From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Icon politics.svg

This Politics related article has not received a brainstar for quality. Please consider expanding the article appropriately. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.


Archives for this talk page: , (new)

violence and terrorism and ferguson protests[edit]

no doubt there were some at those protests protesting violently and could be called anarchists. lots of other people too. no idea if prominent activists at those protests were anarchists. no idea if those activists who later died 'in suspicious circumstances' were anarchists. if i am being generous, and agree that they were anarchists, what are are trying to say here? that anarchism, or their activities in support of anarchism is got them killed? 2 years after the protests? if that were so, the association with the bomb throwers this section highlights is an unfair one, as they are victims of violence, not committing violence. if they were indeed anarchists, it is unknown if anarchism had anything to do their suspicious deaths. white supremacists seem like more probable candidates, if they were all killed as a response for their activities during those protests. certainly who their families suspect had a hand in. if indeed their is anything suspicious about their deaths. 2 murders, unsolved and and apparently unrelated otherwise, 4 suicides. grieving families say suspicious circumstances, at least one suicide disputed by their mother, in her words her son was 'lynched'. might be true, might be simply a grieving mother. just as likely the only thing suspicious about the deaths is a text book case of black lives not mattering to the police.

As it stands, there is nothing to say they were anarchists, nothing to suggest anarchism was in any way related to their deaths whether their deaths were to do with ferguson or not, and in any case they are the victims here. i removed this section as the anarchism angle is tenuous and linking to their deaths as somehow to do with anarchist terrorism just does not fly. AMassiveGay (talk) 21:32, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

I have no problem with the removal. It looks like that section was added in June 2020 by Tuxer. Cored (covfefe) 14:22, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

The large scale problem section is not very good[edit]

The Dawn of Everything showed humans lived in decentralized large polities for millenia, also the section doesn't even tackle anarchism whatsoever. Its not very good and it needs to be removed — Unsigned, by: 2604:2D80:5E07:6500:0:0:0:E187 / talk / contribs

Please don't just unilaterally rewrite my edit[edit]

If anything you could add the bit that it's unknown if a confederation style of government could work without being under siege without rewriting my detailed description of the Zapatista political process. Carthage (talk) 03:06, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Ok I didn't see the edit summary. You're right that the Zapatistas probably deserve their own section, but I think my text should still be included as it is an accurate description of the Zapatista political process. Carthage (talk) 03:08, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
EC ok we need to stop talking past each other.
The section added isn't useless, but it's written as basically an advertisement for them. They'd be better off listed somewhere amongst the forms of anarchism, and I'd encourage you to do so. In practice, the Zapatistas have some anarchist leanings, but also capitalist leanings, along with tribalism, etc etc, and currently exist in a constant state of war with the Mexican government. This makes them similar to both Rojava and the Kibbutz systems, thus my rework. Cored (covfefe) 03:09, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
@Carthage Wait a sec I'm adding your work to the allegedly anarchist section. Cored (covfefe) 03:12, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
That's an acceptable compromise. I added the section in the first place to make it less incomplete, as anarchists have written about this subject and there are practical resolutions to this critique. There also exist forms of anarchism that aren't incompatible with market economies, including mutualism and left-Rothbardism. I also think that neozapatismo itself needn't necessarily follow a classical Western model of anarchism to be "anarchist", and either way it's still libertarian socialist. While we're at it we should add an article on libertarian socialism to the to-do list, as it is a bit broader than either anarchism or libertarian Marxism, both being pretty broad labels (there are forms of anarchism that are practically just anti-authoritarian Marxism and forms of anarchism that are as mentioned above economically centrist.) Carthage (talk) 03:17, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I think if anything this critique of mass society is more of a critique of individualist anarchism than it is social anarchism. Also thanks. Carthage (talk) 03:19, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Conflict avoided, hooray. I'm tempted to add the Kibbutz systems to the allegedly-anarchist section, though every wiki is nervous around the Topic That Shall Not Be Named. Cored (covfefe) 03:44, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Criticisms and Responses?[edit]

Would it be worth having a "criticism & apologism" section. I feel some of the more interesting parts of anarchist philosophy come from how it attempts to respond to common objections. That said such a section may need tweaking or a well established line of inquiry to be in line with the RW mission. Tikitime2 (talk) 12:51, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

How relevant is anarchism as a philosophy with the mission anyways? Anarchism is a political and ethical philosophy, not a field of pseudoscience or an authoritarian tendency. In fact anarchists are usually among the first to go to the chopping block whenever an authoritarian regime arises. I also know that others have raised suitable criticisms of other politically-focused articles as being mission-irrelevant before, or of misguided focus. Carthage (talk) 12:54, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
It's potentially quite a kooky political philosophy, at least taken on face value, so worth exploring - which is also why I think the better intellectual content is in how anarchists defend and adapt their ideas. As for authoritarianism, a lot of anarchists are just Maoists who haven't thought things through. In practise, the anarchists in Spain set up forced labour camps to "reform" their enemies, Nestor Makhno engaged in plenty of summary execution when he captured enemy officers - and to try and discipline his force that repeatedly engaged in banditry and anti-semitism. The reality is that anarchists, when they actually seized control of wider society, were generally forced to take the same kinds of measures they criticised everyone else for taking.
What's interesting to me is how humans can convince themselves that they are not being authoritarian through the use of political euphamism. That may actually make a look at the discrepancy between anarchist history and anarchist theory worth exploring from a RW perspective. Tikitime2 (talk) 13:45, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
Both Makhno and Catalonia were engaging in war-time settings, their very existence was threatened. Rojava also doesn't have a problem with reforming, say, ISIS militants that are going to commit acts of violence against the citizenry. Is that kooky? Societies don't operate in vacuums, and many social anarchists also don't have a problem with prisons as a concept per se, they have a problem with how it practically operates. And also, kooky in what ways? "Kooky" is not a valid concept in political science, it's a value judgement and buzzword. Is it "kooky" to say that authority, that is, the sociopolitical domination of human beings, is ethically questionable? I don't think so, because it's not pseudoscience, it's an ethical judgement. Is it "kooky" to say, with empirical evidence, that property is fundamentally rooted in systemic acts of violence (think ethnic cleansing of the indigenous and the forced closure of the commons) that are perpetuated to this day, and that landlordism is a fundamentally unethical mode of economic relationship, seeing as it exploits people's fundamental need for shelter and if people are priced out of the housing market they are violently removed from their housing through this exploitative relationship? I don't think so. So what about anarchism is kooky then?
Also, the phrase "a lot of anarchists are just Maoists who haven't thought things through" is a very questionable statement. Please clarify it. Carthage (talk) 14:01, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
What you point out doesn't merit anarchism being called "kooky" anymore than it does liberalism being called "kooky". The social contract theory for instance has been criticized as placing consent where there is none, and the liberal justifications for property have been criticized as ahistorical. I know that plenty of indigenous peoples still don't consent to governance, as you can't really "consent" to violent imposition of rule from a foreign power. It's fundamentally coercive no matter how you look at it. I think a big problem here is that liberalism has been allowed to mature as an ideology, whereas any attempts by anarchists are ruthlessly crushed. Remember once upon a time liberalism was an extremist ideology whose practitioners argued for and engaged in violence against the dominant sociopolitical systems of the time. We don't really know how an anarchist project in peacetime would turn out, whereas we do with liberalism. Many of the criticisms now lobbied at anarchist projects were once lobbied at liberal projects. "It's too mobocratic" (which itself is a normative judgement with no place in the sciences) was lobbied at both the early American republic and the French Republic. Carthage (talk) 14:19, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
Take it easy @Carthage. I said it is potentially quite kooky on face value. The first part alludes to the crankier aspects of say anarcho-primitivism and other avant-garde insurrectionary strains, the second part to how anarchist ideas can seem crazy if someone has not had the anarchist position properly explained or clarified to them.
As for my Maoist comment - I am talking here primarily about anarcho-communists. Generally AC's, reject the traditional Marxist-Lenninist idea of appropriating and redirecting pre-existing institutions, in favour or radically accelerating towards a desired end goal, and believe that mass-participation necessitates the removal of misleading & reactionary elements in education, media, politics etc. This sets the stage for both a 'great leap forward' and a 'cultural revolution'. Mao's quotations (the famous little red book) is full of pleas for the importance of treating prisoners/opponents fairly, engaging with compassion and deferring to democratic decision making. It's easy to be a saint in theory.
'But if they didn't do X, they would have been destroyed' is a perfectly fine defence. It is however notable that such a defence is almost never accepted by anarchists when marxists or liberals use it. Everyone thinks there brand of authoritarianism isn't really authoritarianism because they "had no other choice". Which is kind of my point. Tikitime2 (talk) 15:21, 25 July 2023 (UTC)


Perhaps a mention of this poem? Anna Livia (talk) 13:15, 25 July 2023 (UTC)