![]() | Anarchism has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
Other talk page banners |
---|---|
Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67 |
Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Rename "Analysis" back to "Criticism"
From the talk page, it seems that it was renamed in order to avoid a criticism section. Proposals were made to integrate the contents of the criticism section into the rest of the article, but this was never done. Which means that the section is essentially just a de facto "criticism" section, with the same potential POV issues of one, except now it's dishonest about what it is. It also implies that the entirety of analysis of anarchism is negative. I think to make the title and layout of the article less obfuscated, it should be changed back. PBZE (talk) 06:46, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
- IMO, It was renamed in order to push the content towards analysis instead of criticism. I do not see the npov implications you are highlighting, the narrative of the article wont alter because of the section titles. Also. I would suggest, if we are for integration of anarchy into sections, as it should be done (per WP:Criticism), we also examine what other changes should we implement so to make Anarchism comply with FA criteria. maybe by asking for a peer review? Cinadon36 07:02, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
- It doesn't change the narrative much, but IMO it does a little. Calling it "analysis" implies that when anarchism is analyzed, that analysis is entirely negative. It pushes POV by framing criticism of anarchism as simply "analysis" and nothing more, implying that the negative criticism is just neutral analysis. Calling it "criticism" makes it clear that the section is only about criticism, and that there is not a universal rejection of anarchism that is otherwise implied. If we're not renaming or removing it, then a POV hatnote or some other note should be added to encourage the addition of non-negative analysis. Although to be honest, I just read WP:CRITICISMSECTION and it explicitly states that articles about points of view, including political ideologies like this one, are exceptions and should usually include a "criticism" section, so I have kind of changed my mind on the issue altogether. PBZE (talk) 07:14, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
- Ok, you made your point pretty clear, I kinda agree with your argumentation, lets see how other users feel/argue. Cinadon36 07:21, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
- Cinadon36 I came across this page a while back and after having read the "Analysis" section, the subtitle seems like an attempt to obscure criticism as a diluted analysis. IMO this seems to be violating WP:NPOV via WP:WEASEL wording, as analysis may imply neutrality and/or dilute the purpose of the stated research (evaluating anarchism is criticism). This is inconsistent with other articles that include research and analysis of said political, philosophical, etc. ideologies, that are directly evaluations of said ideals which are labeled as criticism. May someone help me decipher which source the following statement is attributed towards? "The most common critique of anarchism is that humans cannot self-govern and so a state is necessary for human survival." I also agree with PBZE that not all criticism is negative, and regardless of whether or not it changes the overall "narrative" it still does not justify the label IMO. ChaoticTexan (talk) 03:55, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, @ChaoticTexan I get your reasoning, but the major problem is that we do not have a superstrong RS that analyzes or offers a valid critique to anarchism, that could help us built the section. So problems like the one you point at, are inevitable. Also have in mind this guideline WP:CRITS Cinadon36 20:27, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
- Cinadon36 May I ask if the current sourced statements in the analysis section are considered non-reliable sources, or is the issue the lack of independent secondary sources needed to analyze the current critical content? I agree that the section should abide by the requirements stated in WP:CRITS, although is it not possible to rename the section and add a template such as Template: Missing Information or Template: Expand Section? It seems like the issue is that part of the criteria isn't met "In some situations the term "criticism" may be appropriate in an article or section title, for example, if there is a large body of critical material, and if independent secondary sources comment, analyze or discuss the critical material." Once this criteria is met, both requirements would be fulfilled for the change to occur, would they not? If I have time, I will try to search for RS needed ChaoticTexan (talk) 01:48, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, @ChaoticTexan I get your reasoning, but the major problem is that we do not have a superstrong RS that analyzes or offers a valid critique to anarchism, that could help us built the section. So problems like the one you point at, are inevitable. Also have in mind this guideline WP:CRITS Cinadon36 20:27, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
- Cinadon36 I came across this page a while back and after having read the "Analysis" section, the subtitle seems like an attempt to obscure criticism as a diluted analysis. IMO this seems to be violating WP:NPOV via WP:WEASEL wording, as analysis may imply neutrality and/or dilute the purpose of the stated research (evaluating anarchism is criticism). This is inconsistent with other articles that include research and analysis of said political, philosophical, etc. ideologies, that are directly evaluations of said ideals which are labeled as criticism. May someone help me decipher which source the following statement is attributed towards? "The most common critique of anarchism is that humans cannot self-govern and so a state is necessary for human survival." I also agree with PBZE that not all criticism is negative, and regardless of whether or not it changes the overall "narrative" it still does not justify the label IMO. ChaoticTexan (talk) 03:55, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
- Ok, you made your point pretty clear, I kinda agree with your argumentation, lets see how other users feel/argue. Cinadon36 07:21, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
- It doesn't change the narrative much, but IMO it does a little. Calling it "analysis" implies that when anarchism is analyzed, that analysis is entirely negative. It pushes POV by framing criticism of anarchism as simply "analysis" and nothing more, implying that the negative criticism is just neutral analysis. Calling it "criticism" makes it clear that the section is only about criticism, and that there is not a universal rejection of anarchism that is otherwise implied. If we're not renaming or removing it, then a POV hatnote or some other note should be added to encourage the addition of non-negative analysis. Although to be honest, I just read WP:CRITICISMSECTION and it explicitly states that articles about points of view, including political ideologies like this one, are exceptions and should usually include a "criticism" section, so I have kind of changed my mind on the issue altogether. PBZE (talk) 07:14, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on communalism
- Specific text to be added or removed: Communalism instead of communalism
- Reason for the change: The capitalisation is needed to distinguish Communalism, the formalism put forward by Murray Bookchin, from general communalism, which encourages distinction among human beings based on their community, e.g. the Hindu-Muslim divide in India.
- References supporting change: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communalism_(South_Asia)
Wandsword (talk) 15:52, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
Not done — reliable sources do not capitalize the word. Context is sufficient to distinguish the two. WhinyTheYounger (WtY)(talk, contribs) 00:11, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request from Kelsey.Roman
I'm requesting access to edit this semi-protected page. My university assigned me this page as a wikiproject to edit. I have the following contributions to make, as I do not see them written in the article:
- Definition Anarchist theory is based on a commitment to materialism, a rationalist approach to understanding societal change, and a focus on the potential of working class and countercultural elements as the catalysts to change, while rejecting the use of existing political parties and processes. A common misconception about anarchism is that it promotes the dissolution of the state without offering up a viable alternative form of governance. Instead, anarchism emphasizes the possibility of self governance through decentralised authority and voluntary associations made up of cooperating individuals.
-Analysis Rebuttals of critiques Anarchists claim that due to the voluntary nature of organisational structures that would arise under an abolished state, the anarchist vision is ultimately pluralist and does not contradictorily contain an authoritarian nature.
However, anarchist theorists such as Bakunin and Godwin have described human nature as not inherently good, but influenced by circumstances, and argued that under improved circumstances emphasizing individual autonomy, cooperation would be achievable. Instead, human nature is conceptualized as serving a rational self interest and driven towards participation in a social contract. It is the nature of the social contract anarchism intends to redesign, with an understanding that unfettered access to the power and privilege of authority can encourage corruption.
Far from being solely idealist, anarchist praxis offers material proposals for change, particularly in response to the perceived failings of existing institutions to ensure social welfare. Typical examples of anarchist praxis include self-managing workers, cooperatives; encouraging media access; free schools; open education and deschooling; neighborhood government, noninstitutional psychotherapy; non-hiearchical family and personal relationships; and elimination of arbitrary distinctions based on sex, race, age, linguistic usage, and so forth.
- Anarchism and the State Not all anarchists dismissed the functions of government entirely. Albert Jay Nock made a point to differentiate between a state that upholds special interests in protecting property, wealth,and economic power, and the use of government to provide strictly negative intervention in preventing the deterioration of rights to life and liberty in a Lockean sense.
-Classical Anarcho-syndicalists follow in the tradition of Bakunin’s collectivism, and believe that the worker is the unit through which society is meaningfully constructed.
Anarcho-communists often critique anarcho-syndicalism as outdated and narrow in its scope of revolutionary goals, given its sole imperative to organize through labor and economic relationships.
Labor syndicates are expected to reject bureaucratic and centralized forms of organization and attempt to achieve work reforms in practical short-term application.
-Post-war era Classical anarchism fell from prominence in the aftermath of the Spanish Civil War and continued to weaken through World War II.
In comparison with classical anarchism, which had been led by self-educated agrarian and industrial workers, the revival of interest in anarchism consisted of university students and professors with considerable social and cultural influence. Similarly anarchist theory transitioned from materialist perspectives advocating the sciences to post-modern and post-materialist thinking that questioned epistemological reliance on technology and science.
Recent trends in anarchism outside of Europe have drawn on post-colonial and syndicalist thought alongside concepts of indigenous identity.
- Modern Era Violence primarily took the form of acts of decentralised terrorism, assasinations, bombings, rural insurrections and occasionally full-fledged insurrections of varying scale.
Sources:
1.Cite error: There are <ref>
tags on this page without content in them (see the help page). CLARK, JOHN P. “WHAT IS ANARCHISM?” Nomos 19 (1978): 3–28. http://www.jstor.org/stable/24219036.
2. Cite error: There are <ref>
tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).LEVY, CARL. “Social Histories of Anarchism.” Journal for the Study of Radicalism 4, no. 2 (2010): 1–44.http://www.jstor.org/stable/41887657.
3. Cite error: There are <ref>
tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).Raekstad, Paul. “UNDERSTANDING ANARCHISM: SOME BASICS.” Science & Society 80, no. 3 (2016): 407–14. http://www.jstor.org/stable/26141887.
Kelsey.Roman (talk) 17:06, 24 April 2022 (UTC)Kelsey.Roman
- @Kelsey.Roman, thank-you for your work to improve Wikipedia. I have briefly reviewed your request and have a few comments in response which I think need to be dealt with before it can be actioned – I haven't checked it against the verifiability policy or neutral point of view policy, which it also needs to comply with.
- You should indicate which of your sources support which paragraph; e.g. by adding <ref name="Clark1978"/> at the end of paragraphs supported by your first reference etc.
- You should indicate specifically for each of your proposed additions where in the article you think the content should be added.
- [ Most serious ] Your sentence starting "Typical examples of anarchist praxis..." is a close paraphrase of page 17 of Clark (1978). Please read this essay and make sure that none of the content you are proposing to add is closely paraphrased from a source.
- I will mark the request as
Not done: – please fix the things above and make a fresh request. Thanks, Wham2001 (talk) 17:51, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
Edit Request
![0x0px](https://web.archive.org/web/20220531071322im_/https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/d2/Blank.png)
![](https://web.archive.org/web/20220531071322im_/https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a2/X_mark.svg/18px-X_mark.svg.png)
Hello all and thank you for the feedback. I believe I have corrected my additions for verifiability and neutrality. I have also tried not to closely paraphrase. I am adding specific references. I have listed suggested placements in italics. Please let me know if anything else is needed and thank you again.
- Definition Anarchist theory is based on a commitment to materialism, a rationalist approach to understanding societal change, and a focus on the potential of working class and countercultural elements as the catalysts to change, while refusing the use of existing political parties and processes. A common misconception about anarchism is that it promotes the dissolution of the state without offering up a viable alternative form of governance. Instead, anarchism emphasizes the possibility of self governance through decentralised authority and voluntary associations made up of cooperating individuals. [1] (placed before the final sentence in the Definition section)
-Analysis Rebuttals of critiques The third argument is that anarchism is self-contradictory. While it advocates for no-one to archiei, if accepted by the many, then anarchism would turn into the ruling political theory. In opposition to this, anarchists claim that due to the voluntary nature of organisational structures that would arise under an abolished state, the anarchist vision is ultimately pluralist and does not contradictorily contain an authoritarian nature. [1] However, in lieu of this claim Fiala points out the self-contradiction that anarchism calls for collective action whilst endorsing the autonomy of the individual, hence no collective action can be taken. Lastly, Fiala mentions a critique towards philosophical anarchism of being ineffective (all talk and thoughts) and in the meantime capitalism and bourgeois class remains strong. Despite critiques of being primariliy philosophical and therefore ineffective, anarchist theory does offer material proposals for implementing change. Referred to as praxis, material actions occur in response to the perceived failings of existing institutions to ensure social welfare. Anarchist praxis includes non hierarchical pro-workers’ organisations, promoting access to media and alternative education options, self-run communities, advocating for unstructured interpersonal relationships, and doing away with power differentials considered implicit in identities such as race, gender, or orientation. According to anarchists,praxis directly challenges the widely held notion that anarchism is overwhelmingly idealistic. [2] (to augment and follow paragraph 2 of analysis: The third argument is that anarchism is self-contradictory. While it advocates for no-one to archiei, if accepted by the many, then anarchism would turn into the ruling political theory. In this line of criticism also comes the self-contradiction that anarchism calls for collective action whilst endorsing the autonomy of the individual, hence no collective action can be taken. Lastly, Fiala mentions a critique towards philosophical anarchism of being ineffective (all talk and thoughts) and in the meantime capitalism and bourgeois class remains strong.)
Anarchist perception of human nature, rejection of the state, and commitment to social revolution has been criticised by academics as naive, overly simplistic, and unrealistic, respectively.[188] However, anarchist theorists such as Bakunin and Godwin have described human nature as not inherently good, but influenced by circumstances, and argued that under improved circumstances emphasizing individual autonomy, cooperation would be achievable. Instead, human nature is conceptualized as serving a rational self interest and driven towards participation in a social contract. It is the nature of the social contract anarchism intends to redesign, with an understanding that unfettered access to the power and privilege of authority can encourage corruption. [2] In response,classical anarchism has been criticised for relying too heavily on the belief that the abolition of the state will neccesarily lead to human cooperation prospering.[142] (to augment the end of paragraph 4 in Analysis section: Anarchist perception of human nature, rejection of the state, and commitment to social revolution has been criticised by academics as naive, overly simplistic, and unrealistic, respectively.[188] Classical anarchism has been criticised for relying too heavily on the belief that the abolition of the state will lead to human cooperation prospering.[142])
- Anarchism and the State Albert Jay Nock made a point to differentiate between a state that upholds special interests in protecting property, wealth,and economic power, and the use of government to provide strictly negative intervention in preventing the deterioration of rights to life and liberty as originally described by Locke. [2] (to be placed before the final sentence in paragraph 2 of Anarchism and the State)
-Classical Anarcho-syndicalism is a branch of anarchism that follows in the tradition of Bakunin’s collectivism, and believe that the worker is the unit through which society is meaningfully constructed. [2] Anarcho-syndicalists view labour syndicates as a potential force for revolutionary social change, replacing capitalism and the state with a new society democratically self-managed by workers. Labour syndicates are expected to reject bureaucratic and centralised forms of organisation and attempt to achieve work reforms in practical short-term application. [2] The basic principles of anarcho-syndicalism are direct action, workers' solidarity and workers' self-management. Anarcho-communists often critique anarcho-syndicalism as outdated and narrow in its scope of revolutionary goals, given its sole imperative to organize labourers against economic pressures.[2] (to augment original text ending paragraph 3 in Classical section: Anarcho-syndicalism is a branch of anarchism that views labour syndicates as a potential force for revolutionary social change, replacing capitalism and the state with a new society democratically self-managed by workers. The basic principles of anarcho-syndicalism are direct action, workers' solidarity and workers' self-management.)
-Post-war era Classical anarchism fell from prominence in the aftermath of the Spanish Civil War and continued to fade through World War II.[3] ( to replace the first sentence of the first paragraph in the post-war era section: At the end of World War II, the anarchist movement was severely weakened)
In comparison with classical anarchism, which had been led by self-educated agrarian and industrial workers, the revival of interest in anarchism consisted of university students and professors with broader social and cultural influence. Similarly anarchist theory transitioned from materialist perspectives advocating the sciences to post-modern and post-materialist thinking that questioned epistemological reliance on technology and science. Cite error: The <ref>
tag has too many names (see the help page).
( to be placed after the second sentence of the first paragraph in the post-war era section: The 1960s witnessed a revival of anarchism, likely caused by a perceived failure of Marxism–Leninism and tensions built by the Cold War)
Recent trends in anarchism outside of Europe have drawn on post-colonial and syndicalist thought alongside concepts of indigenous identity.[3] (to be placed before the final sentence of the last paragraph of the post-war era section:Anarchist ideas have been influential in the development of the Zapatistas in Mexico and the Democratic Federation of Northern Syria, more commonly known as Rojava, a de facto autonomous region in northern Syria.[68])
- Modern Era Violence primarily took the form of acts of decentralised terrorism, assasinations, bombings, rural insurrections and occasionally full-fledged insurrections of varying scale.[3] (to be placed after the sixth sentence of the 3rd paragraph in the modern era section: During this time, a minority of anarchists adopted tactics of revolutionary political violence. This strategy became known as propaganda of the deed.[51])
References
- ^ a b Raekstad, Paul. “Understanding Anarchism: Some Basics .” Science & Society 80, no. 3 (2016): 407–14. http://www.jstor.org/stable/26141887.
- ^ a b c d e f Clark, John P. “What is Anarchism?” Nomos 19 (1978): 3–28.http://www.jstor.org/stable/24219036.
- ^ a b c Levy, Carl. “Social Histories of Anarchism.” Journal for the Study of Radicalism 4, no. 2 (2010): 1–44.http://www.jstor.org/stable/41887657.
Kelsey.Roman (talk) 20:21, 24 April 2022 (UTC)]
Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the
{{edit semi-protected}}
template. ;; Maddy ♥︎(they/she)♥︎ :: talk 08:53, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
Replies
- Quote: "decentralised authority" sounds like bad entryism to me. Anarchists oppose all kind of authority, be it voluntary or not (seeing that the word "anarchy" in old greek means "no rulers"). There has been some discussion on what authority itself is defined for, some contemporary anarchist like ziq just differentiate between expertise, force and authority, arguing that some people confuse expertise for authority. Although it is true that intellectual property is being criticized, in anarchism such thing would be strives for not to exist, making knowledge freely available as much as possible.
- There has also been criticism of Lenin against Anarchists opposition to hierarchy, especially Bakunin's by saying that Anarchists themselves uses force, but the whole argument doesn't hold up because Lenin thinks that force is the same as a authority. However, Bakunin also had a slight difference thinking on what authority is, namely according to H.4 Anarchist FAQ, "authority and being in authority." In other words, he simply said that being in authority due to the expertise is not the same oppressive nature as being an authority by force. However, Anarchism as a philosophy has developed more, making what one man says obsolete in the grand scheme. After all, Anarchism is about you and me and not about some leaders to follow. It's an anti-politics philosophy.
- Anyways, just wanted to clarify the nitpick. If that particular section still wants to be included, maybe a differentiation between classic and newer anarchism needs to be made.
- Also I haven't read the rest as I'm too tired. Maybe someone else can try feedback. DefendingFree (talk) 21:18, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- Interesting proposal and thank you for your input. I am not sure if we are quite accurate when we refer to "anarchism theory" that is committed to materialism. I feel we are putting the horse before the cart. There are various anarchist theories and not all are materialistic or even are idealistic or even irrational. Most of anarchists havent turned to anarchism coz they have read philosophical debates on the nature of reality, and I feel the wording tends to create such impression. Certainly Bakunin was an influential philosopher but anarchism goes far beyond his myth. Now, I have seen your reference, can you please share the document? Also, why have you chosen that specific paper? There are more mainstream opinions on the definition of anarchism, at peer reviewed books, etc. Thanks! Cinadon36 07:43, 6 May 2022 (UTC)