Wikipedia
Jan 9 2007 18:09
Not sure where to post this exactly.
But Ive been cruising around a bit on wiki, and as it is a pretty important and anarchisty like online resource I thought Id mention that the anarchist communism page on there is looking pretty weak with over half the content being criticism. There is also no mention of platformism or especifismo.
Id love to put some time into it but Im not much or a writer.
Also the Spanish civil war page could use a litle more of an anarchist touch.
The Communism side bar of the politics serries also has no mention of anarchist communism, or any anti authoritarian communism thinkers.
Well hope there's some intelectual types with a bit of free time on their hands...
Jan 9 2007 18:39
#2
wikipedia is seemingly a nightmare. i've heard there some anarcho-capitalist who says that all the other anarchists are lying about anarchism being a workers movement and being socialist.
Jan 9 2007 19:09
#3
again, if thats true, its a new development.
I doubt i'd have much time for anarchism if it had not been for Wikipdia's bite sized digests on it. Maybe i'm easily pleased.... But, and its a big but, there was to my knowledge very little mention of anarcho capitalism in the anarchism sections. Possibly there was none at all. It would rock if anarcho-capitalism was not even considered part of the main anarchism portal; but, true as that would be in some ways, its a bit biased and would only invite more creative editing.
Jan 9 2007 19:52
#4
georges: "wikipedia is seemingly a nightmare. i've heard there some anarcho-capitalist who says that all the other anarchists are lying about anarchism being a workers movement and being socialist."
i think that's under either Left Libertarian or Libertarian Left.
t.
Jan 10 2007 01:02
#5
the "Anarcho"-Capitalism crap has actually been going on for some time, with real Anarchists trying a good deal to keep the Capitalists from posting their stuff as a form of actual Anarchism. many were willing enough to allow "Anarcho"-Capitalism as a disambiguation (ie: might contain the word "Anarchism," but it's not at all part of the Anarchist ideology - kind of like if someone tried to put Bakunin's league of social-democracy (or whatever it was called) under the listing for Social-Democracy).
but they were able to push their way in anyway, it seems. for a while, it resulted in the Anarchism entry being locked, because people were making changes too much.
Jan 10 2007 07:31
#6
I personally think that so-called anarcho-caps are simply seeking to insert this ideology with an "anarcho" in front of it enough to dupe people ignorant and curious about what anarchism is just enough to undermine its real meaning. Just like the ruling class near the turn of the last century missrepresented anarchy as a state of chaos, they are now trying to paint it as some sort of capatilist ideal. Strange indeed, but i'm not worried about it. We've survived past missrepresentations and I'm sure we'll make it through this one just fine.
Jan 10 2007 12:51
#7
Wasn't the anarcho vs anarcho-cap argument one of the origins of the Anarchist FAQ?
I thought the debate on wikipedia had ended, turns out it just moved to the "Anarchism and anarcho-capitalism" article - see here for the discussion. I would get involved but frankly can't be fucked, anarcho-capitalism is even more irrelevant than anarchism itself...
More concerning for me was a bit ago when someone (who may be known to people here - don't want to give away name on a public forum tho) edited the article on EuroMayDay to claim that it was a front for neo-Nazis to infiltrate the anti-capitalist movement. Same user has done the same to other articles. Whatever one may think of EuroMayDay itself, having a popular online resource like Wikipedia (which is quickly becoming people's first call for things they may be unfamiliar with) state things like that is incredibly damaging.
Gonna have a go at some of the anarchism articles when I have time.
Jan 10 2007 13:19
#8
bozemananarchy wrote:
Just like the ruling class near the turn of the last century missrepresented anarchy as a state of chaos
I'd always understood it to have meant chaos and disorder long long before libertarians and socialists used it to label their way of thought.
The first people to call themselves anarchist: around the 19th century i believe.
'Anarchy' being used as a rhetorical device to describe the chaos and endless war that is apparently what follows or precedes the absence of the state: used by (i think) St Augustine in the 3rd century and certainly used by Thomas Hobbes and Rousseau (100 years later) in this way in the 16th century.
Sorry mate, but after some brief research i've had to conclude that the etymology of 'anarchy' is just as, if not more, valid as a term for chaos.
Hence 'libcom'.
Jan 10 2007 13:49
#9
Tacks wrote:
I'd always understood it to have meant chaos and disorder long long before libertarians and socialists used it to label their way of thought.
Fuck yea.
It always annoyed me when dickheads acted as if it was a problem the BBC describing what happened after the fall of Saddam as anarchy.
Jan 10 2007 14:05
#10
Quote:
'Anarchy' being used as a rhetorical device to describe the chaos and endless war that is apparently what follows or precedes the absence of the state: used by (i think) St Augustine in the 3rd century and certainly used by Thomas Hobbes and Rousseau (100 years later) in this way in the 16th century.
I think that the explanation Kropotkin give in "On Order" best explains why "anarchism" is used to represent a new social order. To sum up, Kropotkin explains that the current social order is chaotic and unnatural, therefore inhibiting the free development of mankind. So, in order for a society of order to occur, it must be "chaos" relative to the "order" of the chaotic society that we live in. This polemic was one of the major reasons why I began using the political label "Anarchist" as well as Communist -- Anarchist Communist.
Having said that, I'll have a go at Wiki myself. I remember working on the Anarchist, anarchist Communist, and other pages, but I'll check them out again now.
Jan 10 2007 14:39
#11
Quote:
Hence 'libcom'.
the only valid use for "libcom" is in describing this website, it is not shorthand for fucking libertarian communism and i fucking destest people using it as such, ffs!
Jan 10 2007 14:41
#12
revol68 wrote:
the only valid use for "libcom" is in describing this website, it is not shorthand for fucking libertarian communism
Yes it is.
Quote:
and i fucking destest people using it as such, ffs!
That's because you're an idiot.
Jan 10 2007 15:02
#13
no it's not, it's horrible sounding and i hate that kind of jarring artifical shorthand and it's far more annoying than shit like womyn or herstory.
Jan 10 2007 15:05
#14
revol68 wrote:
no it's not, it's horrible sounding and i hate that kind of jarring artifical shorthand and it's far more annoying than shit like womyn or herstory.
you're just saying that so you can link this thread next time you slag off radfem (
) jargon, showing you're an equal opportunities flamer. clever boy 
Jan 10 2007 15:08
#15
Joseph K. wrote:
revol68 wrote:
no it's not, it's horrible sounding and i hate that kind of jarring artifical shorthand and it's far more annoying than shit like womyn or herstory.you're just saying that so you can link this thread next time you slag off radfem (
well i can't deny it i am a very clever boy, but also it makes me cringe when i see people using libcom as shorthand for libertarian communism, or the eqaully bile rising "libcomers".
Jan 10 2007 16:40
#16
libcommies is the prefered term.
Jan 10 2007 16:43
#17
that said, it always grates when people don't write Confederación Nacional del Trabajo in full.
Jan 10 2007 16:44
#18
Joseph K. wrote:
that said, it always grates when people don't write Confederación Nacional del Trabajo in full.
oh wind your neck in.
Jan 10 2007 16:47
#19
Jack wrote:
libcommies is the prefered term.
limpcommies, surely? [(c) Class War]
Jan 10 2007 16:52
#20
It's still funny!
Jan 10 2007 16:54
#21
to be honest though Jack on some of your posts i'd be forgiven for thinking you meant liberal community.
Jan 10 2007 16:56
#22
revol68 wrote:
to be honest though Jack on some of your posts i'd be forgiven for thinking you meant liberal community.
All those ones about hanging paedos, you mean? 
Jan 11 2007 01:31
#23
all that said about people using the term "anarchy" to mean "chaos" for a good long time, the actual origins of the word (greek origins) do not necessarily mean "chaos," but something along the lines of "without rulership." so it still seems to me that folk have some grounds for being annoyed when people refer to chaotic situations (typically, situations where a bunch of factions are vying for rulership of whatever) as "anarchy." "anarchy" came to be a synonym for "chaos" simply because rulers or those steeped in the concept of the necessity of kings/emperors/etc believed chaos would be the result of a lack of rulership.
kind of similar to how the term "fascist," in common usage, means "authority figure," or "person who disagrees with me." 
just because people are using the term very loosely doesnt mean the more true definition is gone or invalid.
Jan 24 2007 09:59
#24
I think wikipedia's treatment of anarchism has sunk to a new low. Ladies, gentlemen and gentlequeers, I give you: Anarcho-Monarchism.
Jan 24 2007 10:06
#25
treeofjudas wrote:
I think wikipedia's treatment of anarchism has sunk to a new low. Ladies, gentlemen and gentlequeers, I give you: Anarcho-Monarchism.
wow.
Jan 24 2007 10:12
#26
It's a National Anarchist (fascist) tendency - but probably just one headcase.
Jan 24 2007 10:17
#27
from wikipedia:
"Anarcho-monarchism was advocated by artists such as Salvador Dalí and J. R. R. Tolkien."
Very prominent headcases
Jan 24 2007 10:27
#28
That's a lie, tho.
Seriously, it'll be one or 2 mentally ill sub-fascists, who have invented a political ideology, and are trying to ground it in something real.
Jan 24 2007 11:23
#29
Nah the main problem with anarcho-monarchism is that everyone knows that the orks were the proletarian class created by sauron and sarumans bourgeois machinations, so what the hobbits should really have done is united with proletarian factions among the orks in overthrowing both sauron and the reactionary anti-republican ruling class of gondor instead of succumbing to the national liberation struggle.
The idea that jrr tolkein would have had the words 'anarcho' attatched to anything he did is just hilarious. And salvador dali, wtf? I assume thats just to make it sound intellectual in the head of the irritating mentalist who wrote that.
Jan 24 2007 11:28
#30
Quote:
Anarcho-monarchism is a pile of utter utter cuntshit, the harebrained excretment of some lonely cock in a bedroom who is shunned by even the most depraved of paedophile rings.Anarcho-monarchism is often associated with Anarcho-capitalism or CUNTS as they are known, but is also rejected by many due to the perception that it is contradictory in name and as about as consistent as Frank "Pie Eater" Lampard.
good work comrades
shit really? I'd alway found there to be quite an anarchisty bent, but maybe i had a low expectation of anarchism even being mentioned as part of socialism...
Remember it can be edited, so maybe thats whats happened.