Talk:Anarchism/tree poll

User:Hogeye has on several occasions constructed a "tree" of anarchist thought. Three similar attempts have been deleted by consensus at IfD for violation of NPOV and original research policy (votes: 6-1, 5-1, 4-1; all opposition votes came from Hogeye). The purpose of this poll is to get some outside opinion on the concept of a tree in this article. Sarge Baldy 09:05, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proponents:

gave ample sources citing each connection on the chart [1]

Opponents:

argue that this is simply stringing together sources, interpreting them in a way beneficial to one POV; sources could be strung together in any number of ways
argue that the chart is a POV attempt using original research to justify anarcho-capitalism as a form of anarchism, even though extensive sourcing shows it is clearly not original research
that in order to create the simplification needed for a 2-D diagram everything is reduced to interpreting anarchism in terms of economic theory (whether people supported property etc.), which is how ancap researchers may see anarchism but not how anyone else does.
feel that the chart violates the undue weight clause of NPOV policy, with the largest piece of the tree dedicated to a very controversial faction.

From Talk:

Hogeye> "I think that the opposition to the chart springs not from any inaccuracy, but rather from the belief among some editors that anarcho-capitalism is given too much publicity in the article."

Sarge> "That isn't remotely true. I would oppose any image, even if anarcho-capitalism wasn't mentioned at all."

So much for that bald-faced lie. Hogeye 16:26, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

note that Wikipedia itself does not consider Gustave de Molinari an anarchist or Max Stirner a capitalist, nor feel that academia in general widely considers them as such.

See the citations you asked for and we gave you.

You can not seriously call Stirner a capitalist, not a man who was a member of the Left Hegellians, who attacked The Wealth of Nations on every point (and concidered it a personal failure when he was forced to translate because of his debts).

Another point - the direct link between Stirner and Nietzsche is not commonly accepted - similarities, a common spirit yes, but direct link, no (small discussion on the Nietzsche talk page). That slightly irrelevant since Rand broke with Nietzsche's writings long before she became a significant anarcho-capitalist (or right-libertarian, take your pick) figure. It would be more convincing to link directly from Stirner to whomever, though one would lose the convenient mention of better-known figures at the price of accuracy. --Marinus 15:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

note that Benjamin Tucker was a socialist as well as a mutualist

Not by the modern definition of socialism, which necessitates favoring collective ownership. See the many citations esp in the Individualist anarchist article, in the section about comparisons of property systems.

There still is a distinction between socialism (parent class) and collectivism (sub class), despite more than 6 decades of anti-communist propoganda. Also, Tucker (unless my memory is mistaken) proposed a system of use-ownership (as long as you use something it's yours, the exact term escapes me at the moment) rather than private ownership, which is itself a socialist position. I'm concerned that that comparison of property systems doesn't show use-ownership, which is hugely important to mutualism. Despite Tucker's adherence to contract theory, he can't be said to have been a capitalist. He quite squarely was an anti-capitalist, even if he did not make this as central a component of his thought as the European anarchists were in the habit of doing. --Marinus 14:35, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

note that term "socialist anarchism" applied to Mikhail Bakunin is meaningless and could be applied to most anarchists

Right; it can be applied to anarchists who are socialist. "Socialist" is not a "meaningless" adjective. The logic of this claim escapes me. Does someone not know the definition of "anarchism" and think that all anarchists are socialist? I dunno. Hogeye 16:26, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Up until Marx, socialism and anarchism was an interchangable term. Even the anarcho-capitalism article on Wiki makes the distinction between anarchism and anarcho-capitalism. We can safely say that at least in the majority opinion anarchism is anti-capitalist --Marinus 14:02, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

see the concept of a tree as far too binding; unless true academic consensus consists on each point, they will continue to be argued- however, with a tree these points will be effectively set in stone

False; a tree can be contested as easily as text. Also, a chart can always have a legend or disclaimer.

see the concept of a tree as a vast oversimplification

Or, you could say, these guys object to clarity.

It's not a clarification, it's an encoding: an encoding of a movement as a series of individuals, without reference to the movement itself (its events, tendencies, etc). It could only be a clarification if anarchism was non-societal, which is an absurd thing to think of a social movement. --Marinus 14:35, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

note that the chart appears to distort things chronologically, with down not representing a progression of time

There is no chronological dimension on the chart at all, so this objection is bogus.

I understood that lack of a chronological dimension to be the objection. --Marinus 14:35, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

note that it ignores the majority of anarchist theorists, focusing only on economic theorists

Most anarchist theorists had a lot to say about economics. Obviously a chart like this must only take a sample, but this chart covers most of the big ones. Who do you think needs to be added? Hogeye 16:26, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Malatesta, Goldman, Berkman? Bookchin, Ward, Chomsky? --Marinus 14:35, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

fail to see the value to readers in connections such as Bakunin->Kropotkin->Rocker

Neophytes need to know which guys are American Individualists, which commies, which mutualists, how they influenced each other, etc. That's what an encyclopedia article is for. Hogeye 16:26, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

leaves out large swathes of anarchist thought that don't fit neatly into categories thus presenting a distorted overview.

Right; oddball schools aren't presented in this major school view. We shouldn't confuse things with static.

Strange - Georgism is given a prominent position. Compared to the Maknoviks, who actually ran a country at a stage. --Marinus 14:35, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

any neutrally drawn tree would look more like a web or cluster.

Draw one; let's see.

if there are non-anarchists in the "tree", where should the line be drawn? William Godwin, William Morris, Karl Marx, Jean-Paul Sartre? Should Noam Chomsky be included if Murray Rothbard is - to use the google notability test "Noam Chomsky" + anarchism generates tenfold more results than "Murray Rothbard" + anarchism.

Chomsky is an anarchist, both self-identified and seen as such in the movement, btw. --Marinus 14:35, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The non-anarchists are not in a box. Presently, the non-anarchists mentioned are: Marx, Nietzsche, and Rand.

It would have been nice if most of these arguments had been given on the anarchism Talk Page before putting them here. MrVoluntarist 14:09, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Most of them were noted before, in various places, and I thought people were aware of them. I apologize for not collecting and listing them there prior. Sarge Baldy 16:01, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, why isn't this on the Talk page? Hogeye 16:26, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Sarge, but this is the first I've seen for most of them. This just bolsters my belief that objections aren't well-grounded, but rather ad-hoc excuses. First, it was "original research". Then I said each link is well-documented, and then they essentially said, "so what? It's, uh, not relevant! That's it! Forget what I said about original research." Why can't the opponents of it just say what they mean? MrVoluntarist 18:16, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tree is justified

Hogeye
Yes, me, MrVoluntarist, (though perhaps with minor changes -- the idea itself is okay). It would be a good idea to summarize a large amount of information into a picture. Everything claimed by the tree (with some exceptions I've noted before) is well-documented. It doesn't simplify any more than Wikipedia already does through summarization of any given philosopher's arguments. MrVoluntarist 18:18, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think its a fine example of philosophical geneology. --Christofurio 13:33, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's doable. But, the people complaining about it just don't want to take the effort to do it, and that's fine, because it is a hassle. But, it's certainly not "inherently POV." The same information could be said in words --this is just putting it in chart form (and is very effective). The major problem though is that it's not interactive. Normally, if I disagree with something in Wikipedia, I can just go in and change it on my own. But with the chart, I have to make a request to Hogeye or someone else that has access to the software to modify it, and, then it's up to them whether they're going to make my changes for me or not. Maybe if everybody, including myself, got the software, it could be much easier. But, honestly, I can't see it working out in the long term because there's always going to be people without the software that want to make a change but can't. But, then, nothing works out in the long term on Wikipedia anyway. Everything in the article today will be erased many times over in the course of time --it's naive to think otherwise. So, as a matter of exercise I'm willing to give it a shot. RJII 16:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how a graphical form is in itself POV. The content of the tree could be argued, but the point that the tree format is inherently POV - that I disagree with. - ICR 05:53, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

The thing is that the tree removes the thoughts from their context, which is a bit silly concidering that the tree is supposed to describe the context and not the thinkers (if it were to be NPOV). See my argument in the section below this one. --Marinus 06:55, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Any such tree is inherently POV

Sarge Baldy 09:05, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Theoretically I am open to the possibility there might be an NPOV tree, in which each link and node is perfectly placed to represent significance of every thinker, planted somewhere in the Platonic world of ideals. But the chance of us replicating anything like it here, with the multi-year POV war on the anarchism page, approaches zero.Bengalski 12:42, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
AaronS 14:10, 1 February 2006 (UTC) -- Guess I'm "wimping out on rationality"![reply]
I think the main reason such a catogorisation will always fail at representing reality accurately is because it consentrates entirely on individuals, whereas any political movement/tradition is a social one. This presentation hides the actual existence of a movement (in this case, anarchism), makes no mention of the events which shaped the movement much more than any individual could (the Paris Commune, the First International, Anarchist Spain, etc). It gives equal weightings to groups of decisively different influence (a quick glance makes Rothbard appear as influential in anarchism as say Proudhon, who as an individual and a theorist was arguably the most important of all anti-capitalists before Marx, whereas Rothbard, whatever else he was, is a figure in a largely peripheral group). It misrepresents a social movement as a progression of individuals, a belief that suits hero-worship and emphatically not analysis.In all honesty I believe this representation is an attempt to give the extreme-minority position of anarcho-capitalism (the "anarchism" of which is not at all accepted by the vast majority of practicing anarchists) a greater appearance of consequence than a portrayal of anarchism as a social movement (ie as what it is) would. It also commits the fallacy of defining something by its practicioners rather than by its practice. --Marinus 12:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well Hogeye's told us his view is a movement means 'taking a dump'.Bengalski 16:18, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The tree is a waste of time. With interlinked wikipages the intelligent reader can move through a serious of links which avoids this essentially hierarchical and two dimensional way of presenting material. I don't think it has any place in wikipedia, and perhaps the people who seem intent on discussing it could find another site where they could tinker with various refinements to their hearts content, as suggested below. As mentioned above, a NPOV tree "might" be possible in Platonic world of ideals, but whether such a world could exist is clearly POV (See Nominalism). Like one or two others I am getting more than a little fed up with something I cannot properly describe in a civil fashion.Harrypotter 14:04, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The tree is a waste of time. As a hierarchical structure, it is inherently inappropriate for describing anarchism, which does and should resemble a fungus or moss, not a monolithic tree, in its structure. Bacchiad

I think that's going a bit far. A chronological hierarchy is a bit different from a power structure. --Marinus 08:39, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This tree is POV, but a neutral tree could be constructed

—Nightst a llion (?) 11:11, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It could be possible to create such a tree, but I dubt it will be possible in reality. // Liftarn 14:01, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But not solely by Hogeye. Infinity0 ^talk 17:18, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Perhaps the diagram/s could be hosted on another website, with a link to it in the article's External links section. David Kernow 17:03, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Preferably multi-user interactive, if such a thing exists. If it doesn't, someone needs to invent one. I'm making a call for "Wikichart." RJII 17:22, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]