Talk:Anarchy/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

Anarcho-Capitalism

There should be a side note next to the part that talks about "anarcho-capitalism" since most anarchists reject it as a form of anarchism. "Anarcho"-capitalism is still a very controversial movement and as such is still not widely accepted as "anarchism". Full Shunyata 06:45, 15 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Indeed I've found only anarcho-capitalists themselves associate their ideology with the anarchist movement. Anarchism has always been anti-capitalist by nature. 194.251.240.116 19:15, 1 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Anarchism has always been anti-capitalist by nature. -Rubbish, you obviously have not read many anarchist authors. There are property anarchist writers going back to the 18th Cent. Only from the late 19th cent. anarchists went marxist, and when they tried to put into practice their teachings (in the spanish civil war for ex.), it soon became clear they were more socialist than anarchist.


do us a faver and write this in english

     And do the rest of us a FAVOR and learn to spell!

...And do the rest of the world a favour and stop intentionally misspelling things and claiming it's correct. :) -Switch t 18:44, 17 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]


It'll make the rest of your thoughts and ideas look more professional, and give us more of a reason to listen to them instead of blowing them off as a load of rubbish not worth reading. -Thanks

And do everone a favour, and stop whining about british vs american spelling!

They're both words, stop bickering. -Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.113.69.29 (talk) 22:23, 6 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I love how people insult each other rather then merely exchanging ideas. and sure, shitty grammer and mispelling make it harder to read and understand. efforts should be put forth to better that for better communication but what kinda narrow minded asshole would believe that they dont deserve to have their idea considered just because of those errors? "It'll make the rest of your thoughts and ideas look more professional, and give us more of a reason to listen to them instead of blowing them off as a load of rubbish not worth reading. -Thanks". In other words "My english is better then yours, and even though your grammer doesn't determine the validity of your idea I've decided to create an irrational bias against those that aren't as grammatically inclined as myself". But i guess that can give me an idea of why you're so close minded. If they don't meet up to your grammatical expectations you dont give it the time of day. So i guess that ignorance would only come natural, since you obviously dont recieve much information from those other then the perhaps select few of sources that reach your irrational expectations. I can see it now, what im saying wont be considered, but all of my grammatical errors will be noted and criticized.

Actually it will be, not your grammar. The original Anarchy promised an utopia of equal rights to everybody. Nobody seems to completely understand that any more. The younger Anarchists see it as violence, and many others see anarchy as evil. Although I believe the closest branch of Anarchy today like the old one is Anarcho-pacifism although pacifists won't fight for their lives. I think that our world could be much butter if we found the perfect point of things to argue and not to argue. (Eventualengineer (talk) 16:01, 2 May 2008 (UTC))Reply[reply]

I would like to put a reference in this article to that great anti-anarchist work. Chesterton's 'The Man Who Was Thursday' How do I do this without starting an edit war? 69.228.222.44 (talk) 09:04, 21 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Stub?

Does anyone else think this article is a stub?~user:orngjce223how am I typing? 16:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is rather stubbish. Since 'anarchy' is such a nebulous concept (have fun trying to define it in any meaningful way), I think the only real way a place like Wikipedia can talk about it is from a historical perspective, summarizing whatever movements in the past declared themselves 'anarchistic'. Right now the article doesn't say much of anything. MGlosenger 22:53, 12 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I so totally agree with this. Tamira C. 23:51, 15 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No external links?

I mean, honestly, enough punks go on the internet and pretend to be anarchists that there should be some external links. --70.72.50.20 21:03, 22 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

recent changes

Most of the article deals with anarchism, which has its own page. I moved this to an Ideology section. I also adjusted the lead to deal with anarchies, rather than the ideology behind them. The Ideology section should be shortened and the discussion of actual anarchies should be created and enhanced. --Urthogie 21:57, 25 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Piaroa people

The Piaroa people are governed by chiefs. [1] Please find a scientific (read: non-political, attempting neutrality) source that refers to them as an anarchy. I'll give you a week before reverting. --Urthogie 06:41, 27 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cultural anthropology isn't much of a science, since it's impossible to employ the scientific method on a culture. But if you're looking for verifiable sources, look to page 26 of Fragments of an Anarchist Anthropology [2], written by David Graeber, a highly-regarded anthropologist. He lists several societies that he would consider anarchies, including the Piaroa, the Tiv, and the people of rural Malagasy (of whom he is widely considered an expert). He also notes that Joanna Overing describes the Piaroan people as anarchist. Overing is an ethnologist, and one of the foremost researchers on the Piaroa.
As for the fact the Piaroa have chiefs, this is true, but irrelevant as regarding the structure of their society. As Graeber says in his text, "In Amazonian (or North American) societies the institution of the chief played the same role on a political level: the position was so demanding, and so little rewarding, so hedged about by safeguards, that there was no way for power-hungry individuals to do much with it. Amazonians might not have literally whacked off the ruler’s head every few years, but it’s not an entirely inappropriate metaphor." A chief might seem like a position of authority, but if a chief has no power (in the sociological sense), then the chief is no more a "ruler" of the society than is a potter or child. Owen 07:45, 27 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the reply, first off. There's two things I'd like you to clarify: 1)What is Graeber's criteria for an anarchy? 2) If the chief has no power whatsoever over the society, then why does he exist? 3) What happens when one of the Piaroa decides they want to do something capitalist, like start a trading shop that charges money?--Urthogie 15:55, 27 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
He doesn't state explicitly, but does seem to require both a relative egalitarianism and consensus-based decision making, with a lack of formal political institutions. He also does not provide any details on what the purpose of a tribe's chief was (and more than likely, it would vary based on the group). My own supposition is that chiefs primarily interpret the best course of action through traditional precedent or spiritual beliefs rather than enforcing their own will directly on the group. As a result their political power is reduced to that of a judge. Regarding your last question, Graeber's impression is that capitalism would not arise in an a society such as that of the Piaroa because "anarchistic societies are no more unaware of human capacities for greed or vainglory than modern Americans are unaware of human capacities for envy, gluttony, or sloth; they would just find them equally unappealing as the basis for their civilization. In fact, they see these phenomena as moral dangers so dire they end up organizing much of their social life around containing them" (24). Owen 09:22, 28 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Once again, thanks for the informative reply. It would be good to get some quotes from him or other anarchists defining what they see as an anarchy. It seems to me unlikely, though, that any people, be they Piaroa or Nigerian or Canadian wouldn't have some bad apples. What happens to someone that is an individual in a way that the tribe doesn't accept? If the social fabric has never been tested in such a way, then how is it possible to know the extent of freedom enjoyed? Grabaer says in regard to negative qualities "they would just find them equally unappealing as the basis for their civilization." But what if a given individual decides to act in such a way. Surely, a free society would allow for bad apples as well as good ones..?

As far as anthropology being unscientific, I think it can get pretty scientific at times. It's difficult to consider Graeber's work scientific, though, since he refuses to posit a concrete definition of "anarchy." His theories are authoritative to the degree that people respect him in the academic community... they're in no way falsifiable. They would be falsifiable, I think, if he laid out the terms and explained why the Piaroa, for example, fall under a given definition for anarchy. Why does he refuse to posit such a definition?--Urthogie 20:39, 28 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As far as I know - and I'm not very knowledgeable regarding Graeber - he doesn't refuse to; he more simply doesn't feel the need to. As for individuals detracting from what is socially acceptable - in small societies, it becomes less likely. Being raised in a society in which such actions are reprehensible, people are conditioned from birth to abhor those actions. The accuracy of this is disputable depending on your general views of anthropology - it is certainly not falsifiable - but it does explain how a society like the Piaroa continue to exist. -Switch t 08:39, 29 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Right, this is his basic position. Anarchistic societies are organized in such a way that it is in people's best interests to act as communitarians. Labor is divided in such a fashion that each individual relies on every other individual, and it is in each's best interests to work for the benefit of the group, in contrast to say, American society, where it is in each's best interest to work for their own individual interest. So even if you did have a hypothetical "bad apple" in Piaroan society, they would find that acting in their own best interests means acting in the best interests of the larger group. In anarchistic society working simply for yourself means not having what you need to survive, because one individual cannot easily do everything they need to survive. There would be no benefit in trying to do so. This is in contrast to American society, where people are forced into competition by a lack of other options; you can't be a "good apple" because it's inconsistent with the economic model.
Like many anthropologists, Graeber does not subscribe to social positivism, and therefore it is awkward to claim he does not take concrete positions. He is a qualitative researcher, and his focus is therefore on detailing rather than on making incontrovertible conclusions. He didn't operationalize "anarchy" because he's more concerned with explaining how societies work and less with making rigid claims regarding them. Descriptive anthropology is not supposed to be taken as fact; it's just meant as a way to make sense of a culture. He and others choose to use the word "anarchistic" to describe some societies, just as some would choose to describe the United States as "individualistic" or Korea as "collectivistic". He isn't saying the Piaroa are factually anarchistic; he's just using the term because it seems to be a very fitting description. He also doesn't claim that the Piaroa or any other culture is a perfect anarchy; he actually states on several occasions that they are not, even going so far as to say that "they contain with them the seeds of their own destruction." Owen 09:36, 29 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So it's completely subjective, and he just researches them a lot and issues unfalsifiable opinions... No point arguing with something that can't be proven true or false, I guess. If that's the logic, though, read below for something that should be mentioned under that criteria (anarchy in Africa)--Urthogie 19:03, 29 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

anarchy in africa

Anarchy has had a great run in Africa recently, especially in rural areas of countries where there's fighting in the capital. Does anyone oppose me adding this obvious assertion, that several anarchies exist in Africa, and have resulted in death and disease? If Graeber's scholarly opinion was enough to warrant the possibility that anarchies exist, couldn't the dozens of scholars who have refered to large parts of Africa as anarchies be considered as well? I plan on adding these claims with sources, unless there's for some reason any opposition.--Urthogie 19:00, 29 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Actually, that would depend on how those scholars are using the term "anarchy". If they're using it as synonymous with "anomie" and "chaos" then their opinions are not of any relevance to this article, which is about anarchy in the sense of anarchistic society rather than the common pejorative meaning of the term. I would also add that the Graeber text I have been referring to isn't intended as a rigorous piece; although published through the University of Chicago Press, they set a series of guidelines intended to aid readability. They even prohibited the use of citing references. And in describing the Piaroans as anarchists he was making no great leap, considering the leading researcher on those people described them that way herself. Likely she did so in a more rigorous and convincing way, as it was for a peer-reviewed scholarly journal. Owen 21:21, 29 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Living in Somalia's anarchy (BBC News): The lead sentence is "Somalia is the only country in the world where there is no government." That means they're talking about the (lack of) government, not just the fact that there is chaos (which results from that). What argument is there left to exclude the havoc that anarchy has reaked on Africa? I'm adding it.--Urthogie 23:04, 29 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What about anarchy in the U.K.? It's coming sometime, maybe? Give a wrong time, stop a traffic line? Your future dream is a shopping scheme? MGlosenger 23:01, 29 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please stay on topic.--Urthogie 23:04, 29 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Now you're just trolling, and I find that unfortunate. That article doesn't say anything about Somalia being anarchistic. This article is about anarchist societies, not lawless and chaotic ones. At least try to find a valid source. It's very true that in common parlance "anarchy" means a vacuum of social controls. However, no anarchists advocate this, and therefore it does not fit the article. Owen 23:14, 29 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not trolling, I'm using the definition of a stateless society provided by the article. The press is not referring simply to chaos, but to chaos resulting from this stateless governmental configuration.--Urthogie 23:19, 29 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Right. "Anarchy" in the sense of "no government", rather than anarchy in the sense advocated by anarchists. Anarchists don't want a vacuum of control; they want to replace government with free association and consensus models of governance. "Anarchy" in Somalia replaces government with tribal warlords. Until you give a reference for Somalia as representing an anarchistic society, it has no place here. Owen 23:38, 29 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
i would submit that problem with somalia is too many factions competing to install their heirarchy. it's a multiplicity of failed and competing states, not anarchism. -- frymaster 01:41, 30 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Owen said: Right. "Anarchy" in the sense of "no government", rather than anarchy in the sense advocated by anarchists. Anarchists don't want a vacuum of control; they want to replace government with free association and consensus models of governance.

There's not actual consensus among anarchists of what government should be like. Aside from being stateless "there is no single defining position that all anarchists hold, and those considered anarchists at best share a certain family resemblance." (Oxford Companion of Philosophy). Somalia didn't go against some essential anarchist ideal as Owen suggests-- anarchists only agree on the statelessness issue.

It's also worth noting that nowhere in my edits does it claim that Somalia was an anarchy. It says "according to the BBC" its government was an anarchy-- that's a source for the claim that Somalia represents an anarchy. If certain anarchist theorists and idealists disagree with the BBC's claim, or the definition that led to it, then go ahead and add sources that demonstrate their POV on anarchy. Frymaster made some intresting points in sharing his opinion above-- if he could get a secondary source to demonstrate his view, I think that would really be towards the betterment of the article.

The Oxford Companion of Philosophy says that statelessness is the only constant of anarchist ideology. Don't say "you're wrong, Urthogie." From now on, say that Oxford is wrong. And prove it if you think so. Follow wikipedia policy in discussing this, and stop telling me I'm trolling, when I'm actually putting in a serious effort to better the article. To claim that I'm not making a serious argument here is both illogical and disrespectful. Try to actually assume good faith here, Owen, instead of reverting me the second you read this.

I'm willing to hear sources, and I'm ready to be proven wrong. Obviously those who edit this page are going to tend towards anarchism, and I respect that given the subject matter. All that I ask is that you stop reverting my edits for a second and actually discuss my point person to person respectfully, with sources and with reason. I'm seriously outnumbered in my views in regard to this article, so it's not like I can "pull a fast one" here-- it's in my interest (and yours) to create a long-term consensus. I have demonstrated my point(s) through logic, reason, and authoritiative sources. Thanks, --Urthogie

The problem is that both you and that article are using the term anarchy in its everyday meaning rather than its meaning as used by anarchists. I'm sorry if my changes to the article seem rushed, but leaving the article in the state that you did is an embarrassment to Wikipedia's integrity. There's a reason that "anarchy" is a disambiguation; the term is often misrepresented, and you are confusing anarchy as used by anarchists and anarchy as used by non-anarchists. You have yet to provide a source that anarchists support the condition in Somalia, and until you do so, you have not justified your changes to the page. Owen 23:04, 30 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Of course the anarchists don't celebrate the condition in Somalia. It's a complete failure, and accepting it would be like an advocate of complete state control celebrating a genocidal dictatorship. That's why no anarchists want to call it their own-- even though it is, by their own definition. And also, Sarge, I'm not using the normative every day definition-- I cited the Oxford Companion of Philosophy to prove this. Why have you ignored what I said about Oxford and how it relates to my point?--Urthogie 23:06, 30 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You're mixing up two definitions. The header of the article says this is about the anarchist society. Obviously Somalia is not an example of an anarchist society because as you readily admit, no anarchist would possibly support it. Somalia's "anarchy" is not anarchy in the sense used by anarchists, because anarchists are not nihilists. They believe in spontaneous order, without the need for a state. They don't believe in anomie or chaos, or in a vacuum of control. I have provided a different Oxford dictionary to make this point. This article isn't about stateless societies, it's about anarchist societies. If you want to switch that around, that's one suggestion. But mixing them together in one article is highly misleading. Owen 23:22, 30 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok, this is awful logic right from the very first few sentences. Just because an anarchist doesn't support an anarchy doesn't mean it's not an anarchy. Noone supports it because it's utter shit. An anarchy that resulted in utter shit. And it falls under the philosophical definition of anarchy, not just the normative. Noone believes in chaos, of course, and I'm not saying they do. I'm saying that chaos results from this anarchy-- anarchy as in statelessness, the one accepted definition even on a philosophical level. So no, I'm not mixing the definitions together, you're using faulty reason. You're assuming that what anarchists talk about has the potential of making anarchies dissapear in a poof of writing and talking. I say that's bullshit, and so does the Oxford Companion of Philosophy if you'd acctually address it's non-normative definition.--Urthogie 23:34, 30 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You seem to be under the mistaken impression that anarchists are naive, and think of anarchy as inevitable with the fall of the state. This is not true, and that's why every large-scale anarchist movement has advocated non-governmental alternatives to ensure stability in the absence of the state. Otherwise you're left with simply a vacuum of disorder and chaos. Any anarchist could have told you that would happen. Somalia is a stateless society, but it's a vacuum; it's not filled in with anarchist ideals, and therefore it is not an anarchist society. I might also remind you that taking two sources and matching them up to make a point is not acceptable practice on Wikipedia. You need a source saying that Somalia represents an anarchist society; simply matching Somalia up against your own definition of anarchy (sourced or otherwise) represents original research. Owen 23:48, 30 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not saying anarchists are naive. I could care less about what anarchists think about Somalia-- anarchists don't suddenly make Somalia not an anarchy by not supporting the (lack of) order there. Somalia was still an anarchy. A shitty anarchy. An anarchist saying "I would have done it differently" doesn't change that. And an anarchist saying "That wasn't a true anarchy is just a reflection of their individual view-- anarchists only agree on one thing: statelessness. And that happens to also be the normative and philosophical definition of an anarchy.
What do anarchists actually believe in, other than opposition to the state? The mutualist tradition was concerned with equity. Anarcho-capitalists believe in at least the quid pro quo. Other forms of anarchism have even more elaborate sets of values associated with them. What actual resemblence do any of these philosophies bear to chaos in the wake of governmental collapse—the very thing the article says it is not describing? Libertatia 01:01, 31 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And no, this isn't original research. BBC is referring to the accepted philosophical definition--statelessness-- in their article.--Urthogie 23:55, 30 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's an anarchy by a completely different definition. The article begins by saying that it is about the anarchist society. Somalia isn't an anarchist society for the simple reason that it isn't anarchist. It's stateless, but anarchism is not defined as statelessness. Calling Somalia an "anarchist society" is like saying Cuba is a "democratic society" because it holds elections. Actually, even less so, since the government of Cuba officially calls themselves a democratic state; you've yet to give any source claiming that Somalia is anarchist. Owen 00:06, 31 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Anarchist society"? It falls under the only universal of anarchists: statelessness--Urthogie 00:16, 31 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Even if (and it's an "if") statelessness was the only universal, it does not follow that it is a sufficient condition for an anarchist society. A quick perusal of the various pages on anarchism ought to make it clear that the additional qualities beyond statelessness, while hotly contested, are of critical importance. In fact, the fractiousness evident here is among the best testimony you could hope for against the notion that anarchy (as the project of anarchism) can be reduced to statelessness. Libertatia 22:54, 31 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Apparently it isn't the only universal, since you've yet to find any anarchists who actually support Somalia. Calling something an "anarchist society" when no anarchist (or academic, for that matter) would describe it that way is highly dubious. Owen 00:39, 31 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok, now I see what you mean by "anarchist society." Something that anarchist theorists support. Well guess what, that definition isn't in the literature. It's original research. We'll be going with the definition of anarchy referred to by the literature (specifically OPC, as well as other encyclopedias of philosophy I can cite at your request). If you want this article to go by your "anarchist societies" special Owen-edition, you'll have to cite that. You can't just make up definitions, it's OR. --Urthogie 01:34, 31 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is OR to attempt to impose as a sufficient condition what is only a necessary condition of anarchism. It is simply an illogical misrepresentation to attempt to present the failure of a state as somehow related to the failure of an anti-state ideology apparently unrepresented in the situation. Libertatia 22:54, 31 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And by the way, before you revert tell me to provide a counterexample to your definition, remember: I don't need to. Wikipedia is based on sourcing claims, not on an 'innocent until proven guilty' system of truth. Wikipedia:Reliable source makes this clear:

Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a source, and the responsibility for finding a source lies with the person who adds or restores the material. Unsourced or poorly sourced edits may be challenged and removed at any time. Sometimes it is better to have no information at all than to have information without a source.

--Urthogie 01:34, 31 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, you're practicing original research by interpreting sources. You have yet to provide any source saying that Somalia is or ever has been an anarchist society. You've simply been selecting your own sources and stringing them together to insert your point of view. And I agree, "Sometimes it is better to have no information at all than to have information without a source." And I agree, "Sometimes it is better to have no information at all than to have information without a source." And that's why you're going to have to provide a source directly saying that Somalia is an anarchist state, rather than violating policy. Owen 02:07, 31 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't need a source for anything have to do with "anarchist societies". That's your made up definition.-Urthogie 02:09, 31 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You're right, your idea of an anarchy has nothing to do with anarchist society. However, this article is about anarchist society, not about stateless chaos. Which is why your insertion of information about Somalia has no place here. Because it's not related to this topic. It's not my "made up definition". It's anarchy as used by anarchists. Owen 02:15, 31 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you need a source, look at Oxford's dictionary. [3] The problem is that you're operating by the first definition, and I'm operating by the second. Using both senses of the word in a single article makes for a real mess. If people feel it's necessary, the content of this page could be moved to anarchist community, and the page could focus on anarchy as used in common speech and by the news media. What can't be allowed, however, is to pretend that anarchists use the term the same way as the population at large. Owen 02:40, 31 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
According to Oxford's Philosophy Companion, anarchist principles (definition 2) doesn't really include anything except stateless-- so it would overlap completely under definition 1. But for now, how about we make a compromise and deal with both terms... You violated 3rr, but I'll overlook that if we can work towards this compromise of dealing with both terms. I look forward to it.--Urthogie 03:01, 31 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I was tempted to report myself for violation of 3RR, actually. Your problem is that you're sticking so stringently to a source you simply pulled from the article on anarchism. I haven't even seen the full dictionary entry. Have you? The Oxford Compact Dictionary defines anarchism as "belief in the abolition of all government and the organization of society on a cooperative basis" [4]. Do you have any evidence to suggest that Somalia has an organization of society on a cooperative basis? Or are you just going to stick a source you haven't even read as the end-all authoritative reference on which to base this article? Owen 03:15, 31 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The point that you and I agree on is that there are (at least) two definitions of anarchy. We disagree as to how useful the second definition is, and what specifics it adds past the first one. Both of these definitions, though, are encyclopedic in some way. And they are both represented by the same word: anarchy. I'm offering a compromise, an end to this debate-- that we cover both forms and specify both forms. Do you want to accept this reasonable offer to specify our definitions and address both, or do you want to keep arguing that the first one shouldn't honestly be in an article about "anarchy"? Who are you to say that only anarchist movements define anarchies? Who are you to say we can't discuss both meanings?--Urthogie 03:23, 31 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I just disagree they should be listed at the same page. Anarchy as a social condition is not the same thing as anarchist society. Listing them both at the same page would be a mess because anarchists use the term "anarchy" in a positive sense and others use the term in a pejorative sense. Moving what's presently here to anarchist community and creating a new article here for anarchy in the other sense would be fine by me. But I dispute that there is any "middle ground" between the two definitions. Owen 03:28, 31 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The problem I have with seperating them is the degree of overlap. Definition 1 (Stateless) includes all of Definition 2. Don't you agree that a complete split ignores the overlap here? What if Anarchy was a page that defined both and there was also a {{main}} for the section on anarchist community.--Urthogie 03:32, 31 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't see them as overlapping. The first term doesn't even refer to the society itself; it refers to the state of the society. In fact, it's not clear whether we need an article for anarchy as used in that sense, since it's already covered at anomie. In fact, if you re-read that BBC article, it says nothing about Somalia being "an anarchy". That's because it's grammatically incorrect. So if there is going to be an article on anarchy like you suggest, it needs to focus on the "state of disorder due to lack of government or control" rather than on "stateless societies". The latter isn't a proper use of the word anarchy. Owen 03:40, 31 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Pssh, you don't see them overlapping? We're back at square 1. Lemme explain the logic here. This isn't interpretation, it's basic logic:
  1. The OPC, a secondary source, says that statelessness is the consistent factor in anarchist ideology.
  2. The first definition of anarchy is the stateless society.
  3. The second definition of anarchy is the anarchist society.
  4. Therefore, by the OPC's explanation, all anarchies under the second definition would also be anarchies under the first definition, because they all include statelessness.
If you disagree with this logic, please point to the step(s) you disagree with and I'll clarify that.--Urthogie 03:45, 31 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No. Step 3 makes no sense, because there is no definition of anarchy as a stateless society. Read it again. Owen 03:46, 31 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Here's your source. Now what's wrong with the logic above.--Urthogie 03:49, 31 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Now all you're doing is replacing sources you don't like with ones that you do in order to support your argument. That page says that anarchy was originally used to represent "a society without state, laws, prisons, priests, [or] private property". Doesn't that just further validate my point? Owen 03:53, 31 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Aside from priests, that's what Somalia was. Read anarchism and religion for a discussion of how complex and debated among anarchists this issue is. So, no, it doesn't validate your point, it does exactly the opposite.--Urthogie 03:55, 31 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That article does nothing to validate your point 3. It describes the word "anarchy" as it was used in 1703. Why are you preferring a 1703 definition of the word (and not even a direct definition) to a modern one? The meaning of words change over a period of 300 years. And of course Somalia had private property. Owen 03:57, 31 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
LOL! "Stateless society" is the offered modern definition, according to the article. The "society without state, laws, prisons, priests, [or] private property" was the first usage of it-- "as it was used in 1703".--Urthogie 03:58, 31 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Of course it's not. And I wish you would refrain from personal attacks. It doesn't "define" anarchy as a stateless society, it's just talking about the first time anarchy was used in the sense of a stateless society. It's saying the first time it was used in the sense of definition #2 on that Oxford dictionary page. It's disambiguating between what I mean by anarchy and the #1 definition of anarchy most people use. It's like saying "the first time orange was used to describe a fruit..." It's not defining orange as "a fruit", it's simply disambiguating between the use of the word "orange" for fruit and the use of the word "orange" for color. But anyway, I need to run. Talk to you later. Owen 04:04, 31 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ok Sarge. Explain how the following is not a contradiction:

Urthogie says: "2. The first definition of anarchy is the stateless society."

Sarge says: "there is no definition of anarchy as a stateless society. "

Sarge says: "It's disambiguating between what I mean by anarchy and the #1 definition of anarchy most people use."

How can they use it if it doesn't exist (if there is no definition of that sort)? Furthermore, how can you say the definition #1 refers only to chaos. The article I linked to specifically seperates the "stateless society" from the chaos that is associated with it, if you actually read the first two paragraphs:

The word “anarchy,” describing a state-less society, was for the first time used by Louis Armand de Lahontan in his Nouveaux voyages dans l'Amérique septentrionale (1703), describing the Indians living in a society without state, laws, prisons, priests, private property, in short, “in anarchy.” Colloquially however, anarchy became identical with confusion and disorder.

The whole article I linked to is about stateless societies as first referred to by Louis Armand de Lahontan. The definition exists, and has been in use since 1703. Now there are scholarly articles devoted to the discussion of it, that seperate it from anomie (see above quote). How can you ignore it any further?--Urthogie 04:20, 31 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

comment

The introductory paragraph of the article explicitly differentiates its subject from the sort of thing that Urthogie wants to introduce. I don't see that there is much of any question here. Libertatia 01:01, 31 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ok, you don't see that there's a question here, thanks for telling.--Urthogie 01:34, 31 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with Libertatia here. The first paragraph sets this up to be a page specifically about anarchy as built on the principles of anarchism. And just because you have a source that says statelessness is all it is does not mean that we can't provide numerous sources that say otherwise. Just read the archives of the talk page for anarchism--this debate is years old here on wikipedia. Most anarchists would disagree that it's merely statelessness and if any mention of Somalia is to be made it must be clearly differentiated from anarchism as advocated by anarchists. Also, as for this source, it says in the first paragraph that Essential for anarchist thought, however, is the rejection of all coercive authority exercised by men over men. A chaotic society in which competing gangs try to one-up each other is clearly not free of coercive authority. Your source contradicts what you are trying to say. Ungovernable ForceGot something to say? 07:10, 31 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, anarchist thought is associated with anarchies (stateless societies) that are supposed to work. However, an anarchy is defined simply as a stateless society. So that's why Somalia is never an ideal in anarchist thought-- it's not the right type of anarchy. The source article doesn't contradict this point.--Urthogie 07:50, 31 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Perhaps it will come as a surprise to you to find that a single word can have multiple meanings. You are correct that it is not the "right type of anarchy." It is not the type of anarchy currently being discussed in this article at all. If you said that a sloppy soccer game was a "bad game of football," you would have some chance of being correct, but if you said it in the middle of the NFL wrap-up show, it would be pretty obvious you have confused the games. Here, you have confused the games. You are criticizing apples as oranges. Etc. A Question: If there were a separate article, or partition of this article dealing with "anarchy" simply as "lack of established order," without reference to anarchist movements or ideologies, your material on Somalia (and other instances of state collapse) could be placed there. Would that satisfy you? Or is it your intention to insist that "anarchy" as failure of government is the same as the failure of an anarchist project? Libertatia 19:40, 31 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This article's first sentence says "Anarchy (Greek: αναρχία) refers to a society founded on the principles of anarchism" (emphasis added). If anarchism says all coercive authority needs to be abolished, a society rife with coercive authority is therefore not an anarchy as defined by this article. Ungovernable ForceGot something to say? 08:07, 31 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The article is not an authoritative source, it only deals with one definition. See my above discussion with Sarge.--Urthogie 15:51, 31 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, that's what everyone has been saying, isn't it? The article deals with one definition, and you are trying to add information that refers to another definition.
As for previous arguments, that the only principle all anarchists hold is support for abolition of the state and therefore any society without a state is anarchist is faulty logic. What if the only single principle all anarchists hold is abolition of the state, but all anarchists also support (just for example) one of communism or absolute pacifism (This is hypothetical)? You would have to support either communism or absolute pacifism to be an anarchist. Somalia was neither, so it would not be anarchist by that definition. This is similar to what your own sources say: All anarchist societies are opposed to coercive authority (this is true). All anarchist societies are stateless, but not all stateless societies are anarchist. Similarly, all elephants are mammals, but not all mammals are elephants. ~Switch t 11:53, 1 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Actually, I have a better example. This is hypothetical, and not quite factual, but works well as an analogy.
All mammals have warm blood. Birds have warm blood. Are birds mammals? All mammals have warm blood and either sport fur or are bare-skinned. Birds have feathers. Birds, despite being warm-blooded, are not mammals.
This is the best (recogniseable) example I could come up with in five minutes (I could have done better with physics, I've forgotten most of my biology). Obviously it isn't perfect as an analogy; all mammals do have fur (or hair), and there are other defining traits, such as mammary glands and ancestry. However, assuming the conditions are true, the logic is fine. It is a counter to your assertions. ~Switch t 12:05, 1 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Maybe this page should talk about society of chaos and disorder, since there is no article on such subject and Anarchism already talks about philosophical principles of anarchism. As I see, much of the content here is simply repeated from there. -- Vision Thing -- 12:31, 1 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See Anomie. ~Switch t 12:58, 1 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]