Talk:Anarchism/Archive 13

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Untitled

Argentina

This article says: "Argentina (2001-present)"; as if Argentina is under anarchist rule, and that isn't true. I'm from Argentina and after the goverment collapse in 2001 (due to an economical crisis) order was soon restored with a provisional goverment and then a general election put Nestor Kirchner in power, our economic system is capitalistic and our economy is restoring. Those mentioned assemblies haven't any power (they were promoted by far-left groups trying to seize power but were unsuccessful and soon disolved). I think that this part of the article is wrong and biased, because it intends to show Argentina as an anarchist country governed by assemblies when the reality in Argentina is that we are managed by a democratic goverment following our constituion and laws with a capitalist banking and economic system.

I think this part of the article needs to be fixed because is wrong and false.

I will use Wikipedia own information to show the actual facts of our country, so you can check by yourself:

Our actual president: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirchner

Information about the country: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argentina#Administrative_Divisions

There is no such thing as anarchist rule. The factory occupations and councils are of interest to anarchists as being non-hierarchal, directly democratic forms of large scale organization. The article is not saying that the State and capitalism have been totally abolished. --Tothebarricades.tk 00:25, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The article says, literally, that Argentina is under anarchism its clearly biased. I don't see it clarifyng that the argentian goverment is democratic and capitalist. According to this article Argentina is managed by assamblies and workers manage the factories. Well that isn´t true. It's highly biased, because it's giving wrong information.

First:

"However, after the economy crashed in 2001, the IMF responsed by demanding that more social programs, (health care, schools, etc), be cut, and more things be privatized. Massive popular rebellion erupted."

No, the main reason of the protest was that the people was tired of the goverment and asked for a change of goverment, but by no means anarchism, people asked for a new elected goverment, and that was what happened we elected a new one goverment. The article doens't clarify that. (I was in one of those protests, believe me I know what we were asking for.. and that wasn't anarchism it was a new elected democratic GOVERMENT, not anarchism)

Second

"Out of the uprisings, came many popular organs of self-management and direct democracy. Worker occupations of factories and popular assemblies have both been seen functioning in Argentina, and both are the kind of action endorsed by anarchists: the first is a case of direct action and the latter a case of direct democracy. Approximately 200 "recovered" factories (fábricas recuperadas) are now self-managed and collectively owned by workers."

Far-left groups tried seize power uprising the poor population when the chaos started they started pressing workers to take factories and creating assamblies, but as they did not have any power any power at all, because 15 hours after the protest the provisional goverment was in power, they soon disolved. Just a few ones remained but they were unable to coordinate anything becase that was our elected goverment job, so I don't see where is the anarchism in that according to this article any country in the world where some people reunite to debate something about poilitics (but can't do anything in concrete because that is the goverment job) is anarchist.. That should be corrected because is plain wrong.

With the new elected goverment almost all of those "recuperated" factories were reintegrated to its real owners, again the article isn't mentioning that.

Suggest 60 possible wiki links and 23 possible backlinks for Anarchism.

An automated Wikipedia link suggester has some possible wiki link suggestions for the Anarchism article:

Can link use of force: ...rely another face of [[despotism]], characterized by brutal use of force by self-appointed rulers.... (link to section)
Can link social equality: ...nts. These [[left-wing politics|leftist]] parties advocated social equality and [[universal suffrage]]. Still today, social movements m... (link to section)
Can link Greek philosophy: ...the sovereignty of the moral law of the individual". Within Greek philosophy, Zeno's vision of a free community without government is op... (link to section)
Can link Peloponnesian war: ...alled by the Spartans following their victory in the second Peloponnesian war, and despite the presence of an [[Archon]], nominated by th... (link to section)
Can link the Holy Spirit: ...ey held that the good man will be guided at every moment by the Holy Spirit...[f]rom this premiss they arrive at communism...." ... (link to section)
Can link individual rights: ...rarchy. Still, they did promote the idea of human equality, individual rights, and the responsibility of the people to judge their govern... (link to section)
Can link working class: ...cial context. [[Mikhail Bakunin]] saw a need to defend the working class against oppression and overthrow the ruling class as a mean... (link to section)
Can link the ruling class: ...o defend the working class against oppression and overthrow the ruling class as a means to dissolve the state. [[Peter Kropotkin]]'s [[a... (link to section)
Can link political spectrum: ...unions played a large part in the formation of the American political spectrum. The United States is the only industrialized former Briti... (link to section)
Can link social order: ...sh; would need to be abolished to foster liberty and a just social order. A rejection of modern [[technology]] is also prominent in ... (link to section)
Can link Western Europe: ...[Copenhagen]]. The housing and employment crisis in most of Western Europe led to the formation of [[communes]] and squatter movements... (link to section)
Can link peace movements: ...anarchists have been involved in student protest movements, peace movements, squatter movements, and the anti-globalization movement, a... (link to section)
Can link activism: ...bour movement, and both have incorporated [[animal rights]] activism. Globally, anarchism has also grown in popularity and influ... (link to section)
Can link personal computing: ...lue]] format, a goal made attainable by the availability of personal computing, desktop publishing and digital media. These things have ma... (link to section)
Can link desktop publishing: ... made attainable by the availability of personal computing, desktop publishing and digital media. These things have made it possible for i... (link to section)
Can link digital media: ... availability of personal computing, desktop publishing and digital media. These things have made it possible for individuals to [[fi... (link to section)
Can link mode of production: ...and [[Indymedia]]. A book analyzing how this new "anarchic" mode of production is possible is [[Eric S. Raymond]]'s ''The Cathedral and th... (link to section)
Can link civil society: ...g anarchy would then be a society maintaining stability and civil society without hierarchies. There are some examples, usually small... (link to section)
Can link cultural revolution: ... addition to the economic revolution, there was a spirit of cultural revolution. Oppressive traditions were done away with. For instance, w... (link to section)
Can link recreational drug use: ... the community, notably between supporters and opponents of recreational drug use.... (link to section)
Can link social construction: ... to South and back again, wiping out all traces of creative social construction. [Arshinov] </blockquote> ... (link to section)
Can link economic power: ...he fact that oppression has its roots in both political and economic power and so aimed at eliminating both the state and private prop... (link to section)
Can link new masters: ...past years, the error of putting our fate into the hands of new masters; we will conquer in order to take our destinies into our ow... (link to section)
Can link self-management: ...e to carry out a social revolution on their own and perform self-management. This was proven wrong by the Makhnovist movement, promptin... (link to section)
Can link social organization: ...duction on an increasing scale. An example of the anarchic social organization was that vast sums of money were freely donated for injured... (link to section)
Can link Workers Council: ... increased in scope and depth, eventually forming a Central Workers Council of Greater Budapest (CWC-GB), with intellectual and student... (link to section)
Can link Good Government: ...ation, food, and other essentials. The "laws" passed by the Good Government Councils are not enforced with policemen and prisons, but i... (link to section)
Can link Avi Lewis: ...licy.org/citizen-action/series/12-factories.html] In 2004, Avi Lewis and Naomi Klein (Author of ''[[No Logo]]'') released the do... (link to section)
Can link Naomi Klein: ...en-action/series/12-factories.html] In 2004, Avi Lewis and Naomi Klein (Author of ''[[No Logo]]'') released the documentary ''[htt... (link to section)
Can link ethnic group: ... believe all workers, no matter what their race, gender, or ethnic group are in a similar situation vis-a-vis their bosses. Further... (link to section)
Can link class struggle: ...f anarcho-syndicalism contend that its focus on proletarian class struggle overlooks the needs of some segments of society (parents or... (link to section)
Can link moral imperative: ...cial cohesion are beside the point, and that anarchism is a moral imperative that should be pursued regardless of consequence.... (link to section)
Can link sex work: ... to recognise particular industries like domestic labour or sex work. The contemporary model of the Industrial Commonwealth mor... (link to section)
Can link resource allocation: ...t struggle. While the day-to-day methods of accounting and resource allocation for the Industrial Commonwealth have never been proposed, t... (link to section)
Can link free market: ...erous form of control, the anarcho-capitalists believe that free market capitalism is a necessary part of freedom.... (link to section)
Can link state power: ...rkers. This Marxist desire is often referred to as "seizing state power." These arguments are often seen as critical, because they ... (link to section)
Can link secret police: ...involved the autonomy of workers councils, the existence of secret police, and the transparency of justice. As the argument between t... (link to section)
Can link material world: ... is the idea that people find themselves in a predetermined material world, and act to produce changes upon that world within the limi... (link to section)
Can link realism: ...'t anarchists themselves. The [[Ashcan School]] of American realism included anarchist artists, as well as artists such as [[Ro... (link to section)
Can link Abstract expressionism: ...[[George Bellows]] that were influenced by anarchist ideas. Abstract expressionism also included anarchist artists such as [[Mark Rothko]] and... (link to section)
Can link J.R.R. Tolkien: ...nistration]]. Pollock's father had also been a [[Wobbly]]. J.R.R. Tolkien, the famous author of the Lord of the Rings, was a self-dec... (link to section)
Can link the Lord of the Rings: ...so been a [[Wobbly]]. J.R.R. Tolkien, the famous author of the Lord of the Rings, was a self-declared anarchist.... (link to section)
Can link WisCon: ...ce fiction]] milieu. Baer has contributed art to the annual WisCon conference, a convention featuring feminist science fiction... (link to section)
Can link the postal service: ...l art]] movement, which can be described as "art which uses the postal service in some way." This is related to the involvement of many an... (link to section)
Can link political theory: ... anarchism and [[situationist]] rhetoric, if not always the political theory. In the past few decades, anarchism has been closely associ... (link to section)
Can link anti-authoritarian: ...ed to the ideas of Anarchism through that symbolism and the anti-authoritarian sentiment which many punk songs expressed.... (link to section)
Can link dance music: ...ort and promote anarchist politics despite now playing more dance music and pop influenced styles.... (link to section)
Can link Criminal Justice Bill: ...nd are viewed negatively by the authorities. In the UK, the Criminal Justice Bill (1994) outlawed these events ([[raves]]) and brought togeth... (link to section)
Can link Act of Parliament: ...tionists]] who opposed the introduction of this 'draconian' Act of Parliament by having a huge 'party&protest' in the Centre of London th... (link to section)
Can link capital goods: ...ion, resources should be collectively managed, particularly capital goods used as means of economic production. The form of this col... (link to section)
Can link planned economy: ...one end of the spectrum lie the syndicalists, who propose a planned economy based on a series of collectives that rely fundamentally on... (link to section)
Can link call for help: ...ve that anarchists are obliged to aid such groups when they call for help in their struggles. Ultimately, anarcho-socialists believe ... (link to section)
Can link manual labor: ... of labor. They almost universally agree that some form of manual labor (which they often distinguish from work) is currently neces... (link to section)
Can link parasitism: ...s organized by Josiah Warren) thus eliminating the economic parasitism of the boss class and therefore being anti-capitalist. Benj... (link to section)
Can link monetary system: ...hin the realm of anarchist labor issues is the issue of the monetary system. While all anarchists are against the current monetary syst... (link to section)
Can link International Monetary Fund: ...lved in protests against World Trade Organization (WTO) and International Monetary Fund (IMF) meetings across the globe, which have often turned vi... (link to section)
Can link consenting adults: ...l behavior|sex]] are private matters to be resolved between consenting adults. In their opinion, authorities like governments, lawmakers,... (link to section)
Can link Species Traitor: ...archist Panther, Harbinger (CrimethInc), Practical Anarchy, Species Traitor, Profane Existence, Alternative Press Review, Communicating... (link to section)
Can link Profane Existence: ...Harbinger (CrimethInc), Practical Anarchy, Species Traitor, Profane Existence, Alternative Press Review, Communicating Vessels, Killing K... (link to section)
Can link Alternative Press: ...nc), Practical Anarchy, Species Traitor, Profane Existence, Alternative Press Review, Communicating Vessels, Killing King Abacus, Willful... (link to section)

Additionally, there are some other articles which may be able to linked to this one (also known as "backlinks"):

In Crass, can backlink anarchism: ...e (see also [[anarcho-punk]]). Whereas the [[Sex Pistols]]' anarchism seemed to be a self-consciously [[Nihilism|nihilistic]] [[p...
In [[Fr%E9d%E9ric Bastiat|Frédéric Bastiat]], can backlink anarchism: ...Molinari]] did publish his foundational work on free market anarchism in [[1849]], and Bastiat, knowing that, did declare on his ...
In Usenet, can backlink anarchism: ...senet are not necessarily compatible with each other. While anarchism tends to emphasize individual freedom and the 'anything goe...
In Hippie, can backlink anarchism: ... in some areas, for example by embracing [[punk]] values of anarchism, anti-establishmentarianism, feminism and acceptance of hom...
In Bob Black, can backlink anarchism: ...nd repair." * "Cleansed of its leftist residues, anarchy - anarchism minus Marxism - will be free to get better at being what it...
In Paul Feyerabend, can backlink anarchism: ... science would benefit most from an attitude of theoretical anarchism. He also thought that theoretical anarchism was desirable b...
In Sydney Push, can backlink anarchism: ...sed phrases such as "anarchism without ends," "pessimistic anarchism," and "permanent protest" to describe their activities and ...
In Jean Moreas, can backlink anarchism: ...s. In 1891 as Symbolism became more openly associated with anarchism, he published ''Le Pèlerin passioné'' which r...
In Leonard Peikoff, can backlink anarchism: ...s: from atheism to Christianity, from limited government to anarchism. Thus, it is seen by Peikoff that Kelley's position amounte...
In New class, can backlink anarchism: ... of analysis has remained one of the major positions within anarchism on the role of the elite in the Soviet-style societies....
In Albert Meltzer, can backlink anarchism: ...writer]]. Meltzer was born in [[London]], and attracted to anarchism at the age of 15 as a direct result of taking [[boxing]] le...
In Kenneth Rexroth, can backlink anarchism: ...e can be found a wealth of knowledge ranging from political anarchism, painting, world religions, classical chinese literature, p...
In Leonard Liggio, can backlink anarchism: ...on which emphasized "common philosophical bonds uniting the anarchism and isolationism of the Old Right, and the instinctive paci...
In International Third Position, can backlink Anarchism: ...ncludes such phenomena as [[National Bolshevism]], National Anarchism and Strasserism, all of which look to elements of [[sociali...
In List of French artists and artistic movements, can backlink anarchism: ...fé culture, cabarets, arcades (19th century covered malls), anarchism, the mixing of classes, the radicalization of art and artis...
In Timeline of Western philosophers, can backlink anarchism: ...gald Stewart]] - common sense realism *[[William Godwin]] - anarchism, social theorist, utilitarianism...
In Jacques Ellul, can backlink anarchism: ...ike ''Anarchy and Christianity'' ([[1991]]) explaining that anarchism and Christianity are socially following the same goal....
In Anarres Books, can backlink anarchism: ...ting out of [[Melbourne]], [[Australia]]. It sells books on anarchism and related topics....
In Anarchism in Phoenix, can backlink anarchism: ...t meetings of PAC, members agreed on a common definition of anarchism: "''One who believes in self-governance and no capitalism''...
In History of anarchism, can backlink anarchism: ...)". Ancient Greece also saw the first western instance of anarchism as a philosophical ideal, in the form of the [[stoicism|sto...
In Clenched fist, can backlink anarchism: ...represent many similar ideas. The symbol is associated with anarchism, defiance of authority, and personal empowerment (black pow...
In Comision de Relaciones Anarquistas, can backlink anarchism: ...azines on [[social sciences]], [[sex]], [[social ecology]], anarchism, [[counter culture | alternative culture]], [[globalization...
In Libertarian Book Club, can backlink anarchism: ...lf Rocker]], revived interest in Stirner as an influence on anarchism and other [[far-left]] ideologies....

Notes: The article text has not been changed in any way; Some of these suggestions may be wrong, some may be right.
Feedback: I like it, I hate it, Please don't link to — LinkBot 11:08, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

historical materialism

This section seems to be duplicated on the libertarian socialist page. Given that this is generally a subject confined to discussion between anarcho-communists and Marxists would it be best, in the interests of creating a more concise article, to remove the redundancy here? Kev 01:33, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I don't see that specific section, has this been resolved?

Major conflicts within anarchist thought

Currently private property is listed as a major conflict within anarchism, but this is really more of a side-conflict involving a minor faction claiming anarchism. Like the discussions pertaining solely to anarcho-communism and Marxism, I'm unsure if this "minor conflict" should even be present on this page, or should instead be moved to the anarcho-communist or anarcho-capitalist page. Similarly, wage labor is not a "hotly debated" subject in anarchism. Amongst the traditional anarchists this issue is only debated within the individualist community and certainly not considered of primary importance, whereas outside of traditional anarchism this issue is only relevant to anarcho-capitalism and probably belongs on that page. Again, this is a problem of misplaced emphasis, giving the reader the incorrect impression that there is some kind of 50/50 divide in the anarchist community over issues that are peripheral at best. Kev 01:44, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Should this article be shortened?

The article is currently 77kb, considerably more than double the recommended 32kb limit. I find that this article is often at the top of searches that have nothing to do with the topic, making this probably the longest page in Wikipedia I've come across. I suggest spinning off some of the information under subsidiary articles.--Pharos 08:07, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Certainly. The entire section of "Major conflicts withing anarchist thought" seems to be lacking in explaining the conflicts. I would take the example of the theoretical physicists, who split off articles such as Quantum_loop_theory and Objections_to_the_theory_of_loop_quantum_gravity.

My suggestions:

Anarchism and Marxism section can be it's own article, ie. Anarchist Objections to Marxism
Anarchism and Capitalism can be, likewise (and thus the entire Anarcho-Capitalist stuff can go with it) Anarchist Objections to Capitalism
Major Conflicts Within Anarchist Thought should be another article, but renamed and the focus refined. Hell, it could be several different articles. I've already started one for Anarchist economics.

Trying to describe every single minute ideological hairsplitting within anarchism in the main article is misleading and confusing. It should stick to main concepts, main branches, history, culture, and provide gateways to other topics. Otherwise, we'll be limited to short paragraphs on every topic (like sexual relations) that obsure the depth of information that each topic contains. --albamuth 09:16, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This has been proposed many times before, and while previously I was neutral to the idea I now think it is essential. I agree that it should be split, not only because it remains too long, but also because many of the sections which would have long since faced serious revamping have been held off for too long awaiting this split, making the article incoherent and misrepresentative. Kev 10:59, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Okay, I made the moves that I suggested earlier. I'm leaving the new articles as they are since I don't want to make too many additions and so forth in case someone starts reverting everything. --albamuth 19:56, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

albamuth, I think that Anarchist objections to marxism should be renamed Anarchism and Marxism, (which happens to be the original subheading title and currently redirects to Anarchism), as it simply compares Anarchism and Marxism and is almost equally relevant to both. "Anarchist objections to capitalism" is even less descriptive of the content of that page; currently it contains a lot of content directly relevant to Anarchism, which should be on the main page; with some shifting of infd between pages and rewriting, it could make a decent Anarchism and Capitalism article.

Agreed. I moved anarchist objections to capitalism to Anarchism and Capitalism but I could not move anarchist objections to marxism because of the existing redirect. Somebody more well-versed with wikipedia should handle that. I feel like I should hold off on the moving of stuff around until others have a chance to contribute.--albamuth 21:49, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Can we make it a series, much like Communism?--Che y Marijuana 00:35, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)

We should, but the whole Template business baffles me.--albamuth 16:01, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I like the series idea. Gives it a sense of unity that simply splitting it off into various articles wouldn't. --Tothebarricades.tk 19:10, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The template is a great idea, this article has got to be radically shortened, but not in a way that totally 'exiles' some of its parts.--Pharos 02:16, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Here's my first draft of a template, what do you guys think? Template:Anarchism sidebar--Pharos 05:04, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I like it, but I re-ordered the schools a bit, as Anarcho-Capitalism in second was a little odd. It has broken the Anarcho-Communism page though, there has to be a way to implement both the templates on it without destroying the page like that. I also think your template is better than the Communism one, which should be made to look the same to keep that nice flow on Anarcho-Communism :P --Che y Marijuana 23:29, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)

If anyone can write a decent article on Anarcha-feminism, there's a spot waiting for it on the template. See Anarchism#Feminist anarchism.--Pharos 23:54, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I edited the Anarcho-Communism page, putting the Anarchist template directly into the page, and editing it to be on the left. It's not the greatest solution, but it's better than it was before, does anyone know of a better way? I tried merging the two templates just for that page, and it looked cool, but the page is far too short for two templates running ontop of each other in a box on one side. Could someone with more experience take a look at it?--Che y Marijuana 03:19, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps instead created a table that includes both templates? Is that possible? Since both templates will change, it will be easier than having to maintain this customized AnarchismCommunism template you created.--albamuth 12:50, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thanks, I think I got it now: an invisible table! Will the subtleties of the universe ever cease?

Is this OK with you, CyM?--Pharos 13:36, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hell yeah! Thank you :D--Che y Marijuana 18:25, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)

Free store

Somebody just started free store. Perhaps somebody here can find a good spot to link it in here and, perhaps, work on that article as well.... Mdchachi|Talk 22:12, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I've added it to the see also section, and fixed some gramatical issues in the free store article... I want to add some examples to the page, but I can't find any good sources. I had found one article on anarchism in Israel and they mentioned the operation of serveral large (and successful) free stores in that area, but I can't seem to find the link to it. Two-Bit Sprite 05:42, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Anarchism in Religion

I know this has been discussed previously, but I really think the subject of Anarchism in religion deserves an entry. I think that some of us should get together and pound something out to include on the new template (which looks great so far, btw). Anyone interested? --Corvun 08:19, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

While they arn't really anarchist, the concensus based Quakers deserve mention. Sam Spade wishes you a merry Christmas! 11:22, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I don't know, unless you can find religions that explicitly advocate anarchist ideas, trying to tie in a religion (of which it's own members are either not aware of anarchism or self-describe themselves as anarchists)--albamuth 18:24, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I've constantly seen the analogy of Amish barn raisings as an example of anarchism in pratice (in some crimethInc. publications somewhere, probably) and maybe this should be mentioned in an Historical examples section. Two-Bit Sprite 05:49, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I've created a skeleton article at Anarchism and religion. It needs a lot of work, but it should give a basic idea of what all it would cover. --Corvun 22:51, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Latest revisions

Just had to say that the new additions and modifications to the article make it a lot better in my opinion. Great work. --Fatal 22:42, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I concur - it seems that the main article covers everything precisely (perhaps it can be split off further?!?) and the related articles are solidly founded enough that they can grow as needed. Nothing anarchy-related comes to my mind that isn't at least given a mention. --albamuth 03:30, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Anarchist vs. Police

I removed these sentences:

However, in almost all instances the violence was started by the police, and what violence there was from the anarchists was in the form of "property destruction" of corporate property or self-defense from police attacks.
The police use violence against the demonstrators.

Both appear to me rather as political claims than some verifiable facts. In the former case, it's IMO true the most anarchists demonstrate non-violently, but I wouldn't necessarily that all of them do(unfortunately). And BTW I think a lot of people would consider property destruction as a form of violence. The latter sentence may be true, but in the context it was written in, I don't think it was a NPOV statement. But all in all I think the anarchism article itself is really well-written. --iris lorain

I think the sentences should be re-inserted. And I also think that it should be mentioned that more than 60% of cases of domestic abuse are commited by police officers and military personnel (the other 40% being every other occuptation in the entire world combined). It's also worth noting that since police carry guns, shackles (I mean cuffs), cudgels (I mean batons), and lock people away in dungeons (I mean jails/prisons), anarchists see police and military as the primary cause of violence in the word. More often than not, anarchists fear for their own safety when police are around, because they see police as little more than publically-funded terrorists who use violence and threats of violence to coerce the public into behaving in ways they don't feel they should be forced to behave. --Corvun 11:30, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You said: "60% of cases of domestic abuse are commited by police officers and military personnel ". Not sure how accurate that is (please supply a reference for these kinds of facts), but I was told prison guards have a problem with domestic violence. Having to be on the lookout all day for their own safety, having to treat people like animals; hard to turn off at the end of the shift. And they are encouraged by their bosses not to live in the local commumity, so they are commuting 40 miles to work, another drag on their life. {sorry, wish i could provide a reference) 67.118.117.48 22:40, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well I was the victim of a domestic violence situation. My ex-girlfriend used to cut me, hit me, even tried raping me a couple of times. When the relationship ended I sought counseling (strange there are no programs for male victims), and got onto the subject of police. I had mentioned the humiliation of having the cops called on us, and having them check her for bruises, and another incident in which I was arrested for trying to escape from her (she told the police I tried to run her over with my car, and her being the poor defenseless woman, who do you think they believed?). The counselor I saw gave me the figure. I didn't find it at all hard to believe, since a few years prior my father had tried to harm me and the police did nothing, but when I punched him in the face a few years later the cops combed the streets for me. So it's not just that police and military commit more acts of domestic violence than all other occupations combined, it's that they will defend batterers and arrest victims. That's a lesson I learned all too well.

I'll try to get in touch with my old counselor and see if I can't get the exact figures. --Corvun 22:56, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You should try looking right and behaving politely, and that Jackbooted thug is liable to metamorphasis into officer friendly right in front of you. I've been consistantly amazed by the difference between what happens when I speak to a police officer, and what I see when watching "Cops". I agree w iris lorain about the sentances BTW, altho the second one could be reinserted with context. Black bloc anyone? Sam_Spade (talk · contribs) 11:44, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I live in a "majority" street in a suburb otherwise dominated by a racial "minority". Guess which streets the sirens run down? Guess which streets adolescents are habitually tailed down? Guess who the police killed in my suburb while riding a bike? Fifelfoo 11:56, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sorry to be horrible, but the guy on the bike probably wasn't "looking right". Police are people to, and if you give a guy a badge and a gun, he is going to feel pretty darn empowered. Everybody is subject to classical conditioning, and after a majority of difficult arrests involve a certain minority, an average officer is going to form certain opinions and tendancies. But racial profiling has nothing to do w this page, and that wasn't the "black bloc" I was refering to. I've seen footage from anti-globalism protests filmed by Independent Media Center (the journalist was EXTREMELY sympathetic to the protestors BTW) which showed items being hurled at police by excited youngsters, rampant vandalism, and a mob mentality bordering on revolutionary fervor. The fact that some people were beaten during arrest should shock no one. I'd find it mind blowing if it didn't happen. Sam_Spade (talk · contribs) 12:12, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"Looking right and behaving politely"? I agree with behaving politely. I attempt to treat everyone with respect and dignity. When I worked as a janitor and made $180 per month I'd give my last $20 to bums on the street while lawyers, doctors, etc. would drive right by and say "he'll probably just use it for alcohol". As far as "looking right" is concerned: no one should have to be a police-target because of his or her sense of fashion.

Every day I see police protecting those who "look right", who have white teeth, nice hair, wear expensive clothes -- people who behind closed doors are the most despicable, loathsome knaves you could ever imagine. Every day I see police locking away the homeless, targeting the poor. Every day I see police upholding the values of the clueless middle-class whose only concerns are how they're going to pay for their kid's college tuition. Meanwhile people like me who have had to eat out of garbage cans to survive at points, are the ones the police try to arrest and lock away in their dungeons.

That is why anarchists dislike police. They're the protectors of the wealthy only, the protectors of people so worried about petty, stupid things like whether their kids listen to music with swear-words or smoke marijuana, while the rest of us struggle desperately to survive and have real problems to worry about. They're the protectors of white, middle-class suburbia.

Besides, having to "look right" and "behave politely" -- i.e., looking and acting the way "everyone else" does, is an affront to individuality. We should not all be forced to fit the same mold, to think and act and believe the same things. Where's the freedom in that? Or should we all get rid of our clothes right now and start wearing identical navy-blue jumpsuits, listening to the same music at the same volume, worshipping the same Gods, and eating the same foods? That's what most anarchists are against, and that's why they have a problem with police; the police are there to use violence and threats of violence to coerce individuals into behaving the same way, the way the politicians whom the police work for want. --Corvun 12:25, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Everything you said was either mainly factual, or an opinion. Police don't like anarchists either, for obvious reasons. Police inforce conformity. You clearly think they do that too much, many others think they do that too little. As I keep drilling into the heads of the victims of american left-wing public education looks matter... alot. They are one of the very best indicators of success in all sorts of situations. If you look like a bum, you get treated like one, 9 times out of 10. if you look shiny in a new suit, people want to be nice to you, since you might be important. If you look sexy, that helps too ;) Sam_Spade (talk · contribs) 13:56, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You're right, of course. Police don't like anarchists because anarchists seek to undermine police authority. It all goes back to police and military commiting more acts of domestic violence and child abuse than all the other occupations in the world combined -- it stems from a desire to control others.

"Police inforce conformity. You clearly think they do that too much, many others think they do that too little." This is the part that throws me: The US claims to be a free society. Let's say I didn't like people smoking pot or listening to loud music in the middle of the night, or that people spitting on sidewalks really bothered me. Then let's say I'd had the sort of cushy, powderpuff (no insult intended) life that most republicrats had led, and therefore thought of these infinitesimally minor annoyances as Real Big Deals. Why try to force everyone to act the way I wanted? Why not pack my bags and move to a conformist police state? Why try to reave other people of the freedom to live the way they want (just as I desire to live the way I want) by trying to turn the US into such a conformist police state? I think this is the thing anarchists have the most trouble understanding: why anyone would want to take freedoms away from others based on nothing more than said freedoms posing petty inconveniences to him/herself.

Now, I could go on for megabytes about why I distrust police; why I find not just police but also judges, representatives, congressmen, military personnel, CEOs, etc., etc. to be such reprehensible excuses for anthropoids. But to summarize: you're right, looks do matter. And what I've learned in my short little life is that car thieves with missing teeth and tracks on their arms and who live in the ghetto are, as a general rule, far more honorable and trustworthy than the clean-cut, well-groomed, successful types with the pearly white teeth who live in the suburbs or on big hills. I say this from experience, because I've seen both sides of the tracks; my family once held a membership at a private country club and I went to a private school, only years later to find myself rummaging through trash bins looking for food. What I saw from the people the police desire so much to protect (the middle, upper-middle, and wealthy class) was not loyalty, honor, or dedication as I saw in the ghetto, but backstabbing -- a rat race of people scheming and manipulating their way into greater riches and stepping on others' heads to climb the social ladder.

I think the reason people like myself believe in anarchy is because we've never had the desire to bolster ourselves at the expense of others, so we just assume everyone else can be like us, and peacefully cooperate without ever feeling the need to cause physical, emotional, financial, or psychological harm to anyone in order to get "ahead" in life or be particularly "successful". --Corvun 16:25, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Your missing the point of altruism. Freedom hurts, your story about eating from trashcans perfectly illustrates that. I can't speak for repubocrats, they probably agree you should have had the freedom to live like that. But your true opposite as an anarchist, those who advocate actual Totalitarianism tend to be altruistic in intent. They understand the pain and suffering caused by allowing average folks to make important descisions, and so they want nothing more than to keep you safe and content. Sure, a few eggs (or heads) might need to get cracked along the way, and some people might have to have their castor oil force fed to them, but thats how you make an omlet, thats how you make absolutely certain everybody has a job, and all the babies get fed. Where is the evil in a benevolant police state? Is freedom really desireable, much less anarchy? And where does anarchy lead anyways, if not to a police state? Sam_Spade (talk · contribs) 17:01, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Did you ever see the pilot episode of the old Star Trek, entitled "The Cage"? If not, do. It's actually pretty relevant to this conversation. It isn't anyone's rightful place to claim authority over another person, no matter how well-intentioned. Would it be okay for me to go into some random person's house and take over, making him follow all the rules I lay down for him, just because I believe my motivation to be virtuous? That's not my call to make.

Not quite sure what you mean b "is freedom really desirable, much less anarchy?", because if you don't accept varying degrees of freedom and look at it as something you either have or you don't, then freedom and anarchy are synonyms. Anarchy doesn't equal violence unless the society is violent. In a peaceful society, you would have a peaceful anarchy. Anarchy by definition means "without rule", so saying that anarchy leads to a police state is basically saying that anarchy leads to non-anarchy, so I'm not quite sure what you mean b that either.

Now, maybe bad things happen when average folks make important decisions. But the system the US has now is far worse. Average folks aren't making the decisions, but instead some very cruel and self-serving people who are hungry for power and control over others. And no one is even attempting to make sure everyone has a job or that all the babies get fed (Social Services and Unemployment centers are getting their budgets slashed, drastically, every year). The US system of government has a nasty habit of robbing from the poor and giving to the rich. A good example of this is poor people who can't afford medical insurance needing emergency medical care, not being able to pay, and having any chance of ever having a future taken away from them by collection agencies and courts (an 18 year old kid with his whole life ahead of him could suddenly find himself facing a future of eating dogfood for the rest of his life because of an incident like this, or as in my case, when this happened to me, having to scrounge food from the dumpster behind Godfather's Pizza).

And as a final point, many would argue that a "benevolant police state" is a contradiction in terms. Police are given shackles, cudgels, and guns to threaten people with and/or actually use in order to force comformity among the people. Violence is used by these same police if the individuals resist arrest. Then these people get locked away in dungeons for little more than just not comforming well enough. This is a dangerous and harmful state of affairs, and is anything but benevolant. The only way to have a benevolant police state is to refrain from giving the police weapons of any kind, and give neither them nor the courts the power to put people in jails or prisons. --Corvun 17:49, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

How about if the police only kill bad people, instead of putting them in jail? Then we could harvest their organs. Oversight is very easy w/o excess freedoms, you could simply put cameras everywhere, 1984 style. As I alluded to earlier, the USA is far from totalitarian, and the things you complain about are the results of economic freedoms, not the lack of them. Hitler had plenty of interest in making sure german babies get fed, and Castro has a free medical care system. Is murder non-conformist? rape? I'd say so. Conmformity is what you make of it, the same with freedom. Currently people seem to be making less than ideal choices w their freedoms, and its entirely possible we could destroy the planet as a result. Can you cite any example of peaceful anarchy, btw? Sam_Spade (talk · contribs) 18:07, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sup Sam? Haven't had a convo this good in a while dude.

"How about if the police only kill bad people, instead of putting them in jail? Then we could harvest their organs. Oversight is very easy w/o excess freedoms, you could simply put cameras everywhere, 1984 style."

Considering the fact that all you have to do is check out a copy of the Anarchist's Cookbook from the library or participate in a protest and you can be "investigated" as a terrorist suspect without your knowledge or even a warrant (thanks to the USA PATRIOT act), I'd say we're well on our way there. That's the road we've been on ever since the very first government was formed. That's the sort of thing governments inevitably lead to.

"As I alluded to earlier, the USA is far from totalitarian, and the things you complain about are the results of economic freedoms, not the lack of them."

Businesses using their economic power to abuse individuals is not "economic freedom" -- it's economic terrorism. Saying that the abuse of the poor by greedy corporations is "economic freedom" because the corporation is allowed to do whatever it wants, is the same as saying that a dictatorship is "political freedom" because the dictator gets to do whatever he wants. They're both doing the same thing. Government uses its political and marshall strength to destroy the lives of civilians, and big business uses its economic power to destroy the lives of the little-guy. It's all the same thing. They're both using their own self-appointed power to rule unjustly over others. That's not freedom, that's tyranny. You seem to think that in an anarchy, businesses would be allowed to do whatever they want; you fail to realize that whether it be "political-archy" (government) or "capital-archy" (capitalism), both are ruling powers, and neither would be allowed to exist in a true anarchy.

"Is murder non-conformist? rape?"

They are means of abusing individuals by wielding power over them (the opposite of anarchy). They are means of violently controlling others, just like the police and the military. Ever heard of a guy called Jack the Ripper? He enjoyed, as have many serial killers, playing "cat & mouse" games with police. Crime detection becomes more advanced, and the criminals become more careful. We keep giving cops bigger guns, stronger cuffs, heavier bludgeons, and the murderers and rapists arise to meet the challange. Some people might watch tv shows like COPS and see "our boys in blue" going out to "catch the bad guys" -- I see a bunch of little kids playing cowboys & Indians with real weapons, weapons we gave them. And it amazes me how few people can see this for the deadly mistake it was. You want to get rid of rapists and murderers? Get rid of government, get rid of police. Don't give the cat a mouse to play with.

"Currently people seem to be making less than ideal choices w their freedoms, and its entirely possible we could destroy the planet as a result."

That's not because of freedom, it's because of power-hungry businesses polluting the earth and governments going to war at the drop of a hat. As far as littering and things of that nature: laws make no difference. In the 1960's you could cross the border from a garbage-heap US into a clean kempt Canada, before either country had litter laws. Now both countries have litter laws, but the situation hasn't changed. If laws have made any difference at all, it's been in breeding smarter, more cautious criminals. It's been in making litterbugs look around to see if there are any cops nearby before throwing garbage out their car windows. We need to be working toward developing the sort of society that doesn't need laws to begin with, one where people act with courtesy and decency toward eachother without being told or forced to, not inspiring dangerous people to be more careful and cunning.

"Can you cite any example of peaceful anarchy, btw?"

Check out the anarchism page. How's this: can you cite any example of a violent anarchy? I misspoke earlier when I said a violent society would lead to a violent anarchy and a peaceful society would lead to a peaceful anarchy. Violence and anarchy aren't compatible. They cannot co-exist. An act of violence rapes a person of self-determination and choice, even if only briefly, the very opposite of anarchy. All governments use violence and threats of violence to enforce their rule. To do away with violence is to have anarchy (since there is no means of maintaining control), and to have anarchy is to have no violence (since violence undermines personal freedom). Can you cite a violent anarchy? A violent, non-violent society? While you're at it, can you cite some portable holes and some round squares?

Peace out. --Corvun 22:25, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sure I cite a violent anarchy.. Iraq, Somalia, Afghanistan, Albania, revolutions and wars thruout history, from the French revolution thru recent events in Rwanda, anarchy is disorder and confusion. I understand the communist pipe dream (as much as anybody can), but IRL, people are mean, the strong exploit the weak, and the only was to prevent chaos and the supremacy of warlords is law and order, which until people evolve requires police, and a certain degree of conformity. The feeling is mutual about the conversation btw, you clearly possess the intelligence and respectability necessary to communicate in an intellectually honest manner even when challenged regarding matters you find personally significant. You have my respect, and blessings for the New Year. Cheers, Sam_Spade (talk · contribs) 23:09, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well, there's the problem. You're looking at the word as defined by usage, I'm looking at it from an etymological angle. "Anarchy" is simply the lack of "-archy" (hierarchy, matriarchy, etc.), and so means "without rule" or "without domination". Violence is an attempt to dominate another person or persons, so from where I stand "violent anarchy" is a contradiction in terms; once violence becomes involved, we cease to have anarchy. "Disorder and confusion" is a connotation that has become so associated with the word over the years do to a natural evolution of meaning and applications that it's now a standard definition.

What it boils down to, then, is that what you call "anarchy" I would call a "failed attempt" at anarchy.

But not all people IRL are mean and desire to exploit those weaker than themselves. Most passefistic anarchists like myself genuinely can't comprehend why anyone would want to dominate, exploit, or harm anyone else except perhaps out of self-defense. One of our failings, I think, is that because the idea of controlling someone else's life is so utterly alien to us, that we find those who attempt to impose rules on us as having sinister motives. We sometimes forget that those of us with the "live and let live" philosophy are an extreme minority.

Take smoking in bars for instance. Someone like me would just go outside or something if he/she was really bothered by the smoke. Others would try to get smoking banned in bars. The latter of these is something we really can't relate to. We reckon people have the right to smoke, and people who don't like it have the right to go elsewhere -- it's really no big deal. And I think that's where our animosity against republocrats comes in: they will try to ban and make things illegal that are really just minor annoyances, certainly nothing major enough to consider mandating by law one way or the other, no matter how much it bothered us.

I've also noticed non-anarchists have trouble understanding our position. Most republicans and democrats hear you say you don't like something, and automatically think you want to make it illegal. The idea that you would want something to remain legal even though you don't like it seems a bit beyond their comprehension as well. But from the anarchist's perspective, that's what living in a "free society" means. It means you don't go passing laws against any little insignificant thing that ever got on your nerves. And that brings me back to one of my original points: if people want to force everyone to live the same way they do, why not go to a comformist police state? Why take away from the rest of us the spirit of freedom that the US was supposed to have been founded on? Why destroy the "free" part of our "free society" and ruin forever the very thing about our nation that we've always held so dear?

See, from the anarchist's perspective, passing laws about every stupid little thing is one of the most horrendous crimes we could ever imagine, because it strips us of our liberty as a people, makes us feel like the only thing we're good for in the eyes of our nation is a source of revenue with the taxes we pay, like our freedom never even mattered to anyone to begin with. And so naturally we grow to mistrust, and for some, despise the government that would allow that sort of thing to happen. To us it's a betrayal, it's like being lied to about everything we ever thought America was about. One thing I'm sure all American anarchists have in common, is that we all feel that at some point, Uncle Sam had stuck a dagger in our backs. And you know something? It hurts like hell. --Corvun 02:56, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

P.S. Happy New Years!

You sound more like a Libertarian patriot than an anarchist to me, from the sounds of it you don't want to break stuff (chaos anarchy) or take stuff (libertarian socialism), you simply want the freedoms outlined by the US constitution. I'm with you on that one. Sam_Spade (talk · contribs) 12:23, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Anarchism is not about violence and confiscation. Those are the behaviors of authoritarian government. Real anarchists don't want to substitute themselves for government, they want to stop people from engaging in such behaviors entirely. Kaz 14:46, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

How? Sam_Spade (talk · contribs) 16:45, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I don't have much of a comment on the police thing because maybe it is sort of POV but I think the basis of what the author was trying to say isn't necessarily. However, the whole thing about property destruction being equated with violence, it's not POV to say that they are not the same thing, because they're not. Violence is between living things not objects. So the "they claim that" modification should be reverted, because that's an important difference to say. --Fatal 02:21, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

From the wikipedia article on violence:

Violence is a general term to describe behavior, usually deliberate, that causes or intends to cause injury to people, animals, or non-living objects.

I just want to point out violence isn't absolutely clear term and so it may be helpful for the reader when there's a mention how do the involved groups understand the violence.--iris lorain 18:41, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Oh yeah and sam spade, what the hell. You're citing rediculous examples of things and criticizing other people for not being anarchist enough for you. Who are you to criticize someone for something like that when it seems extremely likely that you know very little about anarchism, since you just love to repeatedly equate it with chaos and "drinking with punks in abandoned buildings." Following sam spade's example, I think I'll go edit a page on quantam physics, since I know so much about the subject (sarcasm). --Fatal 02:28, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Who did I criticize? What ignorant edit did I make? What are you talking about? Have a look at my recent edits, if your so concerned. I think I'll go make a useful, well informed edit, as usual ;) Sam_Spade (talk · contribs) 22:11, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Just a few comments ago you said that "violent anarchy" was in Iraq, Afgahnistan, and so on. Anarchy is lack of hierarchy. If you knew anything about anarchism you wouldn't be comparing it to instances of chaos and disorder. And lack of state is not always lack of govt (hierarchy). And what the hell is this??? "You sound more like a Libertarian patriot than an anarchist to me, from the sounds of it you don't want to break stuff (chaos anarchy) or take stuff (libertarian socialism), you simply want the freedoms outlined by the US constitution. I'm with you on that one. " Why don't you clearly say what you believe in because multiple things you've said seem to point to the idea that you're a pro-statist that likes chaos every once and a while. User:Fatal (sig added by Sam Spade (talk · contribs) 21:29, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC))

Thats pretty much all correct. If you were able to understand that there never has been, and never will be, a lack of hierarchy, you'd know exactly where I'm coming from. Sam Spade (talk · contribs) 21:29, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

And so Sam Spade, you have admitted overtly that you hold great misunderstandings and stupid assumptions about anarchism and know very little about it. Let this be known as a reference for all future involvement you have in this article. -Fatal 00:20, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)