Jump to content

Talk:Anarchism

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.
Good articleAnarchism 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.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
March 1, 2004Featured article candidateNot promoted
March 21, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed
January 22, 2010Good article nomineeListed
Current status: Good article



Disambiguation instead of division

After having been an anarchist for 40 years, I personally think that the entire article on anarchism is rubbish. One example: I do not see myself as left-wing. That would mean that I would be part of their parliament. We are anti-political, so which idiot describes us as a left-wing political current? The article should have a short - extremely - general paragraph describing the general idea of anarchism and then it should sum up the different currents of anarchism as they are divided in internationals: individualists, anarcho-syndicalists, platformists. The articles on these currents should also be short and general and should just sum up the different versions of individualism etc. That way - at least - there would be a general definition that every anarchist could live with and it would keep all philosophical discussions to a minimum. Underneath every current, there could be further disambiguation until all currents are happy with the description of what they think anarchism should be. Jan De Neys (talk) 18:05, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, unfortunately Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia based on reliable sources (in theory, anyways), not the self-opinions of the people being written about. Start a Fandom site or something. Yue🌙 07:13, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jan De Neys: You may try outline of anarchism and contemporary anarchism. ときさき くるみ not because they are easy, but because they are hard 15:07, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Tokisaki Kurumi Jan de Neys is perfectly demonstrating the inherent hypocrisy of anarchism. 146.200.132.123 (talk) 08:17, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@146.200.132.123: Note this is the talk page, not a forum. ときさき くるみ not because they are easy, but because they are hard 10:39, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To the extent that left and right have any coherent meaning over the centuries, it seems to me, left is for some kind of equality and right is for some kind of stability. Anarchism seeks to abolish the privileges of the political class, so I reckon it belongs on the left. —Tamfang (talk) 22:36, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Against all forms of authority?

Hi friends

The introduction currently claims that anarchism is against all forms of authority. But what about the authority of the bootmaker?

I don't mean to sound like a pedant, but I'm worried that people will only skim the intro and leave with some misunderstandings of anarchism.

I don't have an obvious suggestion to fix it, but I wanted to point it out and start some discussion. AnarchistHistory (talk) 14:57, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @AnarchistHistory, glad to see new faces around. I get your point. But, look how it goes. Intro should reflect Main Body of the Article. Main Body of the Article should reflect the general consensus of contemporary authoritative scholars in the field. Authority of the bootmaker isn't prominent in the current anarchist literature, as I understand. Could you provide significant evidence within Reliable Sources? That would do the trick. Hit me back if you got any questions. Cinadon36 09:30, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have any, but I would also like to know if the general consensus among academics is that anarchism is opposed to all forms of authority AnarchistHistory (talk) 17:35, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@AnarchistHistory Authority has several definitions. One of them (according to google oxford languages thing) is a person with extensive or specialized knowledge about a subject; an expert. I believe this is the type being referred to with that, rather than the usual meaning. Does that make sense? A Socialist Trans Girl 20:55, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It makes sense, I just think that it is a slightly misleading account of anarchism AnarchistHistory (talk) 17:32, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Contemporary anarchist thinkers

Surprised to see that Murray Bookchin didn't make an appearance in the article, then realized that with some few exceptions (Colin Ward, Noam Chomsky, even Zoe Baker in the suggested reading), there aren't many contemporary thinkers elaborated. It would be great to expand this element and point to some of the journals/etc that have been key. Psychopomplemousse (talk) 02:52, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]