Talk:Anarchism/Archive1

This is an archive page, last updated 13 May 2021. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:

<2>, <3>

, (new)(back)

Topic

I deleted the following line:

"Also, most 'anarcho'-capitalists are actually statists (who wish to privatize the monopoly over force in the hands of a few, and dislike democracy), even by the Weberian definition used by Ayn Rand."

While I don't disagree regarding the views of some self-professed an-caps, the article would better serve a "rational" purpose by offering arguments pro and con on this issue, rather than asserting an obvious opinion from one side in a vacuum. Gobligok 23:40, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

load of shit

"Some anarchists are Marxists". I stopped reading at that. From an Anarchist perspective Marxism is just another form of statism (see vanguard party, withering away of the state). 85.221.147.47 15:06, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Do you know what the word "some" means? It's kinda key to understanding that sentence, BON. RaoulDuke 15:10, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Probably just a case of "No True Anarchist" - the group of anarchists I know had a massive barney over whether they could do anarchy-by-committee, so in practice the definition can be pretty loose. ^moral 15:23, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

TL;DR version: you're wrong, I'm right. Bore everyone to death as a "form" of proving a point.

It's like saying "some Christians are also Muslim/Jewish". All forms of Marxism (Leninism, Maoism, Stalinism and more obscure ones) support "withering away of the state" which is antithetical to Anarchism, both left- and right-wing. See how in the very Communist Manifesto Marx argued that there should be created a national bank, all means of production nationalized, etc. It's Lenin who made a distinction between "socialism" (a transitory period) and "communism" where the state has "withered away". Also, everyone but left-communists are vanguardists, which are as visible to Marxists as Zoroastrianists are visible to theists.

It would have made total sense to say that "Some Anarchists are Communists", though. Though they differ how exactly "from everyone according to their ability to everyone according to their need" is implemented. (Anarcho-)Communism is more utopian than Collectivism. And there's Syndycalism which has its quirks (see CNT-FAI during the Spanish Civil War). 85.221.147.47 15:42, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

My understanding of what it means to be a Marxist is that you use "Marxist analysis," something that several different versions of anarchists use. Researcher 16:20, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that's far too many "ists" and "isms" for anyone to actually care about so now it's all a case of arguing definitions and semantics, which is, frankly, quite boring. ^moral 16:31, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Technically, all Marxists are anarchists, having the final goal of seeing the State abolished; most who call themselves "anarchists," however, do not redefine "the State" to mean "the mechanism by which the ruling-class dominates the workers." ListenerX^TalkerX 18:40, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Not all Marxists are anarchists, or even communists. A Marxist historian, for example, doesn't necessarily have to suport a Marxist system of government, or abolition of personal property or the state. What makes him or her a Marxist is applying Marxist theory in his or her field of scholarship. I'm not sure about your most who call themselves "anarchists" statement; most anarchists I've met consider class systems to be as oppressive as the state. Wéáśéĺóíď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 19:23, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Remember that Marxism is a whole world-view, not just a political philosophy. The difference between a Red politician and a cultural Marxist is analogous to the difference between a Dominionist politician and a "creation scientist" (pushing the same world-view in different spheres).

To the Marxist, "State" and "class system" are all but synonymous terms. The primary difference is, I believe, that the anarchist program calls for abolishing the State in aid of abolishing class-differences, while the Marxist program calls for abolishing class-differences in aid of abolishing the State. ListenerX^TalkerX 19:44, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I know this is an ancient argument, but perhaps it would be more accurate and less controversial to state that some anarchists are Marxians. While there may be some anarchists who would refer to themselves as Marxists, you will find a great deal more who will say that their ideas are informed by Marx's writings (as were Bakunin's BTW) but would never call themselves Marxists.24.47.128.55 (talk) 21:10, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Begging the question

On the section "Modern anarchism" is stated

"They generally have no idea how things like abortion and scientific-based policy would be decided"

This assumes government by mentioning policy, and then attacks anarchism on that regard. It is much like the bad apologetics the community oh so vehemently makes fun of, such as saying the Bible is the word of God because it says so, and the Bible is true because it is the word of God.95.14.215.211 (talk)

OK, what would be the correct wording then?--Just relax, and stay funny (talk) 16:02, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

There can't be any. In anarchy, policy is irrelevant, much like how in atheism, prayer is irrelevant. 95.14.215.211 (talk)

Are you being obtuse, or do you not understand the issue?--Just relax, and stay funny (talk) 22:46, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Russia and Serbia in...Asia?

p tell me this is a joke please.202.171.163.7 (talk) 09:40, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Fixed. Nullahnung (talk) 09:45, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

onoz edit warring

No reason to take those three out, especially when it clearly says right there in the article that most anarchists reject anarcho-capitalism and anarcho-primitivism. Secret Squirrel (talk) 13:19, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Extreme Moonbattery?

I'm not so sure about this being in the extreme moonbattery category. While some of these versions of anarchy are usually considered nutty (i.e."Post-left") many here are also more than defendable (collectivism, mutualism, etc.) and we seem to be tossing those under that category as well. For instance a lot of the ideologies on the Libertarian page are cranky but we don't toss the whole ideology under extreme wingnuttery since their are some defendable versions (civil libertarian), and if anything this wiki usually holds libertarian socialist political philosophers as more rational than right-libertarian ones. The only times we should toss an entire ideology under one of the extremes is when its crazy beyond a shadow of a doubt (such as hard greens), or has been "tested" enough to show there's no rational reason to keep following it (such as fascism). ClothCoat (talk) 22:10, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Those categories are meaningless. Wēāŝēīōīď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 22:25, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

lol ok well I took it out hope nobody minds. ClothCoat (talk) 22:54, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Thoughts on the organizations section

I don't want to rain on the parade and the section has had this form for a few years now ever since a BoN started adding everyone and their dog's anarchist organization which seems rather redundant and somewhat like advertizing as we do not list for example communist or fascist organizations in their respective articles. The Libertarianism article does list a few entities but in that case RW has articles on most of them. I believe a link at the bottom to the Wikipedia article should suffice and be more appropriate. If the section should be expanded, I believe it should name some interesting current and historic examples and analyze how they function(ed) and/or stay(ed) consisted with anarchist ideals (for example CNT entering the Spanish Republican government or to which extent Makhnovists were capable of implementing anarchism in Ukraine ), which would also fit the section's leading paragraph. ∈ NameThatNobodyTakes (✎) 19:46, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

I think the list is allright, assuming there are no dead links and they are all in fact open-and-shut cases of anarchist organizations. It should be sub-sorted per country, however. I could do that. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 19:59, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Questions on adding "Manarchism"

Hi, new editor here, so excuse any ignorance that may be within the following

I wanted to ask if I could add the concept of Manarchism (I.e a peculiar tendency with "privileged" Anarchists to view the struggle of women, minorities, and LGBTQ as lower priority to revolution) to this article. Even though I subscribe to Anarchist philosophy, so I may come off as biased, I am aware that this is a problem and would want it held up to scrutiny. Furthermore, I may be mistaken as to whether or not the topic belongs in this category. Any help I can get would be greatly appreciated! Cheers--Deadwing^wut? 16:51, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi there! If you have good sources to back up your claims, and know how and where to best fit your addition into the article (see our manual of style for pointers), just go for it! Worst case, you get reverted. All the best buddy, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 20:19, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you bunches! I am a tad uneasy that I can find relevant info within the vast clusterfuck of my browser bookmarks for references, since I'm convinced my English professor gave me PTSD over citing references. At any rate, I'm bound to find more if what I have is insufficient. Better start small, right?--Deadwing^wut? 21:45, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Better to start small, assuming the small changes are based around what sources you do have. Also, could possibly be even better still to just work in the "Show preview" mode and pasting your work into a .txt file. Then, after you've spent some time at it, you'll be ready to paste a semi-big portion of text with all the sources you originally wanted (and which the claims require). It's up to you, really. As long as you stick close to sources, you'll be fine. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:11, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Green Anarchy vs. Green Anarchist

Green Anarchy was published out of Eugene Oregon. John Zerzan was one of the editors. The British magazine was called Green Anarchist.JasonM (talk) 04:55, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Far Right?

I can understand Anarcho-Capitalism being excluded for having Capitalism. But being far right? Who wrote that, Chomsky? We're moderate right, at the farthest. ^{— Unsigned, by: Kyle / talk / contribs} 20:34, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Based purely on economic position, which is technically the only qualifier that's supposed to be used when placing somebody on the political spectrum, ancaps are most certainly far-right. I disagree somewhat with that label, as "far-right" often brings to mind extreme nationalism and authoritarianism, neither of which apply to anarcho-capitalism on paper (you tend to find Pinochet apologism in many circles, so in practice the "anarchism" is a bit of a loose term). Of course, I prefer not to simplify things like that in the first place, since its name is pretty self-explanatory anyway. Spriggina (tal) (framlög) @ 06:14, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

It depends on the ancap in question. The ones that subscribe to Hoppe more often than not end up going to full-blown fascism. Richard Spencer, Christopher Cantwell and Christopher Chase Rachaels are pretty well-known fascists that openly admit Hoppe was the starting point for their turn towards fascism/white nationalism. TokenSkepticMagician 21:28, 27 July 2018 (JST)

I have modified the section in question slightly to make this clear without classing all anarcho-capitalists (there are left-libertarians after all) as far-right. 2A00:19D8:7:101:596:3838:878E:6D68 (talk) 12:05, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Article needs massive overhaul

Our mission statement includes

2 Documenting the full range of crank ideas; 3 Explorations of authoritarianism and fundamentalism;

While Anarchism is ostensibly the polar opposite of Authoritarianism, horseshoe theory notwithstanding, it generally involves a heap of fundamentalism and crank ideology interspersed among the general good idea of "maybe society shouldn't arbitrarily deign some people 'better' than others". We really should delve more into how, ultimately, at its best it's mostly wishful thinking by academics who've never actually had to manage anyone other than fellow academics.

Anarchism began as a rejection of the heirarchies of the established institutions such as nobility which rewarded accident of birth, religion which rewarded cronyism, capitalist societies which reward less on contribution and more on the ability to seek rents, and expanded into racist and sexist institutions which rewarded accident of skin color or genitals or attraction or what have you. The idea was to instead have a society that was perfectly flat, or at least close to it, where virtually no one had any power over any other, or perhaps in the less stringent forms, have it be a true meritocracy where your power is only proportional to your actual contributions to society. This breaks down rapidly when you realize that

• Not everyone is equally qualified in every field, and ultimately you need, say, a surgeon general to lay the smackdown on dubious medical practices
• No matter how wealthy your society is, you will always have assaults and rape and so forth, so you ultimately need a police and judicial system, and all the ideas about "well, we will have people's councils making the arrest and deciding guilt" are obvious insanity, so you still need professional judges and a well trained police force, in which case you still have some people with power over others
• Truly anarchist societies would have trouble organizing megaprojects such as highways, hydro-dams, space programs, nuclear power plants, etc. While anarcho-primitivists likely have no problem with this, most people who like to live in the society with working electricity. For these to function, you still need a government in place to push people out of flood zones, you need to force people to adhere to pollution controls, and once again, you have a police force. While yes, you could make the police much more egalitarian and meritocratic and so forth, but that already exists in parts of the world where the sheriffs are elected.

CoryUsar (talk) 02:31, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

No one is saying there isn't things the government doesn't do that aren't necessary; instead we're just saying those responsibilities should be decentralized. Also, anarchism rejects what they consider UNJUST hierarchy, meaning if an expert in some field weighs in on a particular situation, we'd still listen to him because in that situation we'd consider him to be an authority on said topic, and as such it would be a form of justified hierarchy, if you will.

As for your other points, it all depends on the anarchist in question. Some are for complete prison abolition; personally I'm a bigger fan of what Rojava is currently doing, but then again even as an anarchist I don't agree 100% with conventional anarchist talking points. Same goes with your suggestion we'd need someone for planning megaprojects because we'd have piss-poor communication problems: certainly, if we go with Kropotkin's idea of just forming small autonomous communities then yeah you're gonna have issues, but other anarchists realize if we need to function on a global scale we sorta need each other, and as such you'll need to communicate with other cities/countries. Fortunately, the internet is a thing so we definitely can communicate with each other and plan those sort of things. TokenSkepticMagician 21:50, 27 July 2018 (JST)

I am going to rewrite this article to fit the mission statement, make it more organized and streamline and focus on the Wiki's mission. I am not going to rewrite it all though.Tuxer (talk) 19:26, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

What's your problem with "Non-traditional" vs "Not Anarchism"?

Why keep renaming it to "Not anarchism"? The movements themselves make good arguments for why they could be considered anarchist (or not), and the descriptions of each are pretty fair... It should be left up to the reader to make up their own mind on "how Anarchist" something is, not any given wiki moderator. Jauffere (talk) 20:51, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

The only point at which I acted as a "Moderator" was when I locked the page due to a recurring edit war starting up again. As for whether or not something is anarchist... Yeah, you can't really have an extreme far-right ideology defined by its empowerment and literal worship of the state and hierarchical structures and have it be compatible with the complete opposite. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 21:50, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

"National anarchism" is fascist and antithetical to anarchism. "Anarcho fascism" is the same. Plus "non traditional approaches to anarchism" doesn't have the good snark that this wiki likes. And it also isn't true. Ancaps also might fall under the same camp (hoppeans etc) or they might be a bit closer to anarchism when they aren't the fascist-ancap kind, but they still go nowhere near far enough in criticizing power to be considered properly anarchist. Codefuser (talk) 17:08, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

What qualifies as sucess?

@Oxyaena wrote that the Zapatistas were "successful", but what qualifies it as such? Any metrics at all? Also, using "anarchy in action" (anarchist wiki) doesn't fulfill the wikipedia standard for verification. With ideologies like social democracy at least we have ways to measure "success", like life expectancy, HDI, etc.

The fact that it's still functioning after all these years and has stood up to military and economic pressure surely counts for something, right? — Oxyaena ^Harass 08:36, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

By that standard, North Korea is a "successful" example of socialism. Godless Raven 🌹 ^Heretic 10:34, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

North Korea isn't even "socialist." It's fascist, state capitalist neo-monarchist. — Oxyaena ^Harass 13:25, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ I edited the section in question anyways to include a better source, you can piss off with your concern trolling now. — Oxyaena ^Harass 13:38, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

If "managing to survive for X period of time under adverse conditions" is a measurement of success, then there have been many "successful" movements, religions, bogus medical treatments, conspiracy theories etc. Indeed, almost anything currently extant (or historic for that matter) would be a success under that definition - making it not every useful.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 13:46, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

@Godless Raven Okay, that's a fair compromise. — Oxyaena ^Harass 14:22, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Stop whitewashing the article, I wait until the mods have a resolution for your behavior, because it's not acceptable. — Godless Raven 🌹 ^Heretic 14:51, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

It's not whitewashing, you dick. — Oxyaena ^Harass 15:11, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

it's whitewashing by definition. EK (talk) 04:46, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

in practice

whats the point of this section? a list of failed attempts isnt really 'in practice' and doesnt tell me why they failed. with that heading 'in practice' then immediately open with 'here are some failures' seems like a pissy way of suggesting that anarchism cannot work. considering the examples given, it seems less a failure of anarchism and more of being violently suppressed. AMassiveGay (talk) 16:42, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Delete the section until someone can write a better one? ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 16:55, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

If Oxy didn't sabotage the section I could edit it. But so far I haven't seen the mods act on Oxy's bad behavior so we're stuck. — Godless Raven 🌹 ^Heretic 17:15, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

I defer to my previous comment. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 17:22, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

I didn't sabotage shit, you fuck. You're deliberately poisoning the well, fuck you. — Oxyaena ^Harass 19:02, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

you are whitewashing and then accusing anyone who offers criticism of poisoning the well when no such activity has taken place. Then when it's not going well you start insulting and harrassing and trying to ban. EK (talk) 04:46, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

It's not whitewashing, AMassiveGay and I already pointed out that the section named "failures" wasn't due to any inherent fault of those anarchist communities, but due to military suppression. — Oxyaena ^Harass 05:24, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

hmm yes I wonder why a political system that promotes not having a government is prone to falling into military hands. Definitely not their fault right. EK (talk) 09:53, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Whitewashing what? Lazy criticism? How exactly is this any different from Ken writing an "essay" on why Atheist websites are all doomed to failure? I gain no information from the disputed section by reading it, and I'm more familiar with the subject than the average reader may be. I say do away with the whole section and be done with it. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 12:07, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Reinstate the section and make better criticism then. Whitewashing is not something you should do if you actually care about intellectual honesty. I won't revert it, but trust me, someone else will. — Godless Raven 🌹 ^Heretic 12:23, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

@Godless Raven You and EK refer to the removal of this section as whitewashing. Exactly how is it whitewashing? How have I, by removing the section, changed the overall tone of the article to be excessively in favor of Anarchism? ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 12:27, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

its not as if the article in general is especially pro anarchism. its pretty neutral by all account, essentially summaries of its various forms. i get not sense that anarchism or any part of is a valid or or even effective idea. just what it purports to be anarchist thinking. its only pro anarchism in the sense it does not just come out and say its unworkable nonsense. its certainly not going to skew the neutral tone by inclusion or omission of this section. its just dross. i'd say put it to a vote just to be done with it, but what for? theres nothing here. just remove it. AMassiveGay (talk) 13:08, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Too late, already reverted. Just like I said. — Godless Raven 🌹 ^Heretic 13:27, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

@Godless Raven So you're just going to gloat and offer no arguments? ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 13:57, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

EK

@EK That's a perfectly good edit you just reverted. Don't do that. — Oxyaena ^Harass 04:05, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

you’ve just won the prize for least self-aware RW editor. Ace^Moderator 04:34, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

your edits on this page so far are still no good. Your sources are a particular issue. EK (talk) 04:42, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

The "fejuve" seems more like a local community organization rather than a true anarchic system. Unless our local HOAs count as anarchy? Didn't read the other link for the excess of jargon and alcohol. Although you can blame me for the alcohol--"Shut up, Brx." 04:49, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

@EK Wrong, my sources are academic in nature. — Oxyaena ^Harass 05:17, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

@Oxyaena "Academic"? Are they peer reviewed? Are they verifiable? Are they falsifiable? Are independent organizations looking into them? Let us know. — Godless Raven 🌹 ^Heretic 06:12, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Why don't you read it yourself? Stop pinging me and harassing me, I want nothing to do with you. Oh, and btw, Wikipedia is not a valid source to use, no matter what Brx, who never edits mainspace, says. — Oxyaena ^Harass 08:14, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia absolutely is a valid source to use. How many times do I have to tell you this? Gold Brain articles use Wikipedia as a source. It is perfectly appropriate to use it. And insofar as mainspace edits, I've made substantial contributions in my day. And if that's not good enough for you it doesn't matter. This is a wiki. A collaborative effort. You are not the emperor of RationalWiki. You are subject to the feedback and criticism of other editors--"Shut up, Brx." 14:08, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

there seems nothing wrong the links to me. please explain the issue you have with them. please explain why a pissy 'better source needed' tag is needed. explain the pointless list while you at it. zapatistas in chiapas seem more 'in practice' than a short list offering no more comment than that they were failed attempts. the anarchy in action article seems even handed enough. its not making or in support of any controversial claims. it just explains whats been going in chiapas with more detail than the earlier link to wikipedia. why is a better source required? the tag seems not to have been made in good faith to my eye.

is all redundant anyhow. it would be best to remove this section. theres already an 'in practice' section, effectively. its the 'Anarchist Organisations' thats ends the article, and thats a list that could probably do with some trimming while going into more detail of some of the more notable examples. the chiapas example could certainly do with a closer look for whats been achieved. its continued existence is a success in itself. AMassiveGay (talk) 09:09, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

and its already gone. AMassiveGay (talk) 09:14, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

You don't have the right to just revert stuff when there a lot of people opposed to doing so. I just ask EK to revert your stuff later if you are not willing to engage in any civil dialogue of how to edit the article. — Godless Raven 🌹 ^Heretic 09:53, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

explain it then. justify it. how or what am i supposedly 'whitewashing'?. the section is as pointless as it is redundant. AMassiveGay (talk) 09:59, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

There is no critical section in the article, it is ridiculously slanted, and you and Oxy are actively removing the section without consulting anyone else. Let the section stay, debate the issue on the talk page. Don't just revert or otherwise me might need to hash this out with the mods because this is clearly not in the spirit of ratwiki. — Godless Raven 🌹 ^Heretic 10:25, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

i have not removed anything and you have not addressed any of my points. it takes more than 1 person to edit war. if you want debate, then debate. ive not seen much here though, just bickering children. AMassiveGay (talk) 10:37, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ What part of the page would you say is critical of Anarchism and not a propaganda piece? — Godless Raven 🌹 ^Heretic 10:41, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

i dont care. my issue is with the in practice section, because of folks inability to play nice is clogging up receent changes and ive got nothing better to do. its piss poor criticism if thats what you think that section is, being a short list of examples that are no longer around. wheres the criticism? examples that are no longer around due to being violently suppressed. how is that a criticism of anarchism? AMassiveGay (talk) 10:55, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

See, you don't even care, you are just concern-trolling. Unless you are able to point out a section critical of Anarchism or you are willing to collaborate to make the section in question better, why are you even here? Go do something else. — Godless Raven 🌹 ^Heretic 11:12, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

are you going to address my points or not? i thought you wanted civil dialogue but you dont want to discuss what is at issue - the 'in practice' section and ive made it clear i think its redundant and should removed. criticism of the ideology would better fit in sections that look at that, while criticism of its practically require a closer more in depth look at existing or historical instances, which would fit better in the list at the end of the article. the in practice section not does provide any of that, doesnt provide criticism at all. claims of whitewashing on the talk page doesnt do it either. AMassiveGay (talk) 11:37, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

As far a criticism of Anarchism, I don't think that the section works, if only because the societies it mentioned do in fact seem to have collapsed due to external causes, as some other editor mentioned. If we're thirsty for real life examples, maybe a section devoted to what I'm sure is a vast amount of failed hippy communes and the criticism of their former members would be more appropriate (but that might be considered a spurious definition of anarchism). Criticism of anarchism is welcome on the site, our mission is not to defend anarchism. But it's worth it to do so properly. And Oxyaena needs to remember that this isn't RadicalWiki, we are not a mouthpiece for her political views--"Shut up, Brx." 14:04, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

That's irrelevant, I haven't tried inserting my political views into mainspace, I`m simply trying to make the article more accurate. — Oxyaena ^Harass 14:06, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Your emotional attachment to your conception of accurate betrays your intention--"Shut up, Brx." 14:08, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, sure. This is coming from a wiki filled with people who know next to nothing about anarchism. — Oxyaena ^Harass 14:10, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘I've modlocked the page. I know those with the tech userright have the technical ability to still edit the page, it would probably be advisable to refrain from doing so until consensus is found and a mod removes the protection. --RWRW (talk) 15:16, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Appraisal of sources

Let's have a neutral party conduct a review of my cited paper and see if it's reliable or not.

The journal database info is here:

[1]

The paper listed is here:

[2]

The about page for the journal in question is here:

[3]

I await with bated breath. — Oxyaena ^Harass 16:25, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

I thought you retired--"Shut up, Brx." 16:28, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

oxy is not retired for long ever. EK (talk) 16:04, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Remove the disputed section

Sorry to dredge this up again, but it seems like a low effort section which several users including myself have criticized at this point. So, with that being said why not simply hold a vote? ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 14:27, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Remove

1. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 14:27, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
2. for reasons already stated above. AMassiveGay (talk) 15:34, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
3. Féinléiriú (talk) 16:35, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
4. In the form as is, definetly remove. Techpriest ^{(I am Alpharius! / / / )} 18:36, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
5. Shoddy workmanship...-Flandres (talk) 18:37, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
6. — Oxyaena ^Harass 18:57, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
7. Better citations needed to keep it, preferably from non-self-serving sources. Bongolian (talk) 19:01, 18 June 2020 (UTC) As well as better context for the first part. Bongolian (talk) 19:11, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Keep

1. Socdem gang. — Godless Raven 🌹 ^Heretic 14:50, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

   The social democracy page could do with improving, its "real criticism" seem to involve A) Race Realism B) median income, which from country to country is meaningless, e.g. an American doing the same job as me earns more but still eats due to living costs and the debt it'd take them to get the same qualification as me. It might be more worth your time than these not wrong but incredibly low effort retweet style edits of yours on other articles Féinléiriú (talk) 15:54, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

   The social democracy page was probably written by someone on the far-left, it needs massive changes (compare how much zeal went into the anarchism page vs. the social democracy page). I think this is the wrong page to make the complaint, though. — Godless Raven 🌹 ^Heretic 16:26, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

2. Keep but heavily modify so it's less of political against anarchism, expand the information present and include historical context.--Tuxer (talk) 18:47, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
3. obvious keep. There is no advantage to whitewashing the page. EK (talk) 18:54, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

   Nothing about removing a shitty Twitter-tier section counts as "whitewashing." — Oxyaena ^Harass 18:58, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

   I thought you retired, now suddenly no more. Interesting. — Godless Raven 🌹 ^Heretic 19:01, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

   Can we please avoid another childish flame war? Ok kids? Ok. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 19:08, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Goat

I kind of think that large parts of the article need to be trimmed. I don't think we need so much detail about all the different sub-sects, and I don't think we need to link to a vast number of anarchist organizations. We are not "Anarchist Wiki" (though sometimes I wonder).Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 14:42, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

I concur--"Shut up, Brx." 14:44, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

@Bob M I'm mainly focusing on this specific section at this time, as it seems to fail in its purpose, as well as being low effort in general. If you want to focus on trimming the article I'm not opposed to that. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 14:53, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

@Bob M It also needs a section critical of anarchism; it reads like a propaganda piece, filled with dogma. — Godless Raven 🌹 ^Heretic 17:07, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

That's my thought, I'm not opposed to deleting the section in question as it feels unnecessary and tacked on, but much of the article doesn't seem to be very mission-oriented. There's some tangential relation to the guidelines in that some of anarchism can be seen as the ying to authoritarianism's yang, so we probably need something... and there's also some anarchist movements (like anarcho-primitivism) that get very cranky, so that should be noted... but we don't need this level of detail per se. Soundwave106 (talk) 17:32, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

tbh this article is pretty neutral in tone, and it is critical in parts. its too long is its main issue. as for the specific edits in hand, thats not criticism of any kind, its couple of wikipedia links. it adds nothing and says nothing so whether the article is a whitewash or not is unaffected if it stays or goes. and if it were a criticisms section its in the wrong place. AMassiveGay (talk) 21:12, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

It is not neutral, that much is clear to anyone with any sense of critical thinking. By the way the vote is going, the anarchists are winning the mob war anyway so the propaganda page can stay as it is. I am not going to edit Anarchism anymore because we have a structural issue in which certain ideologies are above criticism. — Godless Raven 🌹 ^Heretic 21:43, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

I am not an anarchist. Your edits are dog shit and jut out like sore thumbs but good cope Féinléiriú (talk) 22:03, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Yeah Raven, I am pretty sure Oxy was the only anarchist who voted to delete, and furthermore delete had a majority before she did vote, so you were not mobbed by scary anarchists at any point in this process.-Flandres (talk) 22:14, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

You may believe that, but I'm just gonna add the censored section to my userpage and let other, reasonable people judge for themselves. It has references, the quotes and links to the Wikipedia articles if they want to learn about the failures of Anarchism. Keep gloating, though. — Godless Raven 🌹 ^Heretic 06:38, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

I personally think the quote sniping is shit tier. I don't know if anarchism has an inherent antisemitism problem if one proponent spewed vile antisemitism. I'd want to see it inherent to the ideology, repeated by its proponents and if that can be shown, fine go ahead. So far there's just a one liner referencing one book. I know a business man who said the N word once, does that mean Capitalism has a racism problem? Not from that alone. Féinléiriú (talk) 17:54, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Surely there's more examples that can be called upon or anti Semitic acts carried out. Telling me it has a problem because of one man from the 1800s is a bit disingenuous me thinks, but das just me Féinléiriú (talk) 17:58, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

There's an ideology called national anarchism that we already cover, and Proudhon's mix of founding anarchist beliefs with paranoia against Judaism and incredibly sexist attitudes could be seen as a foreshadowing of the movement. I don't think the "Antisemitism among Anarchists" section really belongs in this article personally, it's a trite section; most anarchists are not antisemitic or sexist from what I can tell, either historically (Joseph Déjacque, another famous early anarchist, called Proudhon's sexism out) or present day. Those that are typically are covered under the national anarchism movement, which I understand is minor and most other anarchists hate. If anything, I'd move the Proudhon bits to the national anarchism history section as a footnote. Soundwave106 (talk) 18:30, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

If anarchism has an anti-semitism problem, I'm sure there must be some articles or blog posts describing and documenting the issue--"Shut up, Brx." 18:28, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

@Soundwave106 As I understand it, "National Anarchism" is vehemently shunned in Anarchist circles due to its bigotry and its violation of core anarchist principles. I could be wrong on that though, since I don't hang out in a lot of Anarchist spaces, only a few. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 18:32, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

I guess. — Godless Raven 🌹 ^Heretic 18:34, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Fully in agreement with Bob and Soundwave here. I do think we need an article describing the basics of what Anarchism is, just as we describe other ideologies. That said, the article as is goes into way too much detail on not super relevant information. As the page is right now, we go way too much in-depth on describing the subgroups of anarchism, with little rhyme or reason as to why we're doing that. Most of the information there could be condensed to a few smaller paragraphs, with the main streams of thought being able to get a more specific segment explaining them (or expand them in their own articles, when there's reason to do so). Contrast this with our page on Socialism, which is more succint in describing the various schools of thought, even though there are about as many socialist ideologies as there are socialists. I also voted for remove based on the notion that I don't think that the paragraph as is should be retained. It goes too close through the corner on attempting to describe what on all accounts should be the main element of the page (compare to Communism, where we discuss moreso the issues with Communist governments rather than issues with the ideology itself, although we do plenty of that as well). The same would've gone for the version that has been tried to get edit warred in. Techpriest ^{(I am Alpharius! / / / )} 18:46, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

The article does need trimming with just a general explanation of anarchist schools of thought rather than listing them. Also deleting the antisemitism section which is trolling at this point.--Tuxer (talk) 23:24, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Trim the article

Now that we collectively decided to whitewash remove a section of the article, let's talk about removing certain parts of it. Or maybe move it to a draft page. Certainly 50% of the article has to go, like all of the schools of anarchism (this is not AnarchoWiki yet). — Godless Raven ^talk_stalk^walk_balk 🌹 14:02, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

This article is fine as it is. It's fair and unbiased, and goes over it in detail while highlighting both its strengths and its flaws. — Oxyaena ^Harass 14:44, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

The article is fine, just because it doesn't fit your petty pov doesn't mean that the article isn't good.--Tuxer (talk) 15:29, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Don't remove a huge chunk of the article unilaterally, @Godless Raven. — Oxyaena ^Harass 15:30, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

@Godless Raven The consensus was to remove that section only, you dick. — Oxyaena ^Harass 15:39, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Our purpose here at RationalWiki includes:

1. Analyzing and refuting pseudoscience and the anti-science movement;
2. Documenting the full range of crank ideas;
3. Explorations of authoritarianism and fundamentalism;
4. Analysis and criticism of how these subjects are handled in the media.

So talking about the different schools of anarchism fulfills which of these purposes? @Tuxer — Godless Raven ^talk_stalk^walk_balk 🌹 15:42, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Considering your obvious centrist extremist bias, I would argue "Documenting the full range of crank ideas". Also I didn't write the article, just expanded it and re-organized it. Just because you don't like a subject, doesn't mean it's not part of the mission. --Tuxer (talk) 16:01, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Do you consider social democracy "centrist extremism"? @Tuxer — Godless Raven ^talk_stalk^walk_balk 🌹 16:13, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Extremism is personal, you can be a social democrat and still be an extremist. Look at you, for example. — Oxyaena ^Harass 16:34, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

stop

The article as it stands is very problematic nevertheless ive protected it for a week to give time to figure out what to do, feel free to propose changes in draft form. EK (talk) 15:51, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Yeah i think we should move the whole article into draft and trim it a lot. — Godless Raven ^talk_stalk^walk_balk 🌹 15:54, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Nothing stopping you doing that. The article itself would remain and you would be free to edit your draft copy and then ask people if your draft should replace the existing. If you set up the draft in your personal user space only you should be allowed to edit it.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 16:10, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Draft:Anarchism — Godless Raven ^talk_stalk^walk_balk 🌹 16:16, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting you made it open edit. That will just transfer this debate to the draft. I was suggesting that you made the draft and then present it.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 16:20, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

But this website is about collaboration, and all I want is a fair and realistic article on anarchism. I want others to edit it in good faith. — Godless Raven ^talk_stalk^walk_balk 🌹 16:23, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Separate vote

There should be two separate votes. One for the first section of failed attempts which I do not see why it's remotely controversial. The second section however is more dubious. I would vote for the first and vote against the second. ShabiDOO 17:02, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

@Shabidoo To which section are you referring? My previous vote was on removing this section. Namely, due to being low effort. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 17:05, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Yeah. The first part, I don't see what is wrong with it. They are a list of failed attempts. It's not that controversial. The second part (successful attempts) is very problematic. ShabiDOO 17:24, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

@Shabidoo As stated in the above sections, it fails to go into why they were unsuccessful. Compare it to this article (yes, I know it needs cleanup) which goes into why the project failed. We could just as easily list off failed democracies without any further context. Thusly, in my view, the list should go, and given I do not feel the second half of the section is much better (needs more sources, preferably neutral non-anarchist ones), it stands that the entire section should be deleted. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 17:31, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

The first part is lazy editing, the second one has better quality editing and was introduced to provide balance to a biased section. — Oxyaena ^Harass 17:33, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Okay. I think I'm just going to stay out of this one then. ShabiDOO 18:06, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Why? Was I unclear? Did I not elaborate well enough? Sorry? ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 18:10, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Can I just blow up this article? --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 18:16, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Let's delete it and work with the draft I have been working on. — Godless Raven ^talk_stalk^walk_balk 🌹 18:20, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

The draft contains the same problem section as this one, in the exact same form. Which solves nothing. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 18:25, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Tear it all down. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 18:31, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

There is a lack of historical context for the first part — these anarchist societies were largely at the mercy of larger and better-organized forces. The fact that anarchist societies are at best loosely organized would seem to inherently make them military targets of better-organized groups. Bongolian (talk) 19:07, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

The problem with keeping one part and not the other is that unnecessarily introduces bias, implying that anarchism can or can't succeed depending one which one is kept. Bongolian (talk) 19:13, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

That latter point is part of why suggested tossing the whole section. But apparently that's "whitewashing", somehow. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 19:25, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

No its all clear. It's all simply spectacularly messy. It's insufficiently problematic nor sufficiently useful for me to really say one way or another if the text should stay or go (as a whole). I would simply argue that the best answer, is to find better sources and improve the article. Which one user is claiming to do. So I'll just stay out of it. ShabiDOO 22:32, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Petition to add “Attempts” to the mainstream page...

The fork of this page has an “Attempts” subsection in history, should it be added? Why not? The 𝗦𝗾𝗿𝘁-𝟭 ^{talk stalk} 09:59, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Because it's trolling and low effort. It ignores context in persuit of a ideological rant.Tuxer (talk) 10:08, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

It should be added. — Godless Raven ^talk_stalk^walk_balk 🌹 10:20, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. Maybe it can be made unbiased? To make it seem less like the purported “rant”? The 𝗦𝗾𝗿𝘁-𝟭 ^{talk stalk} 10:26, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I approve of that. — Godless Raven ^talk_stalk^walk_balk 🌹 10:27, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

You approve of that, so the community vote to reject the low effort trolling is throw out the window.Tuxer (talk) 10:37, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

_{holy shit everyone duck hcm0 here it comes!} The 𝗦𝗾𝗿𝘁-𝟭 ^{talk stalk} 10:43, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Stop bullying the newbie. Let him edit and then you can have weird tantrum about trolling. @Sqrt-1 Edit it as you wish and later we see the quality of it, ok? — Godless Raven ^talk_stalk^walk_balk 🌹 11:54, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

By all means go ahead, and ignore Tuxer they are a bit cringe. — Z 13:03, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Stop editwarring @AMassiveGay. — Godless Raven ^talk_stalk^walk_balk 🌹 14:55, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

my god, you are mendacious prick. if anyone wants to put that bullshit section back they should take a look at the discussion above, including the vote to remove, before putting it back in, and to explain its worth and to show us why we were wrong to remove in first place. something, i note, you have never done your yourself. they are your edits and you've never made any attempt to justify them or address any of the issues people raised. try it now. answer any of the those issues mentioned in the above discussion. make a case. meantime perhaps you could explain how it is that it always seems to be editwarring when its your shite thats being removed? stop with that dishonest bullshit. justify your edits. AMassiveGay (talk) 15:36, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

The newbie wants to edit the article. Stop making RW an unpleasant place for newcomers, this site is already dusty because of this repulsive environment where nobody is allowed to touch some holy cows like yours. Let the guy edit and then judge. Jesus fuck. — Godless Raven ^talk_stalk^walk_balk 🌹 15:40, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Given how contentious the section was last time it should still be up for a vote.-Flandres (talk) 16:20, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Do you not see how repulsive it can be to anyone new to RationalWiki when some articles are not open to being edited because of some ideologically motivated users? Does that not cross your mind for a second? The only reason it was contentious it's because this is the pet ideology of some people. I don't editwar over Social democracy despite being a socdem myself. Why? Because I can stomach criticism and disagreement. If anarchists on this website can't stomach criticism of their nutjob ideology, it shouldn't be untouchable for newbies. — Godless Raven ^talk_stalk^walk_balk 🌹 16:24, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Anarchists make up a small portion of the site and none of them are commenting in this dispute yet, so saying it is our sacred cow is laughably inaccurate. The criticism presented is not that it was against a perfect ideology but that the section was of poor quality, so *again* please try and actually understand the arguments of those who disagree with you. Considering this section lost a mob vote last time, and most of the users who voted against it were not anarchists, it should still be up for vote because the same things that caused them to reject it still apply. Afraid of democracy when it gives you a result you can't handle?Flandres (talk) 16:30, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

The person who wanted to edit it didnt even start to edit! What is there to remove? Let them even *try* to edit. — Godless Raven ^talk_stalk^walk_balk 🌹 16:33, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

And their hypothetical edit is to add in a section that was voted out of the article fair and square. I respect the results of votes.-Flandres (talk) 16:35, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Template:Verygood — Godless Raven ^talk_stalk^walk_balk 🌹 16:37, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

You really like hiding behind that template when you are beaten by a superior argument, don't you?-Flandres (talk) 16:38, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

@Sqrt-1 I recommend you edit the section in question in your userspace and propose it here to be voted on, since some people are willing to stonewall any change to this page.

— Godless Raven ^talk_stalk^walk_balk 🌹 16:40, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Still no response to the fact you are trying to overrule a legitimate vote just because you don't like the outcome?-Flandres (talk) 16:41, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

i note again no attempt to justify any edits. no effort to address what has been said, just hypocrisy and dishonest and self serving misrepresentation of the situation. you ever think that might be contributing to a repulsive environment? all i have asked is to provide some rationale for edits being made that have been contentious. im sure @𝗦𝗾𝗿𝘁-𝟭 would have happily provided. they still can if they like. maybe if you and ze were not so patronising, so condescending (tuxer is 'bullying' a new user some how, and is 'cringe' for disagreeing.) maybe if you actually responded to what is being said, and not with disingenuity and dishonesty, maybe it wouldnt be so fucking toxic when you are involved. there are no holy cows, anyone can make edits. yet the disputed section that was all down to you in the first place, fought tooth and nail to keep in, is largely back in and im 'editwarring' to remove it. @ze - heaven forbid we should discuss the rewrite of a contentious section before its put back in. do you serve any purpose or are you just a rubber stamp for GR? why you so 'cringe'?AMassiveGay (talk) 17:02, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

We should remove the section simply in absence of any real consensus to restore it. Also, is it not custom to lock a page in its "original" state, with the disputed section removed until further discussion?-Flandres (talk) 17:05, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm unaware of the above custom that Flandres has mentioned. Moving on I would like to argue that this section is a legitimate part of the article and should not have been repeatedly removed without discussion, furthermore this section is not in the slightest bit "trolling". It is in fact genuinely good content, if you don't want to read it, then just don't read it. No one is forcing you to. I will also point out that Tuxer was blocked for his actions, and duly informed that someone editing a page in a way that he does not like is not "trolling", I feel this is relevant given that he has claimed that it is trolling. Kiko4564 (talk) 21:22, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

@Kiko4564 I don't see the block as relevant. However, I do think this current attempt was a good faith attempt, and the author seems have either incorporated criticism from previous discussions or has done some level of research. Personally I think it can be improved somewhat, getting rid of the list, incorporating relevant examples into the body of the paragraphs, phrasing improvements, etc, but overall it seems more informative than the previous attempts that led to such dispute in the past. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 21:31, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

@Kiko4564 Would you please engage with myself on the talkpage before taking action in this dispute? I'm going to revert your partial restoration for now, though I would like to discuss this matter here. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 21:54, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

@GrammarCommie Alright that's fine. Well I accept that I was taking action, but I would like to ask exactly what it is in my partial restoration that is still in dispute. Kiko4564 (talk) 22:02, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

@Kiko4564 Well, not to be rude but the parts you restored were the parts I took issue with, both in the original dispute (this was my main complaint) and in the current iteration. Firstly, I think the list should go. Secondly, I personally think most of the new content is fine, and in fact I praised it for delving into the meat of the matter in one of my previous posts. Thirdly, I think the phrasing could be improved, especially given the potential removal of the list. I'd be fine with making the necessary changes myself if the entire section is restored. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 22:13, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Alright thanks for letting me know. I'll restore the entire section, with some slight changes. Kiko4564 (talk) 22:15, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

On second thoughts I'll just get the OK from GrammarCommie on Discord first, especially given that I've already made two reverts today. Kiko4564 (talk) 22:16, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Read for once

https://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Anarchism&action=history

The page was restored to its original format and then I locked it. Please read sometimes. — Godless Raven ^talk_stalk^walk_balk 🌹 17:09, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Okay, I take that back because I am not chronically incapable of admitting error as you paint me out to be.(in my defense, I just woke up twenty minutes ago-my bad). Any response to Amassivegay? Also, saying "read for once" is hilarious when you never show any comprehension of posts that disagree with you. Wanna actually read them?-Flandres (talk) 17:14, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Nice job scaring away new editors

Newbie asks a question and proposes an edit, and people start slinging insults and toxicity. This wiki has a serious culture problem, and it’s hurting the project as a whole. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 17:38, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

this. — Godless Raven ^talk_stalk^walk_balk 🌹 17:39, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

As AMG pointed out, you are hardly blameless in this regard. At least I retracted *my* mistaken statement.-Flandres (talk) 17:50, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Would telling them, "We can't, we just had a dispute over this, see above?" Not suffice or something? Man I feel like I have to attend to everything 24/7 because whenever I'm out, THIS happens. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 19:03, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Indeed. GR if you hadn't just told a nOOb to ignore community consensus and do whatever GR feels like doing there wouldn't be an issue here...even worse you antagonized users in the process. Instead of childishly and passive agressively putting up that stupid template every time someone suggests you did something you shouldn't (and you know its true)...you could instead concede the point and move on. Rationalwikians highly respect users who concede points and you don't win anything by not. I once again predict that you aren't going to last long here, only the next time you're cooped I think you'll be expelled. ShabiDOO 19:08, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Sorry I'm tired. Can someone sum up to me about what I can do to improve the section? I'd like to have some resources and a quick run down. I'll try taking initiative. I've also made User:LeftyGreenMario/sandbox as a starting point where I gutted all the intricate listings of Anarchism. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 19:12, 16 August 2020 (UTC) ┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ So Raven's being Raven, I see? — Oxyaena ^Harass 19:20, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

@LeftyGreenMario I am sorry LGM, I wanted to give the newbie a chance to edit this without people just reverting them with toxic comments, but turns out we can't. I proposed to Sqrt-1 to make their own version in their userspace for the time being. — Godless Raven ^talk_stalk^walk_balk 🌹 19:39, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Well you should've at least read the entire page up. That's why you're getting angry remarks e.g. "toxic comments". Why ask someone to make yet another iteration on userspace? Can we work with one of them? --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 19:42, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Because last time I tried to edit Draft:Anarchism, there was an edit war (over a draft...). It's why I suggest userspace edits, because otherwise this person will get toxic comments like I did when I touched "sacred topics". — Godless Raven ^talk_stalk^walk_balk 🌹 19:44, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

You very deliberately ignore the consensus that was made on the subject to remove that section, you idiot. Nothing here is a sacred cow. — Oxyaena ^Harass 21:13, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

"Toxic comments"? You mean disagreeing with you. Also the whole point of a draft is that anyone can edit it.Tuxer (talk) 21:19, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

I lifted the protection @Kiko4564. Have fun dealing with them. — Godless Raven ^talk_stalk^walk_balk 🌹 21:31, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

So can I get some comment on my draft

👆🏻 All I need is some implementation of anarchist societies, how they failed (especially the part where they were aggressively mowed over), and maybe add a point in that critics of anarchism like to bring up those societies while failing to mention them? This entire... thing, I got nothing about it beyond what appears to be talking points in defense of anarchism, which is not sufficient for me to go forward. i.e. I need resources, I need goddamn resources. You guys have to be getting this information somewhere. I don't know where to seach; Anarchism in Wikipedia is too broad and doesn't help me proceed through this. I've seen people critique on and on about Raven et al doing a botched job. I tried to make a draft page of my own to continue where Ze and Raven tried to sign off and no one cooperated and they're more invested arguing to no end about users they know full well won't cooperate. I'm disappointed. I thought people would sit down with me at least, but go on with arguing about crap while I sit there with no one taking the time to respond to my attempts. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 22:05, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

For Nestor Makhno and Anarchist Ukraine there is Civil War in Russia by David Footman. For Anarchist Spain there is the famous Homage to Catalonia by George Orwell, I will try to find a few other sources.Tuxer (talk) 22:41, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. Are there passages I could take in to incorporate in the article? --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 22:43, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I said I was going to try to help and then forgot. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 22:53, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Everyone forgets now and then. I can forgive that. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 22:56, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Do you want specific quotes or just a general description?

In page 250 it talks about how the Bolshevisks started an anti-anarchist campaign in mid-April 1918, including the arrests of hundreds of Ukranian anarchists in Ukraine by the Cheka (the predecessor of the NKVD). In page 259, Makhno recieves a letter from the his home village saying that the Jews were taking over and oppressing the peasants and he's worried about this blatant antisemitism and that the peasants are using Jews as scapegoats for the German occupation of Ukraine. However in page 268 it's said that some soldiers in Nestor's army were antisemtic. In page 273 it describes how the Soviet press turned against Makhno and eventually establish a blockade against his army, with some units starting to run out of ammunition and that the Bolsheviks started sending assassins after Nestor.Tuxer (talk) 23:51, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Any critical literature of Anarchism or will this be just another pro-Anarchism section (of which the page already has enough)? — Godless Raven ^talk_stalk^walk_balk 🌹 13:07, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Not your servant. Do your own research.Tuxer (talk) 14:06, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Well since the far-leftists here have no intentions to even provide a fair criticism of Anarchism (and I know why), I might introduce Bertrand Russell's work Proposed Roads to Freedom: Socialism, Anarchism, and Syndicalism (html ebook: http://www.gutenberg.org/files/690/690-h/690-h.htm) @LeftyGreenMario It is not pro-Anarchism but rather a fair reading of Anarchism. — Godless Raven ^talk_stalk^walk_balk 🌹 16:31, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ An excerpt:

We should be doing more than justice to Anarchism if we did not say something of its darker side, the side which has brought it into conflict with the police and made it a word of terror to ordinary citizens. In its general doctrines there is nothing essentially involving violent methods or a virulent hatred of the rich, and many who adopt these general doctrines are personally gentle and temperamentally averse from violence. But the general tone of the Anarchist press and public is bitter to a degree that seems scarcely sane, and the appeal, especially in Latin countries, is rather to envy of the fortunate than to pity for the unfortunate. A vivid and readable, though not wholly reliable, account, from a hostile point of view, is given in a book called "Le Peril Anarchiste," by Felix Dubois,17 which incidentally reproduces a number of cartoons from anarchist journals. The revolt against law naturally leads, except in those who are controlled by a real passion for humanity, to a relaxation of all the usually accepted moral rules, and to a bitter spirit of retaliatory cruelty out of which good can hardly come.

Further:

It would be wholly unfair to judge Anarchist doctrine, or the views of its leading exponents, by such phenomena; but it remains a fact that Anarchism attracts to itself much that lies on the borderland of insanity and common crime.18 This must be remembered in exculpation of the authorities and the thoughtless public, who often confound in a common detestation the parasites of the movement and the truly heroic and high-minded men who have elaborated its theories and sacrificed comfort and success to their propagation.

— Godless Raven ^talk_stalk^walk_balk 🌹 16:34, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

I would also recommend: https://cdn.mises.org/8_2_4_0.pdf which is from Mises.org BUT it is critical of anarchism (and, as such, critical of anarcho-capitalism that people like Mises espouse). — Godless Raven ^talk_stalk^walk_balk 🌹 17:03, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Funny using a far-right source like you accused me of doing a while back. Also, I fail to see the substance of Russel's critique beyond a bullshit call to "civility." — Oxyaena ^Harass 18:42, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Seems fair enough. The first quote though is better.Tuxer (talk) 18:55, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

@Oxyaena I didn't object as much to the source than your argument, which is inherently xenophobic. Like, how you attacked social democracy by using immigrants as the source of the problem! @Ze was there to attest to this. You used a far-right argument. — Godless Raven ^talk_stalk^walk_balk 🌹 19:15, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Except that's not what happened, you dumb fuck. My argument was that Scandinavia treats immigrants like shit, up to and including putting migrants in actual fucking ghettos. — Oxyaena ^Harass 20:44, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm going to ask you one time: Will you stop attacking me personally or not? Do I have to bring this to mod attention? @Oxyaena — Godless Raven ^talk_stalk^walk_balk 🌹 08:14, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

@GR You're the one libeling me, so.... — Oxyaena ^Harass 16:57, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Just a thought

Maybe the "Not types of anarchism" section should be gotten rid of altogether? It adds little to nothing of value to the article. The fact that certain types of anarchism are frowned upon by some (or the majority of) anarchists - and are even rejected by them as "not actually anarchism" - is well represented in the "Types of anarchism" section, and, frankly, should probably stay there. Like, the subsection of "Not types of anarchism" on anarcho-capitalism is nothing but an example of the already mentioned fact that "[m]any social anarchists will [...] refuse to classify it as a type of anarchism at all". This section could as well include a similar paragraph on lifestyle anarchism - but it doesn't, right? Because it'd be redundant. And as for the obvious question "where shall we put a piece on national anarchism then?" - well, it could be reworked or expanded a bit (retaining, of course, all the criticism on this phenomenon), because while the "national-anarchist" movement itself doesn't seem to be anything more than "fascism but also circle-A", the relationships between anarchism and nationalism throughout history appear to be far more nuanced. ^{— Unsigned, by: 218.50.144.178 / talk}

Anarchism and capitalism being incompatible seems often assumed or considered obvious.Anarchosolipsist (talk) 21:28, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Reading material

I recommend this short pamphlet by Malatesta called Anarchy, it's only 25 pages long. It should help clear up a lot of misunderstandings people here have about anarchism, especially Raven. — Oxyaena ^Harass 03:21, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

This is pro-Anarchism, by an Anarchist (and who happens to be a life-long criminal, but that aside). Have you ever read anything critical of Anarchism? — Godless Raven ^talk_stalk^walk_balk 🌹 16:40, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Most things "critical" of anarchism completely misunderstand anarchism, and what does it matter that Malatesta is a "criminal?" Ad hominem, much? — Oxyaena ^Harass 18:39, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

So anything that includes arguments you disagree with must clearly be based on misunderstanding? Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 19:03, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Strikes me almost the same way as Trump’s “all bad news is fake news”. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 19:15, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

When those arguments reflect a serious lack of knowledge, yes, they do. — Oxyaena ^Harass 20:43, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

What the hell happened here?

Looks like my prediction was right! It’s HCM time bois!

On a more serious note, I should had really properly read the pages’ history before being a complete asshole and then adding it right back again, and then sleeping only to wake up and find 5 fucking paragraphs over the silly thing I did tomorrow. Yet another reason to not edit when drunk_{i dont actually drink that was a joke}. If I really wanted the history section to be added, I would have reverted as soon as Tuxer had, but instead I simply added an unfunny joke, or as Flandres may put it: “I really like hiding behind that template when you are beaten by a superior argument. More clarification, I didn’t do any form of work or research while adding that section, I had simply copied and pasted the section from the draft without checking that it had been added before and then voted to be removed_{@GrammarCommie how the hell did you forget that you are literally the one who voted to remove this section and then referred to this edit as “well researched”? no offence but seriously wtf}. Furthermore, why isn’t my notification box not working? Its supposed to light up or something when someone pings you, right?

Conclusion: pls stop taking my name and offering me advice i was just drunk. The 𝗦𝗾𝗿𝘁-𝟭 ^{talk stalk} 03:56, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Oh that's easy. Look at the old version. It's a list with no context. Look at the version you added. It examines the examples and makes conclusions and commentary. In other words, your version has meat that can be engaged with, vs no meat. That's how I can distinguish between these two. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 04:10, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

So it's agreed that the "Attempts" should be deleted

The community already on this very talk page to delete the section. Unless anyone can rewrite the section to be less contentious amongst the community, particularly over the objections regarding the lack of context, I think that we must abide by the democratic vote and delete the section.Tuxer (talk) 19:00, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Well the attempts section should be deleted temporarily simply out of respect for the last vote, but since people are attempting to create better versions we should vote on those as soon as possible.-Flandres (talk) 19:05, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Someone already is rewriting. Fucking let them. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 19:06, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

this. — Godless Raven ^talk_stalk^walk_balk 🌹 19:12, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Oh, calm down you two. But if it is so critical to you then we do not have to delete it temporarily. We should, however, still vote on the finished result.-Flandres (talk) 19:13, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I would agree to a vote on the finished product. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 19:24, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

this. — Godless Raven ^talk_stalk^walk_balk 🌹 19:45, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

It's a waste of time. There was already a vote. — Oxyaena ^Harass 20:46, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

The vote was on a previous version. This would be a rewrite. It seems like you’re trying to suppress discussion here. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 20:47, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

My concerns were met. I'm fine with the current version. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 20:54, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

I concur with GC. I would like to see a vote, though. It seems to be a good way to avoid edit wars in the future, "giving it a mandate" if you will. I would also concur with by now *many* other users that the big list should be removed.-Flandres (talk) 21:12, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, the list is hideous. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 21:18, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

The list everyone hated has already been removed by myself and incorporated into the main body of text, to the satisfaction of all parties. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 00:49, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

I thought y’all were talking about the organizations list, which is also hideous. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 01:33, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Oh! Im sorry, I was talking about the list of sub-types going in depth about all kinds of anarchism. I can't think of any great reason to keep it. Though the organization list seems even more pointless, so that should be axed as well now that you mention it.-Flandres (talk) 03:06, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

My apologies, I misunderstood. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 03:21, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

I want to move "attempts" to anarchist organizations and then trim out the list. I also want the massive eye-searing list of every sub category of anarchism removed. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 20:57, 18 August 2020 (UTC)