Talk:Anarchism#Manner of Organizing Society

Hi friends

The introduction currently claims that anarchism is against all forms of authority. But what about the authority of the bootmaker?

I don't mean to sound like a pedant, but I'm worried that people will only skim the intro and leave with some misunderstandings of anarchism.

I don't have an obvious suggestion to fix it, but I wanted to point it out and start some discussion. AnarchistHistory (talk) 14:57, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

:Hi @AnarchistHistory, glad to see new faces around. I get your point. But, look how it goes. Intro should reflect Main Body of the Article. Main Body of the Article should reflect the general consensus of contemporary authoritative scholars in the field. Authority of the bootmaker isn't prominent in the current anarchist literature, as I understand. Could you provide significant evidence within Reliable Sources? That would do the trick. Hit me back if you got any questions. Cinadon36 09:30, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

::I don't have any, but I would also like to know if the general consensus among academics is that anarchism is opposed to all forms of authority AnarchistHistory (talk) 17:35, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

:@AnarchistHistory Authority has several definitions. One of them (according to google oxford languages thing) is {{xt|a person with extensive or specialized knowledge about a subject; an expert.}} I believe this is the type being referred to with that, rather than the usual meaning. Does that make sense? A Socialist Trans Girl 20:55, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

::It makes sense, I just think that it is a slightly misleading account of anarchism AnarchistHistory (talk) 17:32, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

"Anarchism is a political philosophy and movement that is against all forms of authority."

I think Chomsky would disagree with this. Anarchists want better government, which includes eliminating government institutions that can't be justified, or moderating government institutions that have powers they shouldn't.

This opening line perpetuates the myth of anarchy being the "total absence of government." — Preceding unsigned comment added by MedillMSJ (talk • contribs) 23:35, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

:I think it would be dangerous to limit Anarchist thought to Chomsky. For instance there was Deleuze's contention that government "from the left" was an impossibility. [https://thefunambulist.net/editorials/deleuze-what-is-it-to-be-from-the-left] Simonm223 (talk) 23:40, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Surprised to see that Murray Bookchin didn't make an appearance in the article, then realized that with some few exceptions (Colin Ward, Noam Chomsky, even Zoe Baker in the suggested reading), there aren't many contemporary thinkers elaborated. It would be great to expand this element and point to some of the journals/etc that have been key. Psychopomplemousse (talk) 02:52, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

I have concerns that this article's dedicated criticism section may compromise its structural neutrality. It seems that this criticism section has three main points to make: that anarchism is unstable and violent, that it is impossible/utopian, and that human nature is inclined towards authority/hierarchy. Why this requires a dedicated criticism section with multiple meandering paragraphs, citing various political philosophers, is beyond me. In some cases, it's unclear whether the thing being criticised is actually the political philosophy of anarchism or the social structure of anarchy. In other cases, it seems to give undue weight to specific viewpoints; I already removed a couple paragraphs that I felt were obviously undue (see [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anarchism&diff=1291143022&oldid=1290865253 diff]).

I worry that, so long as a dedicated criticism section exists, it will be a magnet for POV editing by people who are both in favour of and against the subject. Per the NPOV guidelines on article structure, I think we should slim down this section and find a way to integrate the relevant parts of it into other areas of the article. I think this would create a more encyclopedic structure for the article and keep the focus on the subject itself. I have tagged this section for now and would like to see what others think before making any drastic moves. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:39, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

:I agree. This section doesn't appear to add anything of value to the article. It could be replaced with a more neutral "response" or "influence" section, and some of the counterarguments presented could go under "schools of thought" (e.g. the bit on anarchoprimitivism). IMHO as it stands now, the section could be deleted entirely and not detract from the article. Note that I may be biased by my own lack of investment in the issue, lol. NuanceQueen (talk) 21:09, 19 May 2025 (UTC)