Talk:Anarchism/Archive 14

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

→

Archive 20

South Korean addition

Although the south korean uprising of 1980 is an interesting read, is it actually anarchist? There are some ascpects that reflect that but maybe more details should be included that make this self-evident, because otherwise it could be seen in favor of "democratic" govt. --Fatal 03:13, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I agree; there should also be less story-telling (leave that for a main article on the subject) and more discussion of why it is or is not considered an example of anarchism. --Sam Francis

Gabriele D'Annunzio

Gabriele D'Annunzio and other ties between Anarcho syndicalism and corporatism / proto-Fascism need addressing in the article page. Sam Spade (talk · contribs) 17:49, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

D'Annunzio's life has nothing to do with anarchist history, except for the single time he collaborated in writing the Constitution of Fiume with an anarcho-syndicalist. If the article were to mention everyone who had any interaction with anarchists at all, it would be ridiculously long and trivial. In fact, the main article on him states that he mostly added poetic flourishes to the writing which sounds rather trivial to me. --albamuth 21:00, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Anarchism among hunter-gatherers today

I think this article (or a linked one) could do with some info on how anarchism works among hunter-gatherers and that there still actually are people in the world who are pimarily hunter-gatherers and therefore anarchist and (pretty much) egalitarian. I'll probably write something along those lines in the near future unless someone beats me to it... Mikko.O. 07:53, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Not all hunter-gatherers societies are anarchist and or egalitarian. Foant

No hunter-gatherers are egalitarian or anarchist, see Anarcho-primitivism. Sam Spade (talk · contribs) 14:32, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I saw the anarcho-primitivism article, have you? Foant

It would appear you havn't looked very closely if you are able to ask that question. Sam Spade (talk · contribs) 14:46, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well read it again, and again. Then youll see it clearly says some or most hunter-gatherers tend to be anarchistic and egalitarian. And you here say "No hunter gathereres are egalitarian or anarchistic", well here it has also been pointed at hunter-gathereres in india which clearly are egalitarian and anarchistic, so you are wrong, not all are anarchist and egalitarian, but atleast some are, so saying that No hunter-gathereres are.. is wrong. Foant

Correction, there ARE and have been hunter-gatherer societies that are or were anarchist. One of the main arguments of anarcho-primitivists is that we should go back to living in hunter-gatherer societies. --Fatal 20:42, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yes. Allthough they might not call themselves Anarchist (or even have a word for it), it seems to me that (atleast) some hunter-gatherers are anarchist naturally. They live in small groups where too much authoritarianism on anyones part makes the group split by one or some of it's members joining another group or forming a group of their own. As to real egalitarianism, it seems that women (gatherers) do a more work (and also provide more nutrients to the community), maybe because hunting (which is primarily mens work) has higher status, being considered more cool (and meat perhaps being considered tastier also, in which case ofcourse a mere comparison of nutrients doesn't give the whole truth). Mikko.O. 07:11, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"... extreme egalitarianism; techniques for prestige avoidance and social levelling; absence of leaders, what Meillassoux and Woodburn call instantaneous or immediate economic transactions; individual mobility and a corresponding openness and turnover in band membership; resolution of conflict through fission and mobility rather than by violence or appeal to authorities; bilateral social structure; a general tendency toward informal arrangements and individually generated, ad hoc structures; and relatively high levels of interpersonal variability in concepts, beliefs, and manner of expression (1991: 548-49)." from http://www.abdn.ac.uk/chags9/1Norstrom.htm about hunter-gatherers called Paliyan in south India. Mikko.O. 07:27, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC) "All over the world anthropologists have found that nearly all hunter-gatherer societies don't have rulers. Anarchism is very practical. It stops poverty. It stops social breakdown and is painlessly achieved by cutting taxes, the population and the size of the political unit." from http://www.rosenoire.org/essays/why_anarchism.php Mikko.O. 07:31, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well, I don't know much about these cultures actually, but you can't make broad generalizations. Different cultures have different customs and social structures. A related book worth checking out for those interested is David Graeber's Fragments of an Anarchist Anthropology. It was released just a few months ago I believe. Kropotkin's 1902 work Mutual Aid also has some ideas on this topic. --Tothebarricades.tk 18:40, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Talking about "cultures" is making broad generalizations. Not all representatives of a "culture" share the same knowledge of the "culture" and all representatives of any "culture" are more or less influenced by all sorts of other cultural ... "flows", infact we're all individuals, we're all different (except for that one guy).

I do believe you can make broad generalizations about among other things hunter-gatherers. Saying "hunter-gatherers in general are mobile people" is probably true (after a while of hunting-gathering in one area, the things to hunt and gather in that area seem to lessen, which calls for moving to another area). Since they're mobile they don't carry much stuff, which means they don't have much possessions but are pretty equal in the richer/poorer sense. Because hunting-gathering doesn't call for long-term plans or large organizing for the sake of providing food (as opposed to for example agricultural (agrarian?) societies, which calls for longer cycles of work and then storing of food)there is no need of authoritarian institutions that see to it that people remain in the community and are productive members. With more complex societies, it is increasingly important people do not for example plant seeds and then leave the society before harvest, because that would have grave consequences for the other members of society that depend on the farmers providing food for them.

However, I'm not saying we necessarily need general explanations of hunter-gatherer lifestyle in this anarchism article, but that it could do with some specific examples of how some societies are organized in ways that correspond with some ideas of anarchism, for example the Paliyans in south India, who are pretty much hunter-gatherers in general (allthough any Paliyan is ofcourse permitted to take a job with some neighbouring plantation or whatever if s/he wants to earn money to buy Coca-Cola or something).

I might write about Paliyans after researching them a bit more, but first I'd like to find out more about what other (more or less) hunter-gatherer societies there might be that seem to live life according to more or less anarchistic principles.

By the way, I'm not a primitivist. Mikko.O. 08:56, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I dont belive agrarian societies have to be authoritarian. There was agroculture for thousands of years before the first civilizations emerged, they rulers/elites used the agrocultural techniques to rule the people and what not... Just the same as there has been and there are authoritarian hunter-gatherer societies. Altou you might make apoint in that its harder for the a elite class or rulers to emerge in such a society. Foant

I suggest you write a Paliyan article. I for one would be fascinated by any demonstration of anarchic tendancies. Sam Spade (talk · contribs) 12:16, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I read somewhere about the Gâ-talking people in south america, they where said to be anti-authoritarian. Foant

Sure, any evidence of any indigenous people existing in a manner in any way similar to anarchist theory would be fascinating. Please have at it. Sam Spade (talk · contribs) 15:36, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You might find this amusing. Seems like alot of feminist / leftist posturing to me, but maybe you can find some leads in amongst the rubbish. Sam Spade (talk · contribs) 15:57, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Nothing really amusing about it. Actually it gives a good rundown of matrilineal/matrifocal/matriarchical hunter-gatherer tribes, though they aren't neccessarily anarchistic. --albamuth 10:03, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Aside

Gee whiz, I wonder who decided to promptly archive the talk page up to a convienient point. User:Fatal (sig added by Sam Spade (talk · contribs) 00:59, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC))

The same guy who keeps signing your posts for you? How orderly of me... Sam Spade (talk · contribs) 00:59, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Sam recently found his aggressive disinformation techniques challenged on the primitivism page with referances to his history here and on libertarian socialism. Then suddenly this page gets archived cause Sam is in an orderly mood ;) Kev 02:30, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I don't care why, but at least archive it properly (as archive 13). --albamuth 08:35, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

AdBusters

Thanks to Beta m's correction of capitalization in the adbusters link I noticed that adbusters is listed under anarchist journals. While I don't atm have info contradicting this, it comes as a surprise to see it listed there. Is adbusters specifically anarchist, or even promoting of anarchism in any way? Kev 02:13, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Actually, add to that Zmag, which appears directly below the adbusters line. Since when is Zmag an anarchist publication? Kev 02:14, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

If there is a "adbusters" journal it might not have anything to do with anarchism (or adbusting) more than anythng else but Adbusting in itself is anarchistic.

I agree, but I'm not sure if that makes it appropriate to list this particular group and their publications under anarchist journals. The same is true of Zmag, sure there are some anarchist writers in it, but I've never seen them directly associate themselves with anarchism as a group. Kev 18:58, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

As Tothebarricades.tk pointed out it might be of interest to anarchists... but isnt in itself anarchistic... So i think it should be removed, or put under "Of interest to anarchists".. :) Foant

Zmag has had some stuff on anarchism but they're more broadly left-wing and pluralistic. Neither magazine is specifically anarchist. "Of interest" to anarchists perhaps, although I know a lot of anarchists aren't huge fans of Michael Albert and company. --Tothebarricades.tk 05:01, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

For the moment I moved both to a new category of "related publications", unless someone has a better idea =) Kev 05:46, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

WTF? What happened??

What happened to the "Anarchism series" that this page was a part of? "Anarcho-communism, anarcho-syndicalism..." were some of the pages listed in the green series box. What happened to this all of a sudden? I see the "topics related to anarchism" thing now at the bottom of these articles, but this is less noticeable and in my opinion, not as good as the previous series that existed. --Fatal 01:51, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I've been hoping for someone to comment on that, I think it's rediculous. Someone stepped into the template and said it wasn't proper to make it a sidebar, citing some wikipedia special page with examples. I didn't know enough about it, so I didn't say anything. I think it should be put back the way it was.--Che y Marijuana 04:04, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)

I checked out the series sidebar rules, and the change was correct. Series are done for things that are normally chronological, like the presidents of a country. Footering does indeed apply here. --albamuth 05:43, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Okay, another thing, I'm not sure how to edit something that on the bottom of all the pages all at once but I have a pretty good suggestion for it. I think that "topics related to..." box at the bottom should also have a link to the "Past and present anarchist communities" which is linked to in the Anarchism article. Since the information's been moved, it would make sense to provide a link to it there. --Fatal 23:38, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You can edit it here. Just go to Template:Anarchism sidebar.