Talk:List of anarchist communities/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Somalia

Should Somalia really be on the list? It is more warlord rule than anarchy. Zazaban (talk) 01:38, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Quite right, consensus at Talk:Anarchy in Somalia is that there is little anarchist about contemporary Somalia; I've removed the section. скоморохъ 01:45, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Strong agreement. I am glad this was brought up and the section removed. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 04:15, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Ruesta

How is the situation in Ruesta in the north of Spain? As far as I know the anarchosyndikalistic union CGT buyed the village in the 80's and they have, thats at least what I've heard, some kind of anarchist "society" there. I may be wrong on this but it would be nice to hear if there are other people here that can verify this. More info please! 87.227.76.244 (talk) 20:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Exarchia

Does the Greek neighborhood Exarchia deserve inclusion on this page? Clore (talk) 07:10, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

No, it's a place where anarchists hang out, not an anarchist community. Zazaban (talk) 18:31, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

So what precisely are the guidelines for determining (for the purpose of this list) what constitutes an "anarchist community"?Clore (talk) 07:48, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

A community that could be said to be in a state of anarchy; not just a place with a lot of anarchists. A lot of these places predate the philosophy itself, but have retrospectively been identified. Exarchia is controlled by the greek state, and is not an anarchist territory. Zazaban (talk) 20:21, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

But most of the communities listed are located inside a state and at least technically controlled by the state. (E.g., Christiania, in Denmark.) They still deserve inclusion, I presume because the inhabitants have organized themselves in an anarchistic or similar manner. Whether that applies to Exarchia, I do not know enough to say.Clore (talk) 07:45, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Christiania and Exarchia are not remotely comparable. Exarchia has not been organized under anarchist principles, in fact there are two state-run institutions located in the neighborhood. It is simply a neighborhood with a lot of leftists in it. Zazaban (talk) 20:18, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Exarhia is not an anarchist community it's just a neighbourhood that the majority of people who gather there every day are anarchists plus far-left-wingers and leftists)so the state turns the blind eye coz they want all the anarchists to be ghetto-ed there so as to be better monitored/controlled..Although they can't handle this sometimes (december 2008 etc).The anarchists indeed have been putting plenty of effort to keep the area as much as anti-capitalistic and as much as free-of-cops as they could since 1973,but exarhia is still state controlled and it's not unofficially autonomous as Christiannia or something.There's a self-organised park there which follows the principles of self-organisation (most of the people who participate in this effort are anarchists or communists/leftists)till the last year but it's supposed to belong to a state-controlled and again the state is turning the blind eye a bit on this coz they want the people ghettoed there (and of course they follow the typical state-policy of if you react a lot against the system/capitalism/state i ll bring the cops in to beat you up) anyways exarhia is still the only neighbourhood of athens that the riot police will face difficulties and resistance when they try to get in(and many riots still occur) (a person living in exarhia) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.66.45.147 (talk) 11:39, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Robert Owen

What about Robert Owen's New Harmony project? --80.98.80.131 (talk) 11:16, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Don't tease us, if you have reliable sources about it, go ahead and write a section of the article! Skomorokh 12:56, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Entire world?

Up until 9,000 BC, that is? 66.224.3.237 (talk) 08:57, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Gaelic Ireland

The picture of Gaelic Ireland given here does not accord with what I know of the period. Slavery was common and hierarchy was the rule. The only part of the section that rings true is the statelessness; however, this did not begin only after the date given, nor was it confined to Ireland. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 14:58, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

If there's no objections, I'll get rid of it. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 14:48, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Robert Gibson quote

Should this quote really be attributed to the "VISIONARY" author Robert Gibson. It seems like we could easily lose the 'visionary' and gain a little more credibility. Maybe I am missing something, though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Twniehaus (talk • contribs) 16:11, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

The Paris Commune

It's absolutely puzzling to me why this isn't included in the list: it was an independent 'state' for 2 months, where the people governed themselves quite literally. The fact that during it's downfall people chose to fight independently for their own neighbourhoods instead of in a concerted effort indicates the lack of hierarchical authority. Add? Egregius (talk) 12:26, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, go for it. Zazaban (talk) 17:53, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Necessary splits and renaming

At present, the prose size of this article has exceeded 60 kB, meaning the list is entirely too long. Simply glancing at the table of contents displays 8 sections, 36 sub-sections, and two sub-sub-sections. This would never pass through Featured list nomination. Not to mention that many of these sections seem like desperate attempts to link popular uprisings or ungoverned communities with anarchist philosophy, when those who participated in them would not have self-identified as anarchists. That seems very misleading and, frankly, authoritarian to me. Yeah, I broke out the "a" word. What now? Bring it? I brought it and served it up on a plate for ya! So I recommend retitling the list "List of ungoverned communities." At last, we can stop struggling to justify inclusion on this list by vaguely suggesting a community has "anarchist qualities." What the hell is an "anarchist quality"? Not that I'm not saying anarchists have qualities, but these go un-described, and hopelessly uncited, in this article. At least we may be able to find citation to explain that a community has no standing state institution or apparatus with authority over it. --Cast (talk) 04:42, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Several of the entries are original research and otherwise questionably anarchist. I would just remove the offending entries. Zazaban (talk) 04:46, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

There. Problem solved. If there's anything else that you think should be cut, cut it. Zazaban (talk) 04:55, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Jesus Christ, this article has been massacred. Who are you to eviscerate it like this? The Makhno movement in the Ukraine wasn't an anarchist community, but Rhode Island is? Zapatisatas don't qualify (either 1920s or 1990s) but Pennsylvania Quaakers do? Corisca isn't a valid 'primitive' example but Iceland is? Who decides what the criteria are for this article? This is ridiculous. You can't make sweeping changes like this based on a whim. I'm really disgusted by the shenanegans which go on in some of the politically linked wikipedia articles, but this takes the cake. It seems to me like a completely arbitrary and politically or philisophically motivated rather than necessary cut up has been done here, for some kind of agenda. I would really like to see some more explanation of what exactly the excuse was for this eviceration of the article, rather than "this one sucks too" as was posted in the history. That is pathetic. Drifter bob (talk) 14:31, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Unless I hear a convincing reason why these sections of the article were removed I'm going to revert the edits and report this as vandalism. Drifter bob (talk) 14:28, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

It was all for the most part completely unsourced, badly written, and plenty were included on dubious, completely OR grounds. The rest was removed because it was a list of 'revolts and uprisings with anarchist qualities', which is not really under the scope of the article to begin with (and was also mostly original research.) A great deal of it was added all at once by anons without any discussion in the first place. No, it was not in the least politically or philosophy related, and it most certainly was not vandalism. This article was a horrible mess filled with arbitrarily added entries, it is at the very least manageable now. Though the Ukrainian free territory most definitely should be there. I really want to discuss this civilly, so you could you calm down a bit and assume good faith? Zazaban (talk) 19:10, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll do my best to be civil... if there was a disease here the cure seems to have been over-enthusiastic to put it charitably. I'll concede the previous article was more messy, but for that matter several of the current entries actually strike me as somewhat dubious, and the amount that was excised was clearly excessive and it all seems to have been done rather arbitrarily. The 'list of revolts and uprisings' probably should be moved to another page, but not necessarily eliminated, since there is often a gray area between communities and revolts in this context and the latter are relevant to the history, assuming they are properly sourced etc. I'm going to assume good faith though as you requested, so where do we start in deciding what belongs in this article and what dosesn't (we seem to agree on the Ukraine so that is a start) and which sections were removed due to being badly written vs. being relevant...? It seems to me like more people should be involved in this discussion than just the two of us as it's a fairly significant artice. But I really think this needs to be repaired. Drifter bob (talk) 16:26, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, I'll post something at WP:ATF later (about to go out the door at the moment). Most of the entries in the list of revolts were very, very bad if I recall. There were probably at most three entries that were at all salvageable, less than what could have made a new article. I suppose they could have been moved up, yes, I may have overdone that in retrospect. Zazaban (talk) 19:02, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

The Ukraine is gone again and all these bizarre insignificant examples are on the list. I think this list is being vandalized. I'm going to take meeasures to follow up on this and file complaints against the people responsible for the edits. Drifter bob (talk) 14:36, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I am astounded by the state of this article. I would like to know what is the criteria for inclusion of an "anarchsit community" on this page. I've never heard of half of the utopian experimental communities listed here currently, which seem to indicate a very wide scope indeed for what qualifies. Most of the 'big' examples which show up in anarchist histories, in the works of published anarchist historians such as Daneil Guerin, are not here. The Makhnovist Ukranian state was removed by somebody, the Paris commune was removed, as well as a half a dozen other articles listing prominent medieval examples similar to the Icelandic Republic, from Corsica to Novgorod to the Swiss Confederation and the Sikh Khalsa. I am not assuming good faith any more, I waited to see if any ostensiblke would be corrected, they haven't. I believe this article has been intentionally vandalized. I'm going to file complaints and revert the article. Drifter bob (talk) 20:39, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

This Article Seems Bizarre

Let me begin by saying that I am not a Right-Winger out to eradicate all trace of Anarchism in practice. However I do feel that this article is a stretch as many of the communities listed were not self-identified as Anarchist, pre-date Anarchist thought, or some cases (like the EZLN) have actually REJECTED the label of Anarchism. It is a severe case of original research, with little to no sourcing that actually states that these communities WERE anarchist. Frankly, I have no idea as to how it could be restructured into an accurate article. My first thought was to broaden the definition to "List of Communities Demonstrating Libertarian Socialist Characteristics" but that seemed more of a band-aid to the problem, rather than a solution. Anatoly-Rex (talk) 19:45, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree it's bizarre. I don't know what the criteria are for including a "community" or an uprising in this article. The rule of thumb I have been following in attempting to revise the article somewhat from it's in my opinion vandalized state is to return some of the historical examples which appear in anarchist books, in older encyclopedia articles on anarchism (such as in an old Encyclopedia Brittanica article I have a scan of) and in academic histories of anarchism.

The Ukraine, the Spanish Civil War, the Paris Commune (which is I think still not in the article as it currently stands) the Italian Factory Councils and the IWW are usually mentioned in just about every article or historical overview I've ever seen about left- anarchism, including the Daniel Guerin book.

The Right Wing libertarian anarchists and minarchists frequently cite the Icelandic 'Republic' as an example of an historical anarchist society. It has appeared as such in many publications in the 20th Century. On this basis I think it should be included somewhere in this article, but it opens something of a can of worms. There were many societies in the pre-industrial world which could be loosely defined as anarchist. For example Right Wing anarchists also frequently cite the Republic or City-State of Novgorod as an example of what they think of as anarchism. But there were dozens of self-governing City-States in Medieval Europe and in many other parts of the world. Some were relatively democratic, others like Venice, oligarchal. Who decides which ones should be included here or not? Many other examples could be found, the Old Swiss Confederacy, Corsica, the Hussites of Bohemia, United Provinces, the Sikh Khalsa, there are many examples. But collecting them here would qualify as original research.

So at this point, citing sources from anarchist or libertarian publications, we probably need to add the Paris Commune, and maybe Novgorod.

The next question is what to do about all these (to me) obscure American communities which are labeled as anarchist. I honestly don't know if they are or not, they appear to be at least somewhat sourced, but are they really considered anarchist in most histories of anarchism? I am frankly more than a little suspicious of the pattern that this site has followed, all the really major examples of historical anarchism like the Ukraine and the Paris Commune are removed, but Rhode Island, Utopia, etc. are thrown in? It seems suspicious to me which is why I decided to revert some of the edits and consign some of the smaller intentional communities to another list at the bottom of the article, pending finding the time to investigate their validity for this page.

As for the EZLN, some people in published journals etc. have described their system as a form of anarchism, whether they reject the term or not. The Soviet Bolsheviks of the 1930s didn't refer to themselves as Stalinists, the label was applied from external sources. But it was accurate nevertheless.

Anyway that is my $.02 I'd like to hear what you or anyone else thinks the criteria should be. Drifter bob (talk) 05:59, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I am hesitant to agree with the logic you've put forth here. While there is no doubt that many of the societies/communities listed have been described as Anarchist by third parties, I question the historical accuracy of accepting those identifications. The conclusion of such reasoning is that virtually group can be labeled as anything, so long the source is reputable. It also implies that an actual belief in anarchism is largely irrelevant to determining if one supports an anarchist system or is living in an anarchist community. Marxists would describe the Paris Commune as inline with Marxism, so are to describe it as a Marxist Anarchist community? An Anarchist Marxist community? I don't think that sensible. I think self-identification should be the barest of criteria for inclusion in this article; unless the article is changed to something like "communities demonstrating Libertarian Socialist characteristics".

And I don't think your Bolshevik example is particularly accurate. The term Stalinist was created to specifically refer to the ideology of Stalin and the accompanying political and economic thought. Whether they called themselves Stalinists or not is irrelevant because the term meant nothing beyond what they believed in. Conversely Anarchism has values which the EZLN does not support and doesn't align with. It refers to a diverse history and political doctrine which the EZLN does identify with. To apply to term Anarchism to them is to associate them with things that go beyond the confines of Zapatismo thought; to add to what the EZLN simply by classifying them.

I think the article should be broken down into several sections:

Communities historically influential to Libertarian Socialist thought

Communities influenced by Libertarian Socialist thought

Communities exhibiting characteristics of Libertarian Socialism

Whether or not to include Right-Anarchism is a matter of debate; I think it'd be hard to have an accurately titled article that includes Libertarian Socialism and Right-Anarchism. Anatoly-Rex (talk) 20:48, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Restructuring

Because this is a prose article comprised of paragraphs, it doesn't fit WP:LISTS. But if it is a regular article, what is it about? History. It's a history article. So I renamed it accordingly.

There are 3 subjects floating around that appear to be related: anarchy, ungoverned population, and "anarchist community". This article ties into anarchy#ungoverned communities. But, perhaps it should instead tie into ungoverned populations which should in turn tie into the anarchy article.

This article and ungoverned populations could be merged as one, or they could be "merged" via a summary-style section in ungoverned populations. But the titles don't match up...

Are "anarchist community" and "ungoverned population" and "ungoverned community" all the same thing? If so, we could also standardize the naming of these components so they integrate better. What common title fits all three the best? Once we find that, it can be added to Anarchist terminology.   The Transhumanist 12:01, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Pardon the late response. It would seem that members of the Anarchist Task Force are not watching this page. This page suffers from an original failing, when it was created as a list that tried to be all-inclusive. A certain level of exclusion is necessary to make a list meaningful. The original title told the tale: "List of anarchist communities." From its early conception, it should only have included communities that were comprised of anarchists or was an anarchist project, even if non-anarchists participated. By attempting to justify inclusions of non-anarchist communities by sub-sectioning those "with anarchist qualities", this left the page open to original research. A list should be restructured to be very tightly aligned with only communities in which anarchism was the guiding principal in its founding. Historians have noted a number of large and small scale anarchist projects in community building, from small Utopian villages; to regional counter-cultures; to multi-city socities. I specify all of this because while a list on this subject may be useful, the article as it is now titled isn't. The topic of a history of an anarchist community is best covered under the current family of "Anarchism in [Nation/Region]", or under specific articles for anarchist communities. This article cannot cover a history of anarchist communities because there is no history of a global historical movement in anarchist community building. There has been no generational culture of philosophers in "anarchist community", fundraisers, architects, or other logistical specialists in "anarchist community building". Every region has its own history, given its wide breath in time and distance from others. What relationship does an anarchist utopian community in the eastern United States in the 1910s have to an anarchist squat in Dresden in the 1990s? Nothing but philosophy. That said, the topic of community exists in anarchist philosophy: what the role of an anarchist community is in a non-anarchist society; what its role is in an anarchist revolution; and how an anarchist community can exist as a tool or tactic, in a larger strategy for revolution. A classic slogan gives suggestion to this: "Build the new world in the shell of the old." I choose not to elaborate further as this message is long enough as is. An article on "anarchism and community" might be useful, but on the subject of praxis— not history. This article should be retitled and a heavy-handed approach must be made to hammer down non-anarchist inclusion in this article. Any attempt to include non-anarchist communities should be understood to be original research. Strict citation should guide further inclusion. Should the Zapatistas be included. No. They aren't anarchist. No excuses. Should Argentina circa 2001 be included? No. They aren't anarchist. No excuses. Should a squat located in Argentina be included? Is it anarchist? Is it notable? If yes, please include it. I don't like seeing anarchists brush their politics over non-anarchist projects. It stinks of philosophical elitism. Any desire to elaborate on an anarchist critique of a revolutionary community should be property cited and included— in an article on that respective topic. Not here.--Cast (talk) 20:03, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Behold, I am death, destroyer of ambiguous list/prose articles...

It is accomplished! The Nuclear option! Now, please don't perform moves without first holding a discussion. I'm sure you acted in good faith, but reading the archives, there was a previous discussion regarding a move, and I don't see why there couldn't have been one here. If you were concerned with the lack of responses, I suggest requesting input from the Anarchist Task Force. Sadly, we seem to be somewhat inactive at the moment, so I'll be adding Template:Maintained and moving myself into a position to monitor future activity here. Hope you're now satisfied with the "restructuring." It took a bit of effort on my part, but I think it was worth it. --Cast (talk) 02:32, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Failed states

How does the topic failed state fit into all of this? The map on there makes it look like the entire world is on the brink of collapse, and possibly anarchy. The Transhumanist 12:51, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't. A failed state does not an anarchist community make, although anarchists might hope to step into a power vacuum as a tactic within a larger anarchist strategy for revolution. However, those favoring this tactic acknowledge that a robust anarchist community needs to exist prior to a collapse to take advantage of the social rupture.--Cast (talk) 20:03, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Sources

As I was reading this article there seemed to be lack of sources about some of the communities which lead to a lack of creditability of what is being said about these communities. Viceroy489 (talk) 07:50, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

The story is told. I've finally ended years of wishy-washy attempts to justify non-anarchist communities in this list. Like wheat before the reaper, these prose descriptions in a list article have been eliminated. Those entries remaining are either unsourced because the main article presents citations on the subject; or are marked with a "original research?" tag because the main article itself lacks proper citation for notability, but not anarchist credentials. Everything else has been respectfully shunted into the "See also" section, which is appropriate for them. --Cast (talk) 02:13, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I Just re-looked at the article to and it looks a lot better thanks for all of your hard work Viceroy489 (talk) 01:59, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Thanks! Lentower (talk) 03:46, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you both for your appreciation. I'm continuing my efforts and I have expanded the lead with more citations to justify statements made and shrink the extended "See also" list. I now have cited every statement I believe to possibly be contestable. Aside from statements of the obvious, which I've ignored, the article's statements should be verifiable. My future edits should now be mostly comprised of expansions to current section lists.--Cast (talk) 23:51, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Korean anarchism and Korean anarchist 'communities'

Korean 'anarchism' -- your page says; 'there are only a few instances of mass society "anarchies" that have come about from explicitly anarchist revolutions, including the Free Territory of Ukraine,[2] and the Shinmin autonomous region in Manchuria.[3]'

That is blatantly false and misleading -- there was no 'anarchist revolution' whatsoever in Manchuria, Sinmin or parts of Korea -- ever -- at any time. It is fantasy inspired by vague half truths and bad research.

Korean so called 'anarchists' active in Manchuria/Sinmin such as Shin Chaeho and Kim Jwa Jin, were racially motivated extreme nationalists, who believed in concepts of 'racial purity', 'pure race', 'pure blood lines',and Darwinian struggle for survival which would lead to racial supremacy of 'the superior races', and so on :it is true that they -- briefly -- showed an interest in anarchism, but only because they thought it served their purposes at the time.

But that is really where the comparisons end.

The Korean 'anarchists' ( more accurate to call them racial nationalists) did, indeed, meet and mobilise in Manchuria ( Sinmin )but it is plain false to describe it as some kind of 'anarchist victory/utopia' -- the Koreans did indeed mobilise there, because it was an area that many Koreans lived in when Korea itself was occupied by Japan, and it gave them freedom of movement when Korea was being harassed by external forces ( traders and other subversive influences from the West and East, desperate to turn Korea into a submissive nation ) . And Koreans were also there for extreme nationalist reasons : many Korean nationalists considered Manchuria ( Sinmin ) to be Korean, and they dreamt of reclaiming it, because thousands of years ago, it was indeed, Korean ruled land ( read up on history of Kogu-ryo and Manchu).

So much absolute crap has been written about the so called Korean 'anarchists', mainly by poorly informed Westerners, who want to fantasise about 'Korean Anarchist revolutions and free autonomous Anarchist areas' and other such nonsense -- it is just not true, and it is misleading history. People should get informed by reading the KOREAN historians, and the KOREAN academics, who understand the period very well, and understand the complex cross overs between conservative nationalism, Confucian traditions, and the influences from nineteenth century western traditions of Darwinism, Fascism,biology and genealogy and -- to a very small degree -- anarchism. Read Shin gi wook, Choi Jang Jip and Professor Em. These KOREAN writers will tell you far far more than Western amateurs who want to imagine Korea was some kind of righteous or bohemian anarchist utopia for a period in the 1900s.

The truth is, the history of Anarchism in Korea is really tiny -- it is true, that anarchism was a passing influence on Shin Chaeho, and one or two others -- but only because anarchism coincided with already existing Korean ideas about peasant purity, peasant unity, cooperation, peasant economies based on sharing,and the Korean peasants/nationalists rejection of the individual destructive greed inherent amoral subversive capitalism and so on.

But that is where it ends -- as soon as Koreans decided that extreme blood and soil based nationalism suited their ends better, anarchism was sidelined as a very brief influence. In reality, Koreans are, historically, a people motivated and shaped, for the most part, by conservative forces and racial interests -- anarchism and internationalist ideals that rejected nationalism and rejected exclusive racial allegiances could never have taken hold in Korea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rutherfordlad (talk • contribs) 05:08, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Cool story, bro. Now get a source for all this and it can go somewhere. --Cast (talk) 02:23, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Laissez Faire City

Hilarious that Laissez Faire City redirects here and disappears! Wolf DeVoon (talk) 15:41, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Links to LFC Times articles at archive.org — Wolf DeVoon (talk) 20:13, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of anarchist communities. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110720110619/http://infoshop.org/page/AnarchistFAQSectionI to http://infoshop.org/page/AnarchistFAQSectionI
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110622091556/http://www.infoshop.org/page/AnarchistFAQSectionA5 to http://infoshop.org/page/AnarchistFAQSectionA5

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) 16:34, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Slab City?

First time editing so i'm not sure the protocol - but i think Slab City should be on this page somewhere (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slab_City,_California) - thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moborb (talk • contribs) 12:46, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Dubious claims

I was looking at the article, and a number of the societies listed can in no way be considered anarchist, such as the Novgorod Republic and the Pskov Republic, which were merchant republics in medieval Russia. They are included due to selectively read sources and non-academic sources in the article, as such, I am going to see about removing some of these examples from the list, and would like to raise the question that a major rewrite of the article be undertaken by someone who can research more thoroughly.

JSUMN (talk) 00:45, 10 June 2019 (UTC) JSUMN

On early stateless societies

Previously we featured some early stateless societies in our list. In particular these included Çatalhöyük, the Cucuteni–Trypillia culture, Minoan civilization and Indus Valley Civilization, as sourced from Urbanization Against Cities by Murray Bookchin and Worshiping Power by Peter Gelderloos.

These civilizations existed before any codified philosophy resembling "anarchism" we have evidence of, however I don't think it would be entirely fair to entirely exclude non-hierarchical stateless societies because of this. Should we add a new section to this article for ancient stateless societies or would something like this warrant a separate list in its own right? Grnrchst (talk) 20:43, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Andaman and Nicobar Administration Banner.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:27, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Rojava

Rojava is more Libertarian Socialist then Anarchist and has elements of Capitalism present however i believe it counts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vallee01 (talk • contribs) 19:36, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

It isn't even socialist at this point. Its utterly nationalist. It should be deleted for sure.--Comrade-yutyo (talk) 21:49, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Saigon Commune wikilink fix

Hi, noticed there was a 'missing page' for the Saigon Commune. Please link to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trotskyism_in_Vietnam at the "The September 1945 Saigon Uprising" part of the article, it's the Saigon Commune page. I would, but I can't because I am a guest. Thanks. 69.120.194.40 (talk) 23:24, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Twin Oaks an anarchist community?

Why is Twin Oaks considered to be an anarchist community? B.F. Skinner was not an anarchist, and Twin Oaks does not present itself as an anarchist community. Ghostofnemo (talk) 13:36, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

They have aristocracy and bureaucracy without social solidarity or housing equality. They allow oppressive managers, mean bastards, and bad consent. A few anarchists live there, but only a couple pairs talk to each other regularly within their cliques. Only a couple anarchist members have spoken out against Twin Oaks inequalities, but a couple anarchist members are at least as problematic as they are beneficial. Some resident anarchists and communists have struggled against Twin Oaks rules and norms, but either Twin Oaks kicked them out, they left, or Twin Oaks assimilated them, even using them against other resident critics. --Frenzyface (talk) 20:31, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

The reference for Twin Oaks being an anarchist community is basically a very early sales pitch by one of the main recruiters for Twin Oaks. The flip side of those points is the privileged establishment that Twin Oaks members railed against as mentioned in Is It Utopia Yet and possibly very old Leaves of Twin Oaks as well. Frenzyface (talk) 00:35, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

East Wind

"East Wind is a large, overwhelmingly white, community. (I’m not sure of its current makeup, but there have generally been one or two folks of color among the sixty odd member community.) It is also, of all the FEC member communities, the one with the largest percentage of working class folks. It has an unfortunate reputation for racism of the more overt kind. Much of that is from some incidents which occurred in 2018 which some East Wind members engaged in rather racist behavior which led to at least two members of color leaving East Wind and a very uncomfortable FEC Assembly that year where we tried (without much success) address racism (as well as sexual misbehavior and transphobia).

"As far as I know, East Wind has never directly addressed this stuff (at the Assembly they were mostly defensive) but my understanding is that the folks responsible for the worst of the racist behavior are now gone–and left some time ago.

"Paxus has referred to East Wind as the ‘wild west’ of the FEC communities. I see them as leaning toward libertarian and laissez-faire.

"They are, as I said, a bit of a white working class community, and the issues of race and class become uncomfortably intertwined here. During the Assembly, I saw white folks from higher class backgrounds attempting to lecture East Wind folks (often using jargon and somewhat academic language) on their behavior and the East Winders involved generally felt condescended to.

"I can’t see East Wind as a community apologizing for their behavior. They promote individual liberty there to the extent that during the pandemic, while Twin Oaks and Acorn (and Glomus) used quarantining to ensure safety, there was no direct response by the East Wind community other than affirm individual rights. I am frankly amazed that they did not get hit by the coronavirus–and I still worry for them." Frenzyface (talk) 11:25, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Acorn

Acorn had a mass departure this year because a bunch of members perceived the community as being controlled by only a couple people. Frenzyface (talk) 11:29, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

The article cited for Acorn says they were "a self-described “anarchist ... community”", but no one continues to identify that way and barely has any idea who started that label. --Frenzyface (talk) 13:52, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

References

What about Wa State?

Why isn't Wa State, the autonomous\socialist entity in Myanmar (Burma) not on the list of Mass Anarchist Society's? I think it should be added. Someone3113 (talk) 12:36, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Wa State is ruled by Maoists so I don't think it can be classified as Anarchist or anarchist-adjacent at all Tarekelijas (talk) 16:56, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

EZLN and Paris Commune?

EZLN rejected being Anarchist: https://web.archive.org/web/20090813155006/http://greenanarchy.info/etc/ezln_response.htm

'You are right. The EZLN and its larger populist body the FZLN are NOT Anarchist. Nor do we intend to be, nor should we be. In order for us to make concrete change in our social and political struggles, we cannot limit ourselves by adhering to a singular ideology. Our political and military body encompasses a wide range of belief systems from a wide range of cultures that cannot be defined under a narrow ideological microscope. There are anarchists in our midst, just as there are Catholics and Communists and followers of Santeria.'

Similarly with the PAris Commune. The source for it being Anarchist is Bakunin. But this doesn't seem reliable. Not only were Anarchists not the leading faction of Communards, but also Marx also praised the Commune for being a model of a dictatorship of the proletariat, as is explained in the Paris Commune page. There is a contradiction here, and a more modern, 3rd party source is needed to call the Commune Anarchist Genabab (talk) 09:13, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

@Genabab:

• Re: The Zapatistas. Yes, the cited source is actually a questionable one, coming from an anarcho-syndicalist magazine. That the EZLN has explicitly rejected such categorisation unfortunately hasn't been enough reason for many Wikipedians, who insist on labelling them with eurocentric terms like "anarchist" or "libertarian socialist" anyway.
• Re: Paris Commune. Absolutely, Bakunin is not a reliable source. But not only that, he doesn't even refer to the Paris Commune as anarchist, he refers to it as "revolutionary socialist".

I've gone ahead and removed both until someone can come up with more clearly reliable sources. -- Grnrchst (talk) 09:31, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

ank youh Genabab (talk) 09:40, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

thank you* Genabab (talk) 09:40, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 20 July 2023

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) – MaterialWorks 21:43, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

---

List of anarchist communities → List of libertarian socialist communities – Many of the communities listed on this page weren't/aren't anarchist. For instance, Rojava is based on an ideology of democratic confederalism, which is explicitly not anarchist but a form of socialist communalism and libertarian municipalism--an ideology formed by Murray Bookchin as a libertarian socialist rejection of anarchism[1][2]. Similarly, the Rebel Zapatista Autonomous Municipalities are not explicitly anarchist, being influenced by both Marxism and anarchism in favor of Neozapatismo and semi-direct democratic local governments.1[3]. To give a historic and prominent example, the Paris Commune was not explicitly anarchist either, again having broad socialist influences (even if there were disproportionate leanings) including anarchism, Marxism, and old-style social democracy [4].

Finally, I will add that perhaps a couple of these societies are not explicitly libertarian socialist either, such as Cherán; but I believe that this new title would still be a broadly better descriptor of the societies listed overall than the current one, given that this article is not listing alleged right-wing libertarian societies such as the Republic of Cospaia, but it does list various non-anarchist libertarian socialist societies. Editors could potentially add new notes or sections anyway classifying societies like Cherán as related but not necessarily libertarian socialist. 4kbw9Df3Tw (talk) 21:09, 20 July 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. Adumbrativus (talk) 20:44, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose. This article's scope is already pretty damn synthetic and this proposed renaming would only serve to make the scope even more synthetic. Having spent a lot of time researching the "subject" of "libertarian socialism", the term is barely used in scholarly sources, where one can find no shortage of sources on anarchism. Libertarian socialism being more broadly and vaguely defined than anarchism isn't a good thing for trying to create a stable list. --Grnrchst (talk) 08:32, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

  The majority of the societies here are not anarchist. It's just inaccurate. The sources I've read do talk about libertarianism and not anarchism when describing these societies, so I don't know where you got that from. 4kbw9Df3Tw (talk) 01:58, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. There should be source analysis for the items in the list to show that they are more commonly grouped as "libertarian socialist" than "anarchist". My spotcheck of the article's sources show that more often the sources don't support the item's inclusion in this list at all, which reinforce the prior section's discussion about unclear inclusion criteria more than the need to rename the article. If the article should be organized differently, that's a different discussion than changing its title. czar 08:40, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

I will strongly oppose this move for reasons stated above, but also because anarchism is notable on its own and should not be subsumed into a broader libertarian socialism in any encyclopedia. Flameoguy (talk) 17:12, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.