Talk:Collectivist anarchism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details. | ||||||||
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. | ||||||||
| Mid | This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale. | ||||||||
|
|||||||||
Contents |
[edit] External Links and See also
Anybody have any good links for outside sources for this? I have not been able to find any. -- ×××jijin+machina | Chat Me!××× -- 18:15, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Removal of sourced statements
Full Shunyata, do not remove sourced statements. And do not change the meaning of sourced statements, leaving the footnote to the source attached, and therefore misrepresenting what the source says.Anarcho-capitalism 21:00, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Markets
Full Sunyata, you removed the statement that they support markets for goods. What do you think the wages are for? To buy things. I can find a source saying they support markets for goods, but it's so obvious. What else is money for but to facilitate buying and selling? Buying and selling is a market.Anarcho-capitalism 05:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Bakunin states, in his Revolutionary Catechism, not to be confused with Nechayev's one: Jacob Haller 00:55, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
The land, and all natural resources, are the common property of everyone, but will be used only by those who cultivate it by their own labor. Without expropriation, only through the powerful pressure of the worker's associations, capital and the tools of production will fall to those who produce wealth by their own labor.
[edit] Differences
Okay, the differences between collectivism and communism seem fairly-well explained, but the differences between collectivism and mutualism don't seem to be. Is all land/capital collectively owned, or just most? Jacob Haller 02:06, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Other Schools
Some anarchists support Parecon and consider anarcho-participatory-economics a form of anarcho-collectivism. As for syndicalism, An Anarchist FAQ, section A.3.2 states: Jacob Haller 00:27, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
In many ways anarcho-syndicalism can be considered as a new version of collectivist-anarchism, which also stressed the importance of anarchists working within the labour movement and creating unions which prefigure the future free society.
- But what good is that? That's just someone writing online. I can write a FAQ too but that doesn't mean the source is good. If it's really true then there should be a legitimate source for it. Illegal editor 01:01, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
-
- It's only the best-researched and most-respected secondary reference work on anarchist history and theory. Good starting point. Jacob Haller 01:24, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- I disagree. Does it meet the criteria for Wikipedia sources? You do know that that thing is written by one person, with the untrue claim that it is a collaboration, don't you? Illegal editor 02:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
- I'm sure you don't intend to spread false information about An Anarchist FAQ, but, as one of the collaborators on the revision for print, I can assure you that the collaboration is real. Libertatia 22:36, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
- You contributed a few setences maybe? And you agree with everything else that's in the document? Illegal editor 00:36, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
- I would have thought a Wikipedia editor would have been less naive about the nature of collaboration. Heck, I wrote more than half of the prose in "What's Wrong with Postanarchism?' and there's a good deal there I don't agree with entirely. Ah, well. Naturally, I don't believe everything that is in the document—I'm one of the individualist comrades working on specific sections—but I've been a witness to the decade of development of the FAQ and have provided assistance of various sorts along the way. Libertatia 16:19, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
- What I meant actually is that it's not a true collaboration. On Wikipedia, there is the assumption that all the editors agree with everything that is said in an article. With that FAQ, as you said, it's not the case. You can't easily go in and change things that you don't agree with. So it's really not a collaboration. It's not as if we can take something out of the FAQ and agree that a consensus of the "collaborators" agree with it. It's not like that at all. There is one person in charge, and if he accepts what you write then he'll put it in. If he doesn't he'll reject it. And you have no say so over the things that are already in there that you object to if he doesn't agree with you. It's not a collaboration. Illegal editor 16:31, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
- Chortle. Snort! There is quite obviously no such assumption about Wikipedia, and not even you believe any such thing, as your comments elsewhere show clearly. Wikipedia articles represent the current results of consensus or conflict among editors, and nothing more. Libertatia 17:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
- If someone doesn't agree with something on Wikipedia they can do in an change it. It's a true collaboration. With that FAQ it's not like that it all. It's not a collaboration. It's one person who accepts submissions for consideration to be included. There is no central authority figure deciding such things at Wikipedia, so it's more truly a collaboration. Illegal editor 18:17, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
- Chortle. Snort! There is quite obviously no such assumption about Wikipedia, and not even you believe any such thing, as your comments elsewhere show clearly. Wikipedia articles represent the current results of consensus or conflict among editors, and nothing more. Libertatia 17:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
- What I meant actually is that it's not a true collaboration. On Wikipedia, there is the assumption that all the editors agree with everything that is said in an article. With that FAQ, as you said, it's not the case. You can't easily go in and change things that you don't agree with. So it's really not a collaboration. It's not as if we can take something out of the FAQ and agree that a consensus of the "collaborators" agree with it. It's not like that at all. There is one person in charge, and if he accepts what you write then he'll put it in. If he doesn't he'll reject it. And you have no say so over the things that are already in there that you object to if he doesn't agree with you. It's not a collaboration. Illegal editor 16:31, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
- I would have thought a Wikipedia editor would have been less naive about the nature of collaboration. Heck, I wrote more than half of the prose in "What's Wrong with Postanarchism?' and there's a good deal there I don't agree with entirely. Ah, well. Naturally, I don't believe everything that is in the document—I'm one of the individualist comrades working on specific sections—but I've been a witness to the decade of development of the FAQ and have provided assistance of various sorts along the way. Libertatia 16:19, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
- You contributed a few setences maybe? And you agree with everything else that's in the document? Illegal editor 00:36, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
- I'm sure you don't intend to spread false information about An Anarchist FAQ, but, as one of the collaborators on the revision for print, I can assure you that the collaboration is real. Libertatia 22:36, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
- I disagree. Does it meet the criteria for Wikipedia sources? You do know that that thing is written by one person, with the untrue claim that it is a collaboration, don't you? Illegal editor 02:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Anyway, there is a contradition. You're putting this in the article: "Here the term "individualism" is referring to private ownership, in the sense of workers owning their own tools of labor and productive property, and "collectivism" is referring to collective ownership of land." But the introduction sentence says "advocated the abolition of the state and private ownership of the means of production, with the means of production instead being owned collectively." Either the means of production are owned privately or collectively. Which is it? In addition, where in that source by Bakunin does it say what "individualism" and "collectivism" refer to? Illegal editor 03:17, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
- It really shouldn't say "private ownership", it should say "renumeration to individual laborers" or "individuals being renumerated their products of labor". But I've never seen anyone call it "anarcho-collectivism" or simply "collectivism" other than you, and there is no need to take out the reference to the fact that many anarcho-syndicalist believe in collectivist anarchism as their anarchist economic system of choice. And I notice that you've taken to the same obsession as all of Billy Ego's other anarcho-capitalist sockpuppets. Full Shunyata 00:12, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
- It's still contradictory. Here is what you have now: "in the sense of workers owning their own tools of labor and productive property." That is private ownership of the means of production. The first sentence says it advocated abolishing private ownership of the means production in favor of collective ownership. Either anarcho-collectivism supports private ownership or it opposes it in favor of collective ownership. Which is it? Illegal editor 00:36, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
-
- Your problem seems to stem from the fact that you do not understand what "private ownership of the means of production" means. Owning your own tools of labor and being individually renumerated is not the same thing as "private ownership". And "private ownership" is not a uniform thing either, just as "collective ownership" is not a uniform thing. State ownership is seen by some as a form of "collective ownership" (though social anarchists would not see it as such), and "private ownership" could mean every individual owning an equal share of the company and having equal decision-making power or a company being formed from a merger of the productive tools and land of individual propertied workers (such as in mutualism). Collectivist anarchists believe in everyone owning their own tools of labor (as do communist anarchists as well) but unlike communists anarchists they believe in individual renumeration, even in the form of money. Communist anarchists object to this because they believe such measurements of labor are artificial and a means of control and regulation of how much a person can consume (by way of the size of their salary), collectivist anarchists believe that money is a tangible way for workers to be paid for their labor services (believing that a moneyless gift economy would be unfair to those who work harder or don't work at all). Full Shunyata 02:13, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
-
- Then it's you that doesn't know what private ownership means. If you own your own tools then you privately own them. That is private ownership of means of production. So which is it? Either Collectivsts want to abolish private ownership or they don't. Illegal editor 02:20, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
- Well hell, if owning your own tools is "private ownership of the means of production" then anarcho-communists must also believe in private ownership of the means of production since virtually all anarcho-communists believe in private ownership of tools. You're grasping for straws. I did not say they don't believe in any private ownership of anything, I said they don't believe in private ownership of the means of production (factories, workplaces, etc.). All anarchists believe in private ownership of personal possessions, collectivist and communist anarchists view tools of labor as personal possessions. Full Shunyata 02:25, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
- Tools are means of production. If you abolish private ownership of means of production then individuals don't own tools but they're owned communally. That's what means of production means. It is tools, machines, and land. Illegal editor 02:30, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
- Well heck, then anarcho-communists must believe in private ownership of the means of production since they all believe in private ownership of tools and even personal farming land. Full Shunyata 02:34, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
- No they don't. They are for abolishing private ownership of the means of production. All tools would be in a storehouse for all to share. Land would be farmed communally. Illegal editor 02:36, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
- That is a lie, anarcho-communists do not believe in storing tools in a warehouse for all tho share and anarcho-communists believe that a farm used to produce for an individual or their family should be a personal possession owned by individual farmers rather than the commuinity:
- It is apparent that you do not understand anarcho-communism. Full Shunyata 02:40, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
-
- It's apparent you don't understand what "means of production" means. It's tools, machines, and land. Either Collectivist are for abolishing all private ownership, some private ownership, or not abolishing it at all. Which is it? Illegal editor 02:42, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
- I understand perfectly well what it means. Collectivist anarchists believe in workplaces and land being owned by collective groups in workers' councils but believe that tools of labor should be owned individually. Communist anarchists believe that workplaces and land that produces for the community (ie. products that are sold under a monetary system) should be freely available to everyone, not a particular group or individual. But they also believe in individuals owning their own tools of labor and their own plots of farm land for producing for themselves (ie. like how people have their own farm land which they used to grow food for themselves instead of selling in a monetary system). Full Shunyata 02:47, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
-
- You don't understand anarcho-communism. Kropotkin said "houses, fields, and factories will no longer be private property, and that they will belong to the commune or the nation and money, wages, and trade would be abolished." He also said that he wouldn't force people to participate, so that those who didn't want to the communist system would be allowed to own their tools and small family plots of land, but that's not anarcho-communism. That's simply allowing people to not participate in anarcho-communism. In the anarcho-communism itself all means of production would be owned the commune. Illegal editor 02:50, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
- I don't understand it? I consider myself an anarcho-communist, I would hope that I understand what I adhere to (although I'm an ardent anarchist without adjectives and also firmly support non-communist anarchist systems). How easy it is to cherry-pick certain quotes from certain people to get them to say just about anything. The same Peter Kropotkin that you quoted also said "a peasant who is in possession of just the amount of land he can cultivate," and "a family inhabiting a house which affords them just enough space... considered necessary for that number of people" and the artisan "working with their own tools or handloom [would not be interfered with]",[1]. Obviously he believed in private ownership of land and tools that are not being used for community production (ie. not being produced for sale if it were a monetary system). Anarcho-communists only believe in common access to things being used to produce for society (ie. things that would be sold if anarcho-communism was a monetary system), because all anarchists from Tucker to Kropotkin believe in the right of ownership (possession) stems from usage. That something should be owned either by who it is being used for or being used by. That, my friend, is the anarchist idea of possession in a nutshell. And quoting Kropotkin will get you nowhere. Anarchism is not orthodox Marxism, we do not have to adhere to the ideas of anarchist figures, I disagree with Kropotkin and Dejacque on lots of things. This isn't like orthodox Marxism where the word of prominent philosophers is a bnding rule that anarchists must follow as doctrine. Many modern anarcho-communists disagree with Kropotkin and Dejacque on things just like modern mutualists disagree with Proudhon and Swartz on things.Full Shunyata 03:03, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
-
- From the means of production article, "include machines, tools, plant and equipment, infrastructure, and so on: "all those things with the aid of which man [sic] acts upon the subject of labor, and transforms it." (Institute of Economics of the Academy of Sciences of the U.S.S.R., 1957, p xiii)." Individuals owning machines and tools is private ownership. Illegal editor 02:52, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
- Well, virtually all forms of anarchism believe that individuals should own their own tools. So should all forms of anarchism be considered to support private property? You won't find any quote from Bakunin, Kropotkin or Rocker that says people shouldn't own their own tools. Full Shunyata 03:03, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
- No they don't. They are for abolishing private ownership of the means of production. All tools would be in a storehouse for all to share. Land would be farmed communally. Illegal editor 02:36, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
- Well heck, then anarcho-communists must believe in private ownership of the means of production since they all believe in private ownership of tools and even personal farming land. Full Shunyata 02:34, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
- Tools are means of production. If you abolish private ownership of means of production then individuals don't own tools but they're owned communally. That's what means of production means. It is tools, machines, and land. Illegal editor 02:30, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
- Well hell, if owning your own tools is "private ownership of the means of production" then anarcho-communists must also believe in private ownership of the means of production since virtually all anarcho-communists believe in private ownership of tools. You're grasping for straws. I did not say they don't believe in any private ownership of anything, I said they don't believe in private ownership of the means of production (factories, workplaces, etc.). All anarchists believe in private ownership of personal possessions, collectivist and communist anarchists view tools of labor as personal possessions. Full Shunyata 02:25, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
- Then it's you that doesn't know what private ownership means. If you own your own tools then you privately own them. That is private ownership of means of production. So which is it? Either Collectivsts want to abolish private ownership or they don't. Illegal editor 02:20, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
-
- Your problem seems to stem from the fact that you do not understand what "private ownership of the means of production" means. Owning your own tools of labor and being individually renumerated is not the same thing as "private ownership". And "private ownership" is not a uniform thing either, just as "collective ownership" is not a uniform thing. State ownership is seen by some as a form of "collective ownership" (though social anarchists would not see it as such), and "private ownership" could mean every individual owning an equal share of the company and having equal decision-making power or a company being formed from a merger of the productive tools and land of individual propertied workers (such as in mutualism). Collectivist anarchists believe in everyone owning their own tools of labor (as do communist anarchists as well) but unlike communists anarchists they believe in individual renumeration, even in the form of money. Communist anarchists object to this because they believe such measurements of labor are artificial and a means of control and regulation of how much a person can consume (by way of the size of their salary), collectivist anarchists believe that money is a tangible way for workers to be paid for their labor services (believing that a moneyless gift economy would be unfair to those who work harder or don't work at all). Full Shunyata 02:13, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
-
- It's still contradictory. Here is what you have now: "in the sense of workers owning their own tools of labor and productive property." That is private ownership of the means of production. The first sentence says it advocated abolishing private ownership of the means production in favor of collective ownership. Either anarcho-collectivism supports private ownership or it opposes it in favor of collective ownership. Which is it? Illegal editor 00:36, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- For it being called anarcho-collectivism and Collectivism, see the MS Encarta article on Anarchism http://uk.encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761568770/Anarchism.html Bakunin didn't call it "Collectivist anarchism." He just called it "Collectivism." Illegal editor 00:45, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
- That would just make the article confusing because it sounds like all forms of "collectivism" are specifically Bakuninist collectivist anarchism, which is not true. Just calling it "collectivism" would make the collectivism article seem as if it is referring to this specific anarchist philosophy. BTW, Encarta is almost as bad as quoting a dictionary, not only that but it doesn't even back up your assertion. It says that Bakunin referred to Proudhonian mutualism as "collectivism",
- "Proudhonian mutualism argued that workers’ associations would replace the capitalist economy, enabling the political State to wither away. However, mutualism (renamed collectivism by anarchists such as Bakunin)...."
- Confusing or not, Bakunin named it "Collectivism." Illegal editor 02:22, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
- No, he did not. He called mutualism "collectivism". You blatantly ignored the quote from your own Encarta source which didn't even back up your edit. BAKUNIN REFERRED TO PROUDHON'S MUTUALISM AS "COLLECTIVISM". What about that do you not get? And quoting a source but not putting in the article won't cut it here on Wikipedia. Maybe because you know that Encarta is a flimsy source? Full Shunyata 02:28, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
-
- Bakunin modified mutualism and called of Collectivism. Illegal editor 02:32, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
- The article says no such thing. This is original research. Bakunin was not a Mutualist, he even argued against Mutualism.
- From the Criticism section of the mutualist anarchism article Collectivist anarchist Michael Bakunin was an adamant critic of Proudhonian mutualism as well,[2] stating, "How ridiculous are the ideas of the individualists of... the Proudhonian mutualists who conceive society as the result of the free contract of individuals absolutely independent of one another and entering into mutual relations only because of the convention drawn up among men. As if these men had dropped from the skies, bringing with them speech, will, original thought, and as if they were alien to anything of the earth, that is, anything having social origin."[3] Full Shunyata 02:34, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
-
- "Proudhonian mutualism argued that workers’ associations would replace the capitalist economy, enabling the political State to wither away. However, mutualism (renamed collectivism by anarchists such as Bakunin)...."
- Bakunian collectivism is a seperate type of anarchy from mutualism, they are not the same thing. Full Shunyata 02:13, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
- I know that Bakunin was not a mutualist. He was at first, but then modified mutualism and called it Collectivism. Illegal editor 02:56, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
- No, Bakunin was originally a Marxist (he translated Das Kapital into Russian), then an anarcho-communist (before the First International), but branched off into his own school because, unlike anarcho-communists, he did not object to the use of money. The article even mentions the break between collectivists and communists. Proudhon claimed to be a disciple of Proudhon (so did Kropotkin), but I've never seen where he actually claimed to be a mutualist supporting their cooperative ideas and mutual banking. If you want to say that he "modified mutualism" you could just as easily say that he "modified communism" since he was an anarcho-communist who did not object to the use of money and then considered his line of thought to be a different school of anarchy. That is why what you said is original research, it's personal extrapolation. If you want to say that Bakunin was a "modified mutualist", you would need a published and verifiable source which verifies this same sentiment as a fact. That's how Wiki works. Full Shunyata 03:08, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
- I know that Bakunin was not a mutualist. He was at first, but then modified mutualism and called it Collectivism. Illegal editor 02:56, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
- That would just make the article confusing because it sounds like all forms of "collectivism" are specifically Bakuninist collectivist anarchism, which is not true. Just calling it "collectivism" would make the collectivism article seem as if it is referring to this specific anarchist philosophy. BTW, Encarta is almost as bad as quoting a dictionary, not only that but it doesn't even back up your assertion. It says that Bakunin referred to Proudhonian mutualism as "collectivism",
- And what is "renumeration"? Do you mean remuneration? Illegal editor 00:48, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, that is what I meant. It was a typo. Full Shunyata 02:25, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
- For it being called anarcho-collectivism and Collectivism, see the MS Encarta article on Anarchism http://uk.encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761568770/Anarchism.html Bakunin didn't call it "Collectivist anarchism." He just called it "Collectivism." Illegal editor 00:45, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
-
-
I suppose we need some concise way to distinguish personal tools from social means of production in this article. Jacob Haller 03:12, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
- I agree. I know of virtually no anarchist who would say "People should not own their own personal tools". But some anarchists (social anarchists) would say that factories, workplaces, farms, etc. that are being used for social production should be freely accessible/owned by a collective/owned by a workers' council/owned by a trade union/etc while individualist and mutualist anarchist would say they should be owned by individual worker-owners or owned by individuals in cooperatives/mutuals. I think reducing "individualism" and "collectivism" to "private ownership" or "social ownership" is stupid and confusing. It's old user Anarcho-capitalism who put that confusing tangental bit in there anyway, I simply tried to clarify it to make it less confusing. I believe it should be taken out altogether because it's just confusing. Full Shunyata 03:17, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
- How about just sticking to sourcing rules? Then the articles takes care of itself. The problem is people like Full Shunyata insisting on unsourced material being included that he makes up off the top of his head. Illegal editor 03:20, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
- Unsourced material? You are the one inserting unsourced material about "anarcho-collectivism" and inersting original research like Bakunin was a modified mutualist. You are also the one taking out sourced material in the Tucker article. I thought you had to go somewhere for a while, apparently you were lying. Full Shunyata 03:22, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
- I gave a source for it being anarcho-collectivism. You won't accept it. You're very disruptive. Just do search on Google: "Anarcho-collectivism +Bakunin". That's a very common name for it. I didn't put in this article that Bakunin was a modified mutualist so what are you talking about? That's something I said HERE. But I thought everyone knew that Bakunin was originally a Proudhonist that modified mutualism and called the new philosophy Collectivism. Do some research if you don't believe me. Illegal editor 03:26, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
- I have not blocked you from putting in the source. No one held a gun to your head and prevented you from adding the source in as a reference in the article. NONE of your edits put that source into the article, you simply mentioned it as a note in the History when you edited. That won't cut it, it has to be actually IN the article itself, not the notes. You have not listed it on the page to be a reference. And the source DID NOT SUPPORT YOUR ASSERTION. IT SAID THAT BAKUNIN CALLED PROUDHON'S MUTUALISM "COLLECTIVISM". It does not say he referred to his own philosophy simply as "collectivism". Now that other stuff about Bakunin supposedly being being a modified mutualist and thus the reference to Proudhonian mutualism also applies to him is nothing more than mental gymnastics and original research. The source is not saying what you are saying at all. Full Shunyata 03:30, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
- I gave the source in the explanation line for the edit. You had no reason to delete the information. That MS Encarta article was written by scholar David Levy http://uk.encarta.msn.com/text_761568770__1/Anarchism.html. It is a published article. You can disupte it all you want but there it is. But what's the point of you arguing about Bakunin modifying Proudhonism when I didn't even put it in the article? Are you just arguing for argument's sake? You seem to just want to fight for the purpose of fighting. You're coming across to me as a real trouble maker. Illegal editor 03:35, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
- You had no reason to delete the sourced material in the Tucker article as Tucker did indeed in late life talk about two Socialisms and claimed to believe in one. And the Encarta reference did not support your claim. I have every right to throw out a source if it does not support your assertion. It does not say that Bakunin called his own philosophy "collectivism", it says that he called Proudhon's philosophy "collectivism". I had every right to throw the source out because it did not back up what you said, thus your claim was Original Resarch. And keep in mind that I have been here much longer than you while you are calling me "troublesome". You are the one who signed on a couple of days ago yet seem naturally familiar with Wikipedia rules and went straight for the same articles that Good tone and Dark Egg went for (and with the same damn ideology and opinions). Full Shunyata 03:44, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
- You're committing the same type of disruptions in the Benjamin Tucker article. You're deleting sourced things and inserting unsourced things, when you should be doing the opposite. I know Wikipedia rules pretty well. I'm by no means a new user and have probably used Wikipedia before you ever even heard of it. Illegal editor 03:47, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
- "You're deleting sourced things" SPARE ME. You deleted the sourced material on Tucker's comment on the two Socialisms and several other sourced statements. And you gave absolutely no reason for it other than you personally don't believe that Tucker was a socialist. I deleted your Encarta source because it did not say what you said. You said that Bakunin called his own philosophy "collectivism" and sourced Encarta. Your source, that you didn't bother to read too thoroughly, said that Bakunin called Proudhon's philosophy "collectivism". Thus, the source was illegitimate because it did not support your claim. "I'm by no means a new user and have probably used Wikipedia before you ever even heard of it." That's exactly what Good tone and crew said. So you basically admitted that you are another sockpuppet. Thanks for giving me more evidence to prove my case. Full Shunyata 03:53, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not a sockpuppet. I'm an occasional user of Wikipedia. This is a new username because I haven't used Wikipedia in awhile. I don't keep up with my old usernames. The source does support my claim. Bakunin was an anarcho-collectivist. Why don't you try reading the article. There is a discussion about the difference between "anarcho-collectivism" and "anarcho-communism." What else could "anarcho-collectivism" be referring to? Illegal editor 03:56, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
- Whether or not you are a sockpuppet will be seen, but so far you are identical in every aspect to about 8 other banned users who turned out to be the same person(s). And why would you need to create a new username? That is the same exact claim Good tone made. "The source does support my claim." No it doesn't. It doesn't say that he referred to his philosophy simply as "collectivism", he did that Proudhon's philosophy. "Bakunin was an anarcho-collectivist." When have I said otherwise? All that I've argued is that he didn't call his philosophy just "collectivism" just like Tucker rarely called his philosohpy just "socialism". "There is a discussion about the difference between "anarcho-collectivism" and "anarcho-communism." What else could "anarcho-collectivism" be referring to?" You seem to be on a completely different subject from me, I never said that collectivist anarchism is communist anarchism. I simply said that he didn't call it just "collectivism" and that he wasn't a mutualist. I also said that anarcho-communism does not object to private ownership of private possessions. Anarcho-communists consider personal (read: not used for social production) farm land and personal tools of labor to be personal possessions. You are trying to apply capitalist notions of property to non-capitalist philosophies. Anarchists view "property" as "means of production". Not just any old item from a multinational corporation to a personal comb like capitalists do. Full Shunyata 04:08, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
- The philosophy that this article refers to is also called "anarcho-collectivism." Do you deny this? It's discussed in the source I gave you. What else could "anarcho-collectivism" be referring to? Illegal editor 04:12, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
- Need another source? "Both these theories developed out of anarcho-collectivism, a radical economic federalism developed by the libertarian elements of the (First) International Workingmen's Association. Its principal advocates were Michael Bakunin and James Guillaume, but the real credit for the theory of collectivism should go to the workers..." http://www.infoshop.org/inews/article.php?story=04/11/23/8323432 Illegal editor 04:16, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
-
- It's usually just called "Collectivist anarchism" instead of "anarcho-collectivism". I guess you can put in (aka "anarcho-collectivism"), but it feels about like saying "anarcho-individualism" or "anarcho-mutualism". I never disagreed that Bakunin called his philosophy "collectivist anarchism" seperate from anarcho-communism. His and James Guillaume's philosophy is indeed different from anarcho-communism. All I was saying was that it didn't support the claim that Bakunin called collectivist anarchism simply "collectivism". Just like you won't find many places where Benjamin Tucker refers to individualist anarchism as simply "socialism". Full Shunyata 04:20, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
- It's ridiculous that you had to go through all this to realize that the philosophy this article refers to is known as "anarcho-collectivism," "collectivism," and "collectivist anarchism." Illegal editor 04:27, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
- It's usually just called "Collectivist anarchism" instead of "anarcho-collectivism". I guess you can put in (aka "anarcho-collectivism"), but it feels about like saying "anarcho-individualism" or "anarcho-mutualism". I never disagreed that Bakunin called his philosophy "collectivist anarchism" seperate from anarcho-communism. His and James Guillaume's philosophy is indeed different from anarcho-communism. All I was saying was that it didn't support the claim that Bakunin called collectivist anarchism simply "collectivism". Just like you won't find many places where Benjamin Tucker refers to individualist anarchism as simply "socialism". Full Shunyata 04:20, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
-
- Whether or not you are a sockpuppet will be seen, but so far you are identical in every aspect to about 8 other banned users who turned out to be the same person(s). And why would you need to create a new username? That is the same exact claim Good tone made. "The source does support my claim." No it doesn't. It doesn't say that he referred to his philosophy simply as "collectivism", he did that Proudhon's philosophy. "Bakunin was an anarcho-collectivist." When have I said otherwise? All that I've argued is that he didn't call his philosophy just "collectivism" just like Tucker rarely called his philosohpy just "socialism". "There is a discussion about the difference between "anarcho-collectivism" and "anarcho-communism." What else could "anarcho-collectivism" be referring to?" You seem to be on a completely different subject from me, I never said that collectivist anarchism is communist anarchism. I simply said that he didn't call it just "collectivism" and that he wasn't a mutualist. I also said that anarcho-communism does not object to private ownership of private possessions. Anarcho-communists consider personal (read: not used for social production) farm land and personal tools of labor to be personal possessions. You are trying to apply capitalist notions of property to non-capitalist philosophies. Anarchists view "property" as "means of production". Not just any old item from a multinational corporation to a personal comb like capitalists do. Full Shunyata 04:08, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not a sockpuppet. I'm an occasional user of Wikipedia. This is a new username because I haven't used Wikipedia in awhile. I don't keep up with my old usernames. The source does support my claim. Bakunin was an anarcho-collectivist. Why don't you try reading the article. There is a discussion about the difference between "anarcho-collectivism" and "anarcho-communism." What else could "anarcho-collectivism" be referring to? Illegal editor 03:56, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
- "You're deleting sourced things" SPARE ME. You deleted the sourced material on Tucker's comment on the two Socialisms and several other sourced statements. And you gave absolutely no reason for it other than you personally don't believe that Tucker was a socialist. I deleted your Encarta source because it did not say what you said. You said that Bakunin called his own philosophy "collectivism" and sourced Encarta. Your source, that you didn't bother to read too thoroughly, said that Bakunin called Proudhon's philosophy "collectivism". Thus, the source was illegitimate because it did not support your claim. "I'm by no means a new user and have probably used Wikipedia before you ever even heard of it." That's exactly what Good tone and crew said. So you basically admitted that you are another sockpuppet. Thanks for giving me more evidence to prove my case. Full Shunyata 03:53, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
- Don't twist my words, I did not say I he called his philosophy "collectivism". I said he called "collectivist anarchism" and your source claims that other people have called it "anarcho-collectivism". I did not say he called it "collectivism", your source says he called Mutualism "collectivism". You can put in (a.k.a "anarcho-collectivsm") but not (a.k.a "anarcho-collectivism" or "collectivism") because you have not given a source which proves the second title "collectivism". Full Shunyata 04:35, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
- Don't tell me what I can or can't put in. If something is sourced, I can put it in. I don't need your permission. Both of those sources use "anarcho-collectivism" and "collectivism" to refer to this philosophy. Illegal editor
- You're committing the same type of disruptions in the Benjamin Tucker article. You're deleting sourced things and inserting unsourced things, when you should be doing the opposite. I know Wikipedia rules pretty well. I'm by no means a new user and have probably used Wikipedia before you ever even heard of it. Illegal editor 03:47, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
- I have not blocked you from putting in the source. No one held a gun to your head and prevented you from adding the source in as a reference in the article. NONE of your edits put that source into the article, you simply mentioned it as a note in the History when you edited. That won't cut it, it has to be actually IN the article itself, not the notes. You have not listed it on the page to be a reference. And the source DID NOT SUPPORT YOUR ASSERTION. IT SAID THAT BAKUNIN CALLED PROUDHON'S MUTUALISM "COLLECTIVISM". It does not say he referred to his own philosophy simply as "collectivism". Now that other stuff about Bakunin supposedly being being a modified mutualist and thus the reference to Proudhonian mutualism also applies to him is nothing more than mental gymnastics and original research. The source is not saying what you are saying at all. Full Shunyata 03:30, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
- The claim that it is called simply "collectivism" is not sourced. The source did not say that Bakunin called his own philosophy "collectivism", he called Proudhon's philosophy "collectivism". All you have given a source for is the claim that it is also called "anarcho-collectivism". Do not insert in unsourced material. The title "collectivism" is not sourced, but "anarcho-collectivism" is. Full Shunyata 04:39, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
- I gave a source for it being anarcho-collectivism. You won't accept it. You're very disruptive. Just do search on Google: "Anarcho-collectivism +Bakunin". That's a very common name for it. I didn't put in this article that Bakunin was a modified mutualist so what are you talking about? That's something I said HERE. But I thought everyone knew that Bakunin was originally a Proudhonist that modified mutualism and called the new philosophy Collectivism. Do some research if you don't believe me. Illegal editor 03:26, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
- Unsourced material? You are the one inserting unsourced material about "anarcho-collectivism" and inersting original research like Bakunin was a modified mutualist. You are also the one taking out sourced material in the Tucker article. I thought you had to go somewhere for a while, apparently you were lying. Full Shunyata 03:22, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
- You said "(also known as anarcho-collectivism and Collectivism)" (you should put the source next to this claim instead of down next to the note), but the article says "Proudhonian mutualism argued that workers’ associations would replace the capitalist economy, enabling the political State to wither away. However, mutualism (renamed collectivism by anarchists such as Bakunin)" It does not say that collectivist anarchism was also called simply "collectivism". Thus, the second title is unsourced. Full Shunyata 04:42, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Now, on to the means of production. This article is contradictory because it indicates that Collectivism supports and oppose private ownership of means of production. Illegal editor 04:29, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
- It all depends on what you mean by "means of production". Collectivist anarchists oppose private ownership of workplaces, farms, etc. but do not opposed individuals owning their own tools. The same thing with communist anarchists. I don't see what is so fundamentally difficult about this to understand. I own my own tools and take them with me in my personal delivery truck to a workers' council-owned factory every morning (which I am also a partial owner of because I am part of said workers' council). My co-workers and I own the company but the company does not own the tools I bring to work every morning or the delivery truck that I brought to work to help with deliveries. Full Shunyata 04:35, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
- I mean by "means of production" what everyone means by means of production ..at least everyone who knows what the term means. Means of production are tools, machines, workbuildings, and land. This article's first sentence says " by Michael Bakunin that advocated the abolition of the state and private ownership of the means of production, with the means of production instead being owned collectively..." If Collectivism includes people owning tools and machines privately, then that sentence is false. Illegal editor 04:42, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
- It could be re-written to say that collectivist anarchism believes in collective ownership of socially productive capital but private ownership of personal possessions. Tools of labor would be seen as such personal possessions. But then again, that sentence should also go into the anarcho-communism article since virtually all anarcho-communists believe in private ownership of tools of labor as well. You are just making this even more confusing. Full Shunyata 04:52, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
- I have a suggestion. Why don't you try learning what the Collectivist philosophy is? I don't know what it is, otherwise I would correct the article. Obviously, you don't know what is is. But, I do know a contradiction when I see one. I'm going to put source requested tags in this article. Illegal editor 05:00, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
- It's good that you admit that you don't know what it is because it really shows. You're asking very amateurish questions that anyone with even cursory knowledge of social anarchism would already know. That's why I'm here to educate you on it. Like I said, we could that collectivist anarchists view personal tools as personal possessions but view socially productive property as a social possession to be owned by collective groups. Full Shunyata 05:03, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
- You aren't able to educate me on it because it's obvious that you don't know what you're talking about. Obviously you know very little about anarchism and about common terms such as "means of production." Obviously there is a problem with this article if it says that private ownership of means of production would be abolished and supported at the same time. If you can't even see a contradiction then you shouldnt even be involved with Wikipedia. Illegal editor 05:07, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
- Personal possession of personal tools is pretty nearly universally accepted among anarchists. The debates concern shared tools; i.e. those which several people use. Which ones are shared among their users, shared through the community, in common for the world, etc.? I actually reinserted one of the passages in question. I cited Bakunin, though I.E. claims failed verification because it never uses the word 'individualist.' Jacob Haller 06:24, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
- That Bakunin writing was being used as a source to show why anarcho-collectivism is a blend of individualism and collectvism. Bakunin is not explaining any such thing. Besides, the preceding sentence already explains why it's a blend of individual and collectivism and it's from the source. Illegal editor 17:08, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
- A "personal tool" used to produce something is a means of production. Anarcho-communists and anarcho-collectivists are for collectivization of ALL means of production. Kropotkin argued that he would not force people to take part in anarcho-communism because he would alllow anyone who didn't wish to take partto own a home just large enough for their family, a small plot of land, some tools, etc. This doesn't mean that private ownership of these things are part of anarcho-communism. It's just means anarcho-communists would allow people not to join the communism as long as they didn't own too much. This is what I was trying to explain to Full Shunyata. Like I said, I'm not that familiar with anarcho-collectivism so I don't know yet if Bakunin would ALLOW people to own their own means of production if they didn't want to join the collective, but considering he advocated violent revolution the collectivize all means of production it doesn't seem so to me. Illegal editor 18:07, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
- Personal possession of personal tools is pretty nearly universally accepted among anarchists. The debates concern shared tools; i.e. those which several people use. Which ones are shared among their users, shared through the community, in common for the world, etc.? I actually reinserted one of the passages in question. I cited Bakunin, though I.E. claims failed verification because it never uses the word 'individualist.' Jacob Haller 06:24, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
- You aren't able to educate me on it because it's obvious that you don't know what you're talking about. Obviously you know very little about anarchism and about common terms such as "means of production." Obviously there is a problem with this article if it says that private ownership of means of production would be abolished and supported at the same time. If you can't even see a contradiction then you shouldnt even be involved with Wikipedia. Illegal editor 05:07, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
- *Yawn* You basically just gave a long-winded way of saying "No you're stupid!" It would have saved a lot of time. G'night kid. Full Shunyata 05:14, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
- You said it, not me. Illegal editor 05:22, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Where does Bakunin describe the differences between collectivist and mutualist anarchism? Jacob Haller 06:24, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
- Bakunin doesn't because Bakunin was not a mutualist. He was originally a Marxist, then an anarcho-communist, then a collectivist anarchist. Bakunin even went so far as to ridicule Mutualism and Proudhon and his kindred spirits. The only connection that Bakunin has to mutualist anarchism is that he called himself a "disciple of Proudhon". However, Kropotkin also called himself a "disciple of Proudhon" and even went so far to say that anarcho-communism is mutualist anarchism taken to its logical conclusion. Making the case that Bakunin and his collectivist anarchism is a form of mutualism is as flimsy as trying to make a case that Kropotkin was a mutualist. I mean, there is about equal evidence to claim that both were (their flimsy claim of being disciples of Proudhon). I already had a good summary of collectivist anarchism before this new sockpuppet made it confusing. I originally summed up collectivist anarchism as being "a cross between anarcho-communism and mutualist anarchism". That's a farily accurate thing to say. Full Shunyata 23:56, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Rename the article?
I'm wondering if this philosophy is most often simply called "collectivism." In Google, 'bakunin -wikipedia +"anarcho-collectivism"' gives 36 hits. 'bakunin -wikipedia +"collectivist anarchism"' gives 328 hits. 'bakunin -wikipedia +"collectivism"' gives 11,800 hits. Illegal editor 19:30, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
- Renaming the article would simply add confusion, as there are other philosophies of "collectivism" which are not anarchist. Libertatia 20:38, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think Wikipedia should sacrifice accuracy to avoid confusion. There could always be a disambiguation page. Illegal editor 00:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- Fortunately, that's no our choice. There is no sacrifice of accuracy, though there would be if we conflated collectivist anarchism with "collectivism." Your Google numbers are meaningless without interpretation, and, as it is as likely that what you're seeing reflects uses internal to the anarchist movement (in which case there would be no need to constantly say 'anarchist...") than anything else, such interpretation would be OR. Libertatia 02:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- It has nothing to do with OR. The convention on Wikipedia is to use the most often used term to name an article. Google searches are one way to get an idea of what term is used the most. I see that the mutualism article is called "mutualism (economic theory)" even though some call it "mutualist anarchism." This article could be "collectivism (anarchism)" or something like that. Then there would be a disambiguation page. Or it can be done like it's done with the mutualism article with just a note at the top of that article. There could be a note at the top of the collectivism article to redirect anyone who is looking for this subject. Illegal editor 03:20, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- It is most certainly OR, and not very good OR at that, as you are attempting to establish what the "most often used term" is, using your sketchy Google search. "Collectivism" quite obviously refers to something very different from collectivist anarchism, so 1) the name change would add confusion (albeit a confusion that some partisan editors might welcome), and 2) there is no established basis for the name change in the first place. Libertatia 16:21, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- I'm curious as to why you say "some partisan editors might welcome" what I'm proposing? What would be the advantage to a particular POV? I'm getting the feeling that you are opposing this because you suspect that I'm trying to push a POV when I'm simply a stickler for details. Illegal editor 16:43, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- Try to be a better "stickler." Libertatia 17:54, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- That doesn't answer me. I'm curious what POV you think you would furthered by renaming the article to what appears to be the most popular name for the doctrine? Illegal editor 17:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- I'm fairly certain you already know the POV in question, and are pushing it. If you are uncertain what your own POV is, then I can't help you much. End of explanation. Libertatia 20:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- WHAT?! What POV are you talking about? What POV would I be pushed by renaming the article from "Collectivist anarchism" to "Collectivism (anarchism)"? I think the reason you can't answer the question is because you don't have an answer. You simply suspect that the reason I suggest a change is to push my POV and that therefore some POV will be pushed by it, therefore you oppose a change. That's not a sound basis for a decision on your part. Illegal editor 20:55, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- I'm fairly certain you already know the POV in question, and are pushing it. If you are uncertain what your own POV is, then I can't help you much. End of explanation. Libertatia 20:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- That doesn't answer me. I'm curious what POV you think you would furthered by renaming the article to what appears to be the most popular name for the doctrine? Illegal editor 17:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- Try to be a better "stickler." Libertatia 17:54, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- I'm curious as to why you say "some partisan editors might welcome" what I'm proposing? What would be the advantage to a particular POV? I'm getting the feeling that you are opposing this because you suspect that I'm trying to push a POV when I'm simply a stickler for details. Illegal editor 16:43, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- It is most certainly OR, and not very good OR at that, as you are attempting to establish what the "most often used term" is, using your sketchy Google search. "Collectivism" quite obviously refers to something very different from collectivist anarchism, so 1) the name change would add confusion (albeit a confusion that some partisan editors might welcome), and 2) there is no established basis for the name change in the first place. Libertatia 16:21, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- It has nothing to do with OR. The convention on Wikipedia is to use the most often used term to name an article. Google searches are one way to get an idea of what term is used the most. I see that the mutualism article is called "mutualism (economic theory)" even though some call it "mutualist anarchism." This article could be "collectivism (anarchism)" or something like that. Then there would be a disambiguation page. Or it can be done like it's done with the mutualism article with just a note at the top of that article. There could be a note at the top of the collectivism article to redirect anyone who is looking for this subject. Illegal editor 03:20, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- Fortunately, that's no our choice. There is no sacrifice of accuracy, though there would be if we conflated collectivist anarchism with "collectivism." Your Google numbers are meaningless without interpretation, and, as it is as likely that what you're seeing reflects uses internal to the anarchist movement (in which case there would be no need to constantly say 'anarchist...") than anything else, such interpretation would be OR. Libertatia 02:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think Wikipedia should sacrifice accuracy to avoid confusion. There could always be a disambiguation page. Illegal editor 00:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
I have given my reasons for opposition to the name change. Nobody else has even shown interest in your proposal. If you are simply unable to see that "collectivist anarchism" and "collectivism" indicate very different things, then we'll leave it at that, and I will judge your other edits accordingly. Libertatia 21:00, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- Collectivist anarchism and collectivism are not two different things. They are two names for the same thing. The latter name is the more common name for it. No one has shown interest in my proposal OR your objection because there's no one else here. You haven't given a legimate reason for opposing it. You've got these POV accusations which don't hold water, then you say you oppose it because "collectivism" can also mean something else. I'm sorry to be the one to tell you, but lots of words mean more than one thing. That's why on Wikipedia there are disambiguation pages and there are simple notes you can put at the top of articles like that which is on the mutualism article which directs people looking for anarchist mutualism to that article. Illegal editor 21:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- Wikipedia shouldn't be pushing for something to be named by a title that it is not ordinarily named by. It should be a reflection of the consensus that's already out there in the literature. Illegal editor 21:18, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- And there is no credible evidence that the consensus is anything other than what the article name reflects. There are two concepts, slightly related. To confuse or conflate them is simply incorrect. You're the stickler for accuracy, right? Stickle. Libertatia 21:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- A google search is credible evidence. That's the norm on Wikipedia for determining the most popular term for a thing. I'm not confusing or conflating generic collectivism with anarcho-collectivism at at all. Do you not understand disambiguation pages? Look at the page egoism. See how many things that one term can refer to? Similarly, "collectivism" refers to more than one thing. That doesn't conflate or confuse the term. It does the opposite. It DIS-ambiguates the term. Illegal editor 22:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- A most delightful strategy: to ambiguate first, so we can disambiguate later. There can be no confusion about the term collectivist anarchism. There is currently no ambiguity. Why introduce ambiguity? Libertatia 22:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- The ambiguity already exists in the literature that's out there. Wikipedia has to reflect what's in the literature, then adjust to that. If the same word is used for two different things, then Wikipedia must use the same word for two different things and indicate that the same word is used for two different things. Don't you understand the point of Wikipedia. It's not to forge new ground but merely serve as a central repository of the information that's out there. Illegal editor 23:36, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- You are currently attempting to "forge new ground." You have actively sought support for this name change. There is not currently a problem. Libertatia 00:38, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
- No I'm not. If the name of the philosophy doesn't accord with most common name for it, then Wikipedia is forging new ground by popularizing a name that is not popular. It's not reflecting the name by which it's most often referred. That's the problem. Illegal editor 01:19, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
- You are currently attempting to "forge new ground." You have actively sought support for this name change. There is not currently a problem. Libertatia 00:38, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
- The ambiguity already exists in the literature that's out there. Wikipedia has to reflect what's in the literature, then adjust to that. If the same word is used for two different things, then Wikipedia must use the same word for two different things and indicate that the same word is used for two different things. Don't you understand the point of Wikipedia. It's not to forge new ground but merely serve as a central repository of the information that's out there. Illegal editor 23:36, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- A most delightful strategy: to ambiguate first, so we can disambiguate later. There can be no confusion about the term collectivist anarchism. There is currently no ambiguity. Why introduce ambiguity? Libertatia 22:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- A google search is credible evidence. That's the norm on Wikipedia for determining the most popular term for a thing. I'm not confusing or conflating generic collectivism with anarcho-collectivism at at all. Do you not understand disambiguation pages? Look at the page egoism. See how many things that one term can refer to? Similarly, "collectivism" refers to more than one thing. That doesn't conflate or confuse the term. It does the opposite. It DIS-ambiguates the term. Illegal editor 22:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- And there is no credible evidence that the consensus is anything other than what the article name reflects. There are two concepts, slightly related. To confuse or conflate them is simply incorrect. You're the stickler for accuracy, right? Stickle. Libertatia 21:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Naming_conventions
Generally, article naming should prefer what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature.
... which makes Collectivist anarchism preferable to Collectivism (anarchist), imho. I've considered changing Mutualism (economic theory) as well. I suggest including alternate names, but if we include simple collectivism among these, then we should note that use of collectivism to describe collectivist anarchism/anarchist collectivism/etc. is highly context-dependent, e.g. used in specifically anarchist contexts, or used to annoy Objectivists, or the like. Jacob Haller 03:27, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
- There is no need to rename the article simply because one person wants it renamed. I originally summed up collectivist anarchism as being "a cross between anarcho-communism and mutualist anarchism". That's a farily accurate summary of what collectivist anarchists mean by "collectivism" and it should be left at that. Full Shunyata 23:57, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Keep it the way it is, please. 69.150.58.65 23:16, 21 July 2007 (UTC)MPo
