Difference between revisions of "Talk:what anarchism is not"

Latest revision as of 08:58, 10 November 2014

the whole articles pretty immature, and the name sounds simple. How about Faux, or for something less pretentious. Any ideas? lockeownzj00 20:50, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

OK. If you move this page, this page would become a redirect. --millosh 21:10, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

I've made the article a bit more mature, removing the word "shit" since it doesn't mean anything, clarifying in some sections, restructuring the article so it makes a bit more sense. I agree that "fake anarchists" isn't the greatest title for the article, as it sounds a bit elitist. I can't really think of a better title though. How about something like "what anarchism is not"? People may not think to search for an article titled "what anarchism is not" but we can have a few redirects to make it easier to access. Olive 07:33, 17 Mar 2006 (UTC)

Well, how about "varieties of anarchism." It's clear that the author considers there to be many kinds of anarchism that are fake. Although this kind of prescriptivism has it's place, it seems a more open-minded, descriptivist approach would be more in the spirit of both epistemologial anarchism and conventional academic protocol. If libertarians call themselves "anarchists," why not include them under an article called "Varieties of Anarchism." If, on the other hand, they don't call themselves anarchists but are called this by others, "What Anarchism is Not" would work better. Interlingua 17:24, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Anarchism is libertarian by definition, but I agree that not all libertarians self-identify or can be can be considered anarchists, and this could be reflected in the article. (here I am using "libertarian" to mean "pro-liberty" or "anti-authoritarian").

Calling oneself anarchist is not sufficient to be recognized as such by others. A similar problem happens in those states that call themselves "democratic republic" or "people's republic", when in fact they are run by dictators or oligarchies who disallow or disregard popular vote. These states do not define what democracy is. ~Rev 22 21:26, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with this[edit]

i'm only 13 and I already know about this. the average person has no idea what anarchy is about. people who think it's about killing people and post it on a website don't understand it. I can make a bomb, hack, and pick locks but, i use them for good. I think as anarchism as a philosiphy, not a way for people to make money and get attention. but, i have to tell mysef what my mom tells me "the world is made of mostly stupid people".

Unless you live in a totalitarian country I doubt you can find any "good" use for a bomb, except for controlled demolitions and mining. Terrorism and crimes in general can be used by governments to justify the establishment of police states, which is certainly not a thing anarchists want. ~Rev 22 08:04, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Dude, you destroyed our awesome "What Anarchism is Not" page! What's wrong with you? From your friends at the Morrowind Freebooters, CS.

Sorry friends, I moved the article to Anarchism is Not Cool. There was already an article named "what anarchism is not", and I think the new title is more appropriate for a parody article. This is just my opinion though, feel free to choose a different title. ~Rev 22 20:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Christian Anarchism[edit]

Do you think christian anarchism can really be considered as real anarchism? (after all, if anarchists have always been against capitalism, they also have almost always been against religion)

Of course Christian anarchism is anarchism, if you actually look carefully into their philosophy you will see that there are no contradictions there. William Blake, Leo Tolstoy and many other anarchists were all Christian anarchists.  ~ Beta_M (VolodyA! V Anarhist) ^Talk 2006 September 23 12:39 _(UTC)

Though it must be said that Tolstoy never openly credited himself as being an Anarchist.--RoyceChristian 11:17, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, if religious people can't be anarchists we're probably in big trouble. I mean, if all religious people were steadfastly opposed to a woman's choice as to whether to have a baby or not once she conceived (for example), we'd still be pretty backward as a society.--KropotkinInBlack 6:28 PM EST Jan 15 2008

Mises Institute[edit]

I wish challenge the deletion of the mises institute from the list of Anarcho-Capitalist websites. Ludwig Von Mises contributed to Austrian economics, a economic theory that has been somewhat adopted and used by Anarcho-Capitalists. It stands to reason that the Mises institute could provide a source for economic theories central to Anarcho-Capitalism.--121.220.149.129 04:12, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Then it might be relevant to anarcho-capitalism but to list on this page all the sites which might be relevant to ancap, just because it those theories might have been mentioned here will make this a link farm  ~ User:Beta_M (VolodyA! V Anarhist) ^Talk 2007 December 31 10:18 _(UTC)

You are right, I agree.--RoyceChristian 05:15, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

This is not a pro-capitalist wiki. This is an anti-capitalist wiki that opposes capitalism on the basis of individualism and egoism from a working-class perspective. We will not be tricked into taking the authoritarian leninist argument for socialism - as our socialism is libertarian, and we do not accept the capitalist (which is in itself authoritarian) definition of individualism. While capitalists may have managed to take over and distort various areas of the Internet and erase the working class history of anarchism and replace it with a bunch of men in business suits sitting on piles of gold, money, and relying on the gun and the police baton to defend it, thats not what this place is about. Capitalist propaganda is really out of place here. -User:151.204.254.237 (Jan 9, 2008 (Switching identity to user "KropotkinInBlack")

There's a great difference between propagating something and simply not attacking it. Zazaban 03:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Supporting something in a forum that undermines the forum itself doesnt make any sense. People still have freedom of choice as to whether they will contribute to their own domination or not.. or do we no longer have that? KropotkinInBlack10:48 AM EST Jan 15 2008

I don't see how a neutral description of something undermines anything. This isn't a political battleground. It's a wiki. Nobody's trying to destroy anarchism from the inside, at least nobody here.Zazaban 20:58, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to stop doing this, because It's obviously really not a good way for me to deal with this, and it's making me feel really uncomfortable. I left more text about it in Talk:anarcho-capitalism. If someone would write something more balanced in this area and the other, I would really appreciate it.KropotkinInBlack 6:23 PM EST Jan 15 2008

Broken links[edit]

American Revolutionary Vanguard is the only link that works

National-anarchist links me to a typosquatting page

Overthrow.com leads me to this notice: "You have reached OVERTHROW.COM

The hosting company for this site was hacked last week, taking all sites off-line.

The site is now re-allocated to our server and the site owner can re-upload his material immediately.

We apologize for this trouble."

Terra Firma takes me to my isp's 404 page --Elassint 00:14, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

These links need to be removed anyhow. This page is specifically states what anarchism is not rather than providing resources to anti-anarchists.  ~ User:Beta_M (VolodyA! V Anarhist) ^Talk 2008 January 20 15:40 _(UTC)