Talk:Anarchist schools of thought

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome! This subject is outlined on the List of basic anarchism topics. That list, along with the other Lists of basic topics, is part of a map of Wikipedia. Your help is needed to complete this map! To begin, please look over this subject's list, analyze it, improve it, and place it on your watchlist. Then join the Lists of basic topics WikiProject!
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
A summary of this article appears in Anarchism.
Maintained The following user(s) are actively contributing to this article and may be able to help with questions about verification and sources:
Skomorokh (talk · contribs)
This in no way implies article ownership; all editors are encouraged to contribute.

Contents

[edit] Name of the article

This article is a summary style split from this "Schools of thought" section of the Anarchism article. User:Bacchiad tentatively named it "Anarchist political theory", but this does not seem to cover the topic entirely (as User:Operation Spooner has pointed out, it omits economic issues that are given broad coverage). I had initially thought to call it simply "Anarchist schools of thought". Is there a better title to describe the content of the article? Skomorokh incite 18:57, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Anarchist political economy? But I have a personal prejudice against list-y articles. If I didn't I'd probably agree with your initial suggestion. Biasedly, Bacchiad 19:01, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Good point on avoiding listy articles — perhaps we should avoid plurals in the name. I think political economy is too narrow and too obscure for the intelligent, ignorant reader. I think what we want to say is "the different types of anarchism" in a concise, familiar way. "Types of anarchism" does not make clear the theoretical nature of this. "Anarchist philosophy"? "Anarchist theory"? Skomorokh incite 19:08, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Anarchist political economy, Anarchist schools of thought, or just Anarchist theory. -- Vision Thing -- 19:05, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Any objections to "Anarchist theory"? Skomorokh incite 19:23, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
I think that gives the impression that anarchist theory is monolothic. There is no "anarchist theory." Rather there are multiple anarchist theories, so maybe Anarchist theories? Operation Spooner 19:25, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I've been looking for naming precedent in other political ideologies. Only one I found was Types of socialism, and that's disputed into the ground. I think Schools of anarchist thought or Anarchist schools or thought would be most reasonable, based on section naming conventions in articles like Marxism and Conservatism. Bacchiad 19:29, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I was bold and moved the article to Anarchist schools of thought. Skomorokh incite 21:21, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Awesome. I like a bold wikipedian. Bacchiad 22:52, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed expansion of article

At present, the article only covers a subsection of its subject matter. Philosophical anarchism, pacifist anarchim, anarcha-feminism, platformism, crypto-anarchism, infoanarchism, Buddhist anarchism, Christian anarchism, Jewish anarchism, black anarchism could all be mentioned. The article could go also into detail about the interrelationships of the schools, and interlink with the Issues in anarchism sub-articles. Skomorokh incite 19:05, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Cant Buddhist anarchism, Christian anarchism and Jewish anarchism be grouped together under the same section Religious Anarchism.--Fang 23 (talk) 23:10, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
ps:I (might) help the situation by (possibly) adding a section on Religious Anarchism some other day just as i did with Anarcha-feminism and national-anarchism.
That would be ideal, this article badly needs more subsectioning, though perhaps with a different heading similar to the Contemporary free market anarchism subsection. Thanks for all your hard work so far! Skomorokh incite 18:27, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Celtic anarchism ought also be included. Skomorokh incite 17:33, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Small "a" anarchism removed

The two sources given for Small "a" anarchism are an essay published in the unreliable source Spunk Library by the non-notable author Dave Neal, and an article published in the unreliable source ZNet by the notable David Graeber. Thus material from the Neal essay must be removed per WP:V, while the Graeber material qualifies for inclusion. However, Graeber's piece refers to small "a" anarchism only fleetingly and not as a specific school of thought but as a description of most anarchists today. I could not find any reliable sources for the notability of this supposed school of thought in Neal's sense and so I am moving the section here until verifiable material is forthcoming:

Small 'a' anarchism (sometimes known as "little a") is a term used in two different, but not unconnected contexts. Dave Neal posited the term in opposition to big 'A' Anarchism in the article [http://www.spunk.org/library/intro/practice/sp001689.html Anarchism: Ideology or Methodology?]. While big 'A' Anarchism referred to ideological Anarchists, small 'a' anarchism was applied to their methodological counterparts; those who viewed anarchism as "a way of acting, or a historical tendency against illegitimate authority." As an anti-ideological position, small 'a' anarchism shares some similarities with [[post-left anarchy]]. [[David Graeber]] and [[Andrej Grubacic]] offer an alternative use of the term, applying it to groups and movements organising according to or acting in a manner consistent with anarchist principles of decentralisation, voluntary association, mutual aid, the network model, and crucially, "the rejection of any idea that the end justifies the means, let alone that the business of a revolutionary is to seize state power and then begin imposing one's vision at the point of a gun."<ref>[http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=41&ItemID=4796 Anarchism, Or The Revolutionary Movement Of The Twenty-first Century] by [[David Graeber]] and Andrej Grubacic</ref>

Skomorokh incite 19:54, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I would say that Neal's article is very notable, although he isn't as famous as Graeber. If priority is being given to academics over non-academic writers, then perhaps most of Wikipedia's editors ought to establish their credentials in editing pages. Chuck0 (talk) 04:55, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Reliable to you or me, perhaps; reliable in the Wikipedia sense, probably not. The above terminology should be read from a technical viewpoint. I don't have any opinion on the quality or importance of Neal/Graeber/Spunk Library/ZNet, I just haven't been able to find non-trivial coverage of small "a" anarchism in a peer-reviewed/editorially overseen respected publication. Skomorokh incite 05:32, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, the section needs more citations in order to be included. I'm just responding to the comments about Dave Neal being non-notable, which he is not. He's been very influential on my own thinking and his essays have gotten some attention within anarchist circles. Chuck0 (talk) 18:12, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, sorry, I should have made it clear in what sense I meant that. Skomorokh incite 20:22, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] National-Anarchism removed

User:Chuck0 has removed National-Anarchism from this article. I don't entirely disagree as it has a whiff of Astroturf about it and I have not come across any mainstream non-partisan sources (e.g. Oxford Dictionary of <whatever>) that consider it a notable form of anarchism. However, I thought people should be given a heads-up here in case anyone wanted to dispute it. Skomorokh incite 05:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia shouldn't include every nutjob theory that comes along and says that it is part of something bigger. Wikipedia is not the kitchen sink. I've run across all kinds of whackos who say that their pet theory is part of anarchy. I try to humor them and get them out of my life as soon as possible. In the instance, "national anarchism" goes against everything that anarchists stand for. Anarchists are fundamentally anti-racist, anti-nationalist and anti-authoritarian. I can find armfuls of citations to support my argument here. Hey, I'm not arguing with you, Skomorokh, just explaining why this section was removed. Chuck0 (talk) 18:10, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Its true that many modern anarchists are antagonistic to nationalism but that does not mean anarchism as an ideology is hostile to nationalism a number of early anarchists such as Mikhail Bakunin and Pierre-Joseph Proudhon supported nationalism and in addition Chinese anarchists (before the Communist party of china took control) were also deeply involved in the nationalist movement it would be somewhat of an exaggeration to say that all of anarchism is totally anti-nationalist.--Fang 23 (talk) 14:45, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
No worries, I agree with much of what you say, I just like to make the decision not to include N-A transparent. Regarding kitchen-sinkism, I think there is also a danger of going in the opposite direction of excising everything one band of editors feels is not true anarchism. I'm sure you could find respectable citations to support conflicting arguments that anarchism is say, only anti-hierarchical, anti-government or anti-collectivist. I have read black anarchist essays claiming that mainstream anarchism is inherently racist and thus unanarchistic etc. And I think when we do have such citations from reliable sources, we should include the different viewpoints, as we do here with the anarcho-communists and the individualist anarchists both claiming the others are not anarchists. I am very skeptical that such citations could be found for national anarchism. But in general I think its best to include viewpoints that have been given some credibility, explain the objections, and let the reader make her own mind up. Thanks for taking the time to discuss this btw. Skomorokh incite 20:22, 16 January 2008 (UTC)