]][[User:SwitChar/Userboxes|<font color="#800099">☒</font>]])</font></span> 04:51, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
::::::::::Oh, I see. Well, if that's what he meant, then we're in total agreement. [[User:Aelffin|Aelffin]] ([[User talk:Aelffin|talk]]) 17:24, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
:::::::::::Splendid. Is the latest version of the Green anarchism section any better? Without sources, it's rather futile changing things around, but i tried to remove some of the pseudo-authoritative statements. I hope I haven't mischaracterized anything the original authors intended. <font color="404040">[[User:Skomorokh|Skomorokh]]</font> <sup>[[User talk:Skomorokh|<span style="color:black">incite</span>]]</sup> 17:31, 19 November 2007 (UTC)