Talk:Criticisms of anarchism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Socrates
Philosophy Portal
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.

OK I created this from content on Anarchism. It needs work to justify its existence as a separate article. Mostly it needs expanding but if anyone knows why the references start at "note-0" could they fix it if it's a problem. Also I see there's an article called Major conflicts within anarchist thought, perhaps the two articles should be merged or should this article instead concentrate on external criticisms of anarchism?

Chaikney 13:27, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Needs a lot of work

This article needs a lot of sources and POV corrections. For example the paragraph on Anarcho-capitalism is extremely one-sided and has no citations. Two-Bit Sprite 20:02, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

-I'm pretty sure an article that discusses criticisms of a political affiliation is going to be one-sided. Youknowthatoneguy 04:29, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Why should it be one-sided? There is a very simple formula for making these such pages NPOV: post a significant criticism regarding a tenet of the philosophy, then post a popular rebuttal from a member or members within the philosophy. This is not rocket science. That said, this article does need a "makeover." 72.78.159.131 10:33, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] POV clear

Much of this article reads like The Anarchist FAQ. It's obviously not devoted to documenting the different criticisms of anarchism, rather debunking them (after only superficial mention). The article on anarchism is there for people to learn about what anarchists stand for, why not let this article simply illustrate what the critics feel about it? --72.227.81.95 01:43, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed... to say that there being anarchists in China and Korea "disproves" the criticism that anarchism is eurocentric is to say that you do not understand the criticism. (and to set things straight, I am an anarchist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.20.146.223 (talk) 19:45, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Possible Criticism: Anarchism fundamentally impossible?

I don't know if anyone other than I has ever thought of this, but I think a key problem with anarchism is that permanent anarchism may be fundamentally impossible. I believe that common sense dictates that if a government is overthrown, it will only be a matter of time before a "strong man" government emerges to replace it. Therefore, anarchism can only exist temporarily.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.62.116.40 (talk • contribs)

Try telling them that. Zerath13
Not if you have a stronger privately-funded defense force in place to prevent a government from coming in, as in anarcho-capitalism and other individualist anarchisms. But for something like anarcho-communism which requires a drastic change in human nature, it definitely seems impossible. Any anarcho-communist colony would invaded by imperialist states. An anarcho-communist colony could exists in the U.S., for example, like on a big farm, but that's because the state exists to protect from invasion.Anarcho-capitalism 15:58, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
I think User:68.62.116.40 is dead on. This bit of common sense is the number one criticism of anarchism, as far as I'm concerned. Power vacuums have always been filled historically. It wouldn't be long before a "private defense force" was more facist than any government's ever been.Sylvain1972 14:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
This entire sub-topic is loaded with assumptions and I'm not up to pick any of them apart. I'll only point out two things to would-be-editors: 1)No matter how clever you think you are, the answer is "no, someone already thought of it," and 2) this is a talk page for an article, not the topic of the article. Leave your POVs behind and consider how you can actually contribute to the project of improvement.
So before anyone reads these posts and decides to create a space for this argument, get some sources and please do your best to provide an objective point of view to write from. If you're going to quote someone who dragged "human nature" out of the garbage can, provide some counter analysis that actually asks the pressing question: "what's common about common sense, and how is human nature at all natural?" --Cast 04:49, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] length

This article should be expanded and made more hard-hitting until it is comparable to the "criticisms of capitalism" article in length, and in the intellectual depth of its arguments. I fairly stress-criticism, not countering criticism (another poster aptly makes this point, suggesting this article is POV)-just look at the criticisms of capitalism article. It is just that, not a few criticisms of capitalism follwed by refutations. Also, there should be more on criticisms of anarchism by Capitalists, as opposed the article as it stands, focusing largely on criticisms of anarchy by Leninists and the like, though these criticisms are themselves valid, and warrant mention. 152.163.100.135 11:58, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] more criticisms

What about the inherent flaw in anarchism in that it assumes all people want what's best for not only them but others? I think someone should expand this article. I have some, but I also just like to rant, if anybody can find any professional critics that have similar oppositions as I do I feel they would fit in well with this article. For example it is a simple fact that not all people are inherently good, doing things that hurt not only them, but their community and the fact that the driving force behind anarchism assumes that the individuals involved are knowledgeable, educated, rational, and lack the basics of emotion. And while the need to propel humanity into the future is important, reliance on the good will of everyman is not a foundation to build a society on. Society needs some structure and needs some sort of way to educate the people for the benefit of humanity. This is carried out by some form of government. While some governments may be too restricting, none is too loose. It's like trying to get a pair of pants to fit correctly.

I agree with you pretty much completely. Bias in favor of anarchy and such is one of the main reasons I find myself continually disgusted by this "encyclopedia", and decided not to become a "user?". You could sign your posts, though.132.235.120.44 21:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] anarcho-capitalism

The anarcho-capitalism critique is hilarious. I like it just the way it is. So an anarcho-capitalist society would be like "Blade Runner." *laugh*Anarcho-capitalism 06:59, 17 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] what's the point?

why does this article even exist? what's the point? are there going to be "what's wrong with this philosophy" pages on the capitalism, fascism, marxism, nationalism, etc. pages? I would submit that - not only is this article incredibly poorly written and woefully lacking in citations - it is completely out of keeping with the established norms for dealing with philosophical and ideological topics. This page should be removed and the small portion of its contents that are actually relevant merged back into the appropriate pages.

Actually, there are plenty of articles on this site criticizing Capitalism, fascism, Marxism, Nationalism and the like. Rather than write balanced (as opposed to "NPOV") articles, vitriol is rewarded with more vitriol. 132.235.120.44 21:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Engels, On Authority

As far as I'm aware, Engels is not arguing that Anarchists are not "violent enough," but rather that by espousing "anti-authoritarian" politics they undermine their own cause or are being hypocritical. His point is that war is the imposition of the collective will of one or more of the parties to the conflict (the winners) upon one more other parties to the conflict (the losers), and is therefore authoritarian. By refusing to engage in organized violence, they make revolution impossible - or so Engels maintains. --Eric 03:01, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

There is no mention of Teddy's famous hostis humani generis speech, even though he was president of USA and as such his views are "ex cathedra and officinum" are highly significant:

"When compared with the suppression of anarchy every other question sinks into insignificance. The anarchist is the enemy of humanity, the enemy of all mankind, and his is a deeper degree of criminality than any other. No immigrant is allowed to come to our shores if he is an anarchist; and no paper published here or abroad should be permitted circulation in this country if it propagates anarchist opinions." - Theodore Roosevelt 1908

82.131.210.162 16:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Right. (Rolls eyes). Like Nero's hatred of Christianity, or Calhoun's views of abolitionism, are meaningful criticisms of their targets. Nero, Calhoun and Roosevelt are just powerful scoundrels, persecuting those who criticize them, not meaningful critics of Christianity, abolitionism, and anarchism respectively. Jacob Haller 19:59, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
It may not be meaningful criticism of anarchism, but it could be a good addition to a "Persecution of Anarchists" page.FrostyNorth (talk) 17:30, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] National Anarchism

national anarchism isn't even a movement and from what I've seen is hardly more than a few nutcases who have sloppy websites and corresponding Myspace pages. The mentioning of National Anarchism in this article cites no sources and hardly describes National Anarchism as the non-movement it is. Almost exclusively its anarchists who are even aware of National "Anarchism" and so are the ones who oppose it so maybe it should be discussed in an article discussing debates within anarchism.

Would anyone oppose the deletion of this part of the article considering how poorly its put together?

Blaze Incendiary 02:36, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I would oppose deletion, if only because the peculiarity of their views sparks such curiosity in me. I would, however, support language within the article which labels this group as the fringe that it is. The last thing we want is to engage in pseudo-relativism by giving them a platform (such as the creation/evolution debate or Rand McNally vs. the Flat-Earth society).72.78.159.131 10:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)