Anarchism piece on Wikipedia

bus77

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism

Overall the Anarchism article on Wikipedia isn't bad, but there is a particular part in it that bothers me. It's at the bottom of the introduction piece just before the 'Contents'

''Some anarchists have opposed coercion, while others have supported it, particularly in the form of violent revolution on the path to anarchy or utopia.[13]''

My instant reaction to this is that incitement to revolution does not equate to coercion.

The citation given for it is,
^ Fowler, R.B. "The Anarchist Tradition of Political Thought". The Western Political Quarterly, Vol. 25, No. 4. (Dec., 1972), pp. 743-744

Now this is online but is stored in an academic library for colleges and I was wondering can anyone access it and put up the page for me please.

http://www.jstor.org/pss/446800

Sunn

bus77 wrote: »

''Some anarchists have opposed coercion, while others have supported it, particularly in the form of violent revolution on the path to anarchy or utopia.[13]''

well, alot of anarchist do believe that an insurrection against the sate would be required to take control. Although during the spanish civil war many anarchists who were involved in farming communes didn't force nearby farmers into accepting their belief.

this is a good article and it explains anarchism well.

http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/bcaplan/anarfaq.htm#part1

bus77

Sunn wrote: »

well, alot of anarchist do believe that an insurrection against the sate would be required to take control. Although during the spanish civil war many anarchists who were involved in farming communes didn't force nearby farmers into accepting their belief.

Exactly, and I'd have no problem highlighting the force of will aspects. But if your talking about a meens to an end, and the author is, ''...on the path to anarchy..'' Then it could be simply written as, ''Some people have opposed coercion, while others have supported it, particularly in the form of ballot posting on the path to a new government.''

This alone highlights what a ridiculous piece of writing it is.

Cannibal Ox

bus77 wrote:

Now this is online but is stored in an academic library for colleges and I was wondering can anyone access it and put up the page for me please.

Think there's copyright issues with sticking it up. I had a quick skim of the reference, it argues that 19thC anarchists theorists, Bakunin, Kropotkin, Stirner, accepted coercion under certain conditions, pre and post revolution.

Gobán Saor

Sunn wrote: »

http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/bcaplan/anarfaq.htm#part1

Good article, thanks for link. I was intrigued by this quote towards the end of the article

A long stretch of medieval Irish history has also been claimed to have pronounced anarcho-capitalist features.

Any idea what he's getting at?

bus77

Cannibal Ox wrote: »

Think there's copyright issues with sticking it up. I had a quick skim of the reference, it argues that 19thC anarchists theorists, Bakunin, Kropotkin, Stirner, accepted coercion under certain conditions, pre and post revolution.

I appreciate the copyright issues. I should have copped on that he was also talking about post-revolution when he included 'utopia alongside anarchy.

Still, I think your dealing with two different issues here. The need to differentiate between those that advocate mass action and those that advocate, and are in a position to institute, local community expressions of anarchy.

The second thing is that if examples of coercive measures, pre- or post revolution are to be brought up, the call for revolution itself is not a good example.

bus77

Gobán Saor wrote: »

Good article, thanks for link. I was intrigued by this quote towards the end of the article

''A long stretch of medieval Irish history has also been claimed to have pronounced anarcho-capitalist features.''

Any idea what he's getting at?

It's mostly to do with our old legal culture. No police, so if any protection was required it would have to be hired.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brehon_Laws

Belfast

Sunn wrote: »

well, alot of anarchist do believe that an insurrection against the sate would be required to take control. Although during the spanish civil war many anarchists who were involved in farming communes didn't force nearby farmers into accepting their belief.

this is a good article and it explains anarchism well.

http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/bcaplan/anarfaq.htm#part1

Insurrection against the state is normally the last option. While we have lost many freedoms, we are no where near the point where violence in the only option to restore freedom and promote justice.

Anarchist who to try to take control by violence or non-violence are missing the point about anarchism.

In anarchism no one or group should be in control.

Anarchism is about self organising communities organising for the bottom up.

Taking control implies top down control communities that goes against the ideas of anarchism.

Kama

Hmm I have a few anarchist friends who to my mind have a dose of cognitive dissonance on the coercion thing with reference to far right groups; they consider that they shouldn't have the right to organize, and should be physically repressed if necessary.

bus77

Kama wrote: »

Hmm I have a few anarchist friends who to my mind have a dose of cognitive dissonance on the coercion thing with reference to far right groups; they consider that they shouldn't have the right to organize, and should be physically repressed if necessary.

That is strange. I always looked at it as free to form, free to fight.

Kama

That does seem more coherent