Jump to content

Talk:Anarchist communism

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by BunnyyHop (talk | contribs) at 03:26, 31 December 2020 (→‎BunnyyHop removing correctly cited information). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article

The sign for Anarcho-Communism

Usually isn't it a flag that's half diagonally with red either on top or bottom and black the opposite of where the red is? --User:Paracite 9:41, january 9, 2006

That is usually associated with Anarcho-Syndicalism. QFlux (talk) 20:28, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is actually a reference to both and is used by both groups. I also want to propose the Circle-A Hammer and Sickle as a symbol that should be on this page. Easily found by google image searching anarcho communism —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.163.88.3 (talk) 05:40, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not a good idea, because the hammer and sickle is an offensive symbol to anarchists. I don't know anyone who would use it. I would like to bring up the issue of the Communism sidebar again, as well. Let's get rid of it. Hiram (talk) 11:17, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The page is called anarchist-communism HiramvdG. While I'd agree that the hammer and sickle can't really be associated with anarchism today (bearing in mind it certainly was around the turn of the 19th century), the inclusion of the sidebar is entirely valid, given that it's trying to explain the overall concept of communism, which in its final incarnation is indistinguishable from the anarchist viewpoint - it's only how we get there which is in dispute. The communist strands which practice democratic centralism and vanguardism in general is what directly conflicts with anarchism on an ideological level, which is only one aspect of what the sidebar covers. --Saii (talk) 16:47, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are no anarchist organizations who have used this symbol (which seems to be the product of a single activist in the early 00s. It is true that since then, the image has been used on the internet by anarchist communists, but I'd argue that the vast majority of the movement considers it more ahistorical and even offensive than as something symbolizing state and classless society under libertarian socialist principles. My vote is for it being removed and replaced with the black/red flag which has been used and is in use by virtually anarcho-communist groups.Altemark (talk) 10:00, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a sign for Anarcho-Communism?

Is there? Maybe we could make one.. That would be cool. Perhaps.. an A with a C... hmm. Maybe 120? But that wouldn't be too fair to the europeans.. Maybe 120-240AC based on Alternating currents from different countries. With the A being the anarchy symbol... ooh, what a neat idea. --Cyberman 01:32, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

There is one on the french version of this article (see http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-communisme). --CyberKeupon 11:50, january 2, 2006

Can anyone verify the validity of that logo? --Evil Eccentric 04:32, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, this symbol hasn't been used by organizations, except for some individual militants, starting in the early 2000s.Altemark (talk) 10:01, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I made one myself, think it's pretty good. Quite bad quality. Nice if someone could improve it. Click on this link to see it--->[[1]] Marhen 13:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC) If you flipped the sickle around to make it look like a C rather than a backwards C it would make a lot of sense. CalBears99 (talk) 23:27, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Anarchist communism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:25, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Anarchist-Communist symbol dosn't represent the AC ideology

The hammer and stickle has nothing to do with the anarchist-communist ideology. It was created by petition of Lenin during the Russian revolution (so it's a Marxist-Leninist -and its derivations- symbol). I think it should be changed by a red-black star, or another symbol more accurate to the anarchist-communist ideology. Note: We are currently showing this symbol in this article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Anarchist-Communist_Symbol.jpg --190.17.70.47 (talk) 23:13, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The hammer and sickle is a generic communist symbol. It represents the unity of the proletariat and the peasantry. The symbol you are talking about is modified to be part of a regular anarchy symbol, as to distinguish it from statist communism. It's a known anarcho-communist symbol and should be kept. - Jupiterjaeden (talk) 17:22, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Anarchist communism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:15, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

best-known examples

The following content deleted from the introduction was redundant with text already (and more appropriately) in the section Anarchist Spain and later examples. I've pasted it here, in case someone wishes to compare it to, or prefers it to, that text already in the Examples section.

Through the efforts and influence of the Spanish Anarchists during the Spanish Revolution within the Spanish Civil War, starting in 1936 anarchist communism existed in most of Aragon, parts of the Levante and Andalusia, as well as in the stronghold of Revolutionary Catalonia before being crushed by nationalist Falange Española forces under Franco, with support from Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy, as well as Spanish Communist Party repression (backed by the USSR) and international economic and armaments blockades by capitalist countries and the Second Spanish Republic itself.[1] During the Russian Revolution, anarchists such as Nestor Makhno worked to create and defend—through the Revolutionary Insurrectionary Army of Ukraine—anarchist communism in the Free Territory of the Ukraine from 1919 before being conquered by the Bolsheviks in 1921.

- Zulu Kane (talk) 10:31, 15 March 2017 (UTC) [reply]

References

  1. ^ Murray Bookchin. To Remember Spain: The Anarchist and Syndicalist Revolution of 1936
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. (non-admin closure) —Guanaco 09:21, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 15 June 2017

Anarchist communism → Anarcho-communism – WP:CONSISTENCY. We have anarcho-syndicalism, anarcho-capitalism, anarcho-primitivism, anarcho-pacifism, anarcha-feminism, etc, etc. There is also a strong WP:COMMONNAME argument. Looking at Google Trends for searches, the combined number of searches for "anarcho communism" and "anarcho-communism" is double that of "anarchist communism". To me, the term sounds more natural. On this talk page, the most commonly used name seems to be anarcho-communism. Hell, even the navbox at the bottom uses anarcho-communism. Laurdecl talk 10:31, 15 June 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. Anarchyte (work | talk) 14:04, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Anarcho-communism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:16, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Poor Article Tone/ Balance

The general tone of this article is not encyclopedic, as it presents the POV of anarcho-communism in a vacuum where no critical thought is applied to the concept except by those espousing other forms of communism, and even those cases are rare. In addition to describing how it differs from other forms of communism, the article should be focused more on explaining how the concepts interact with other economic theories and provide outside criticism of the main tenants of the movement. I think the general structure of the article is partially to blame the lack of balance, as by presenting the majority of information in a historical context, the reader seems forced to accept political concepts as history rather than theory that is open to criticism. To remedy this, I would suggest shortening the history section and re-structure the article to provide clear counterpoints to each concept by a wider range of economists from various schools of thought. For reference, the article on Anarcho-capitalism (which itself is a terribly-structured article) at least allows for alternative points of view to be expressed. The amount of work that has gone into creating this much content seems wasted on an article that will forever be rated C-class unless some dispassionate parties are willing to work to improve the structure and balance. Mrathel (talk) 13:45, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Name move

I completely missed the change of name question above, from June, in which two editors expressed an opinion, and no-one answered @Czar:'s question about sources wasn't answered. Is there a time lapse rule here before a question like this can be re-considered? Because I think it is really clear that the sources are not evenly split; almost universally anarchist communists themselves call themselves "anarchist communists" not "anarcho-communists", in contrast to how anarcho-syndicalists describe themselves. And the "anarchist communist" use is generally followed in scholarly sources, at least judging from Google Scholar. "Anarchist communism" was the term Kropotkin used, and the name of his influential book, which really as well as Alexander Berkman's book. The main sources using "anarcho-communist" seem to be hostile ones. BobFromBrockley (talk) 22:28, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Bobfrombrockley, if you'd like to compile a counter-argument based on quotes/sourcing, I think all would appreciate the effort. No, the above isn't a strong consensus and yes, it can be overturned/challenged. czar 04:19, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Czar:! I'll try and put this together then. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:12, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why do searches for 'libertarian communism' redirect here?

Given the significance difference in the two terms 'libertarian' and 'anarchist' it seems like there needs to be more reason to merge 'libertarian communism' with 'anarcho-communism' than finding an author or two who claimed the two terms are synonymous. There is just too much room for POV being cited in a political subject matter like this compared to a subject like botany where an author stating a common plant name is synonymous with its Latin name would be sufficient reason to merge and redirect searches for that plant. Additionally, libertarianism is not merged with anarchism on this encyclopedia either. But supposing I was able to find an author who claimed libertarianism is synonymous with anarchism, would that be sufficient reason to merge the two terms and have all searches for libertarianism be redirected to anarchism or vice versa? Quarky Gluon (talk) 15:23, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, along with all the publications with 'Libertarian Communism' in the title, there is also a Libertarian Party but no Anarchist Party or Anarcho-Communist Party to be found. I thought I remember reading a separate entry for Libertarian Communism some years ago on this encyclopedia. If so, was there ever any discussion about the merge? Quarky Gluon (talk) 15:18, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On the Libertarian communism talk page it says "Text and/or other creative content from this version of Anarchist communism was copied or moved into Libertarian communism with this edit [in 2011]. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page... The former page's talk page can be accessed at Talk:Anarchist communism." So clearly there has been some back and forth over time. If there is a case for a Libertarian communism page, I guess you could have another go at creating one. Bear in mind the other closely related page, Left communism. There is also a Left-libertarianism page which I have tried to get to give more prominence to libertarian communism, but always get overruled. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:00, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:37, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:37, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Resource Based Economy(Anarcho-communist/Decentralized planning economy)

Peter Joseph mainly known as a social activist\filmaker founder of The Zeitgeist Movement also one of the very few economists who addresses economic calculation problem within decentralized planed RBE(anarcho-communist economy). I recomend u to chech out the "Economic Calculation in a Natural Law / RBE" video or works like "TZM Defined" and "The New Human Rights Movement: Reinventing the Economy to End Oppression"(might download for free on rutracker etc) , imho it provides an interesting look on how anarcho-communist decentralized economy (RBE) works. Cheers!Badmaan (talk) 10:29, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

I propose to merge Free association (Marxism and anarchism) into Anarcho-communism, as others have suggested several years ago. There is substantial overlap between the two concepts, and the idea of Free Association can easily be explained in the context of Anarcho-communism/Stateless Communism, and the Free Association article is of a reasonable size that the merging of the two will not cause any problems as far as article size is concerned. This is as an alternative to deleting or significantly overhauling the Free Association article, which is written more like a personal reflection or essay on the subject, and is severely deficient in citations, neutral POV and grammatical flow/correctness (though in fairness many of these issues also pertain to this article).--St Judas the Lazarene (talk) 06:01, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this merger really makes sense, as free association is a concept (that is also found in Marxism), whereas anarcho-communism is an ideology. It would be better to simply edit the free association article, if it requires it. - Jupiterjaeden (talk) 17:19, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Jupiterjaeden: Message text. St Judas the Lazarene (talk) 08:31, 10 March 2020 (UTC) Free Association is a concept that *only exists in Marxism, specifically in Anarcho-Communism, and as I said, can be well explained in the context of Anarcho-Communism, as an aspect of that ideology. As I said, there's a huge amount of overlap between the two articles, and it isn't really necessary to keep both of them.[reply]
Marxism and anarcho-communism are distinct and often opposed ideologies. Even their visions of a stateless future are somewhat different. There might be a lot of overlap but I still think it makes sense to keep them separate, since free association is a concept in several ideologies (including other anarchist ideologies). Free association is not a concept that belongs exclusively or even mainly to anarcho-communism. As for the articles being too similar, it might make sense to cut down the anarcho-communism one a bit and instead link to the free association page. - Jupiterjaeden (talk) 17:31, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BunnyyHop removing correctly cited information

BunnyyHop You are removing correct information with the only reason seeming to be your Marxist-Leninist POV. All information is correct, do you think the execution of Free Territory commanders is some sort of Propaganda? You are currently posting extremely disruptive edits. Des Vallee (talk) 03:04, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to take a look at WP:NPA and WP:TALKHEADPOV. You have not provided reliable sources for your claims, this source uses this unreliable and non-academic book as a reference by this publisher. --BunnyyHop (talk) 03:24, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You don't appear to understand that the pdf provided is not A: Not created by the anarchist library and is reliable. Moreover you only issue seems to be you not liking the fact that Bolsheviks did indeed invade and betray the Free Territory, something which they did. Des Vallee (talk) 04:01, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if you're not understanding this on purpose but I'll assume good faith. The PDF uses sources to back its information. However, these sources are not even a little bit reliable (as shown above). Also, the scope of this article is about «Anarcho-communism», so, the fact that they lost to the Bolsheviks should not be included imo. --BunnyyHop (talk) 04:46, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The citation uses information detailing the Soviet invasion and sub. You keep not answering the question, did or did not the Soviets execute leading Free Territory generals. Answer the question, your only issue seems to be you dislike the fact Marxist-Leninist states did the things they did. You have a history of this like removing this in which you removed information detailing the Gulag system as slavery and removing it or removing the image of totalitarianism because you don't like Stalin being present, you remove an immense amount of information with only explanation being you don't like it mentions anything negative of the Soviets. Des Vallee (talk) 05:07, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The citation uses an unreliable source to detail the «Soviet invasion». Also, you might want to look at WP:TPG if you think personal attacks and linking to other threads (making whimsical accusations) to discredit the point being made here is a good idea. BunnyyHop (talk) 05:17, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed for starters there is certainly enough information provided, in the article Free Territory to detail, as an invasion, I advice you check that beforehand. But again did the Soviets excite Free Territory commanders, if so this entire discussion is irrelevant. I am stating your behavior, with a multiple diffs BunnyyHop. Des Vallee (talk) 05:20, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Don't change the point of the conversation. Your source was unreliable and the text showed a POV as a fact. Also, such is already stated in the lead of the article. --BunnyyHop (talk) 05:35, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wait so I am confused did or did the Soviets execute anarchist commanders, we need to understand this to move on from the article. In what sense does stating the fact that the USSR invaded the Free Territory a fact have anything to do with POV, your only issue seems to be you dislike that the Bolsheviks invaded the Free Territory. Its extremely important to this information it is related to the free territory and is detailed extensively. You don't seem to understand NPOV, stating facts that being the USSR invaded the free territory isn't POV. Des Vallee (talk) 05:41, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The lead already contains «where anarchists such as Nestor Makhno worked to create and defend anarcho-communism through the Revolutionary Insurrectionary Army of Ukraine from 1918 before being conquered by the Bolsheviks in 1921». What are you talking about?BunnyyHop (talk) 05:43, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't what this is about this is about the eventual destruction of the Free Territory, something which you keep removing seemingly only because you dislike the Bolsheviks are the reason for the Free Territory destruction. Des Vallee (talk) 05:47, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I mainly removed it because of it being poorly sourced. I don't really understand the point of what you wrote above, but detailing the «eventual destruction of the Free Territory» is not within the scope of this anarcho-communism article, let alone the lead.--BunnyyHop (talk) 05:51, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BunnyyHop That genuinely makes no sense that point stumbles. The information and citation are correct, with the information being extensively present at other articles. Also attempting to state that the Free Territory doesn't fit within the scope of anarcho-communism with it being perhaps the best example of an anarcho communism is completely laughable. Des Vallee (talk) 06:01, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

«information and citation are correct» The ones you inserted are unreliable.
«Free Territory doesn't fit within the scope of anarcho-communism» Again, you are not comprehending the point. This is not equal to what I wrote «detailing the «eventual destruction of the Free Territory» is not within the scope of this anarcho-communism article, let alone the lead» BunnyyHop (talk) 06:13, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So I assume you believe the dissolution of the USSR shouldn't be stated in Marxist-Leninism? What an utterly strange position "eventual destruction of the Free Territory is not within the scope the lead." I suppose then you should also remove the section detailing Anarchists being outlawed here as well. Des Vallee (talk) 07:10, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's not just «eventual destruction of the Free Territory» but the «detailing the eventual destruction of the Free Territory». The destruction of the Free Territory is already stated in the lead --> «from 1918 before being conquered by the Bolsheviks in 1921». You proposal is to detail this even further - which is not in the scope of this article, led alone the lead. --BunnyyHop (talk) 20:58, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
BunnyyHop That is complete nonsense, we mention the eventual downfall of the Barcelona anarchists and other things. Indeed it is extremely relevant to anarcho communism. This position seems to you not liking the Bolsheviks executed anarchists. Des Vallee (talk) 03:09, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Des Vallee, those who defeated Anarchist Catalonia are mentioned, but it's not detailed. Once again, the article is anarcho-communism, not Makhnovia. --BunnyyHop (talk) 03:26, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Anarchist_communism&oldid=997355892"