Talk:Precursors to anarchism

Split from history of anarchism

Discussion at Talk:History of anarchism#Scope. Split, essentially, to keep the history article focused on the undisputed history of classical/Western anarchism and its global outgrowths. The precursors of this article may have some anarchistic tendencies but are not necessarily canonized as well as the European movement's history. czar 16:13, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Title

( "of" or "to"?)
— 883652577

@Cinadon36, I believe "precursors to" and "precursors of" work interchangeably. I don't have a strong opinion either way—do you? (There are also lots of other synonyms for "precursors": forerunners, ancestors, pre-, proto-, etc. Tried to go with the one that was most natural/used.) And forgot to mention, the French and German versions of this article have sources we can use. czar 21:28, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Me neither, no strong feelings here.Cinadon36 (talk) 07:40, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Brethren

The Brethren can thus be seen as medieval individualist anarchists.
— https://books.google.com/books?id=IKZVKMPEQCEC&pg=PA34

dumping this here for later consideration czar 06:38, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Additional sources

Note to self to revisit Barclay, Graeber, Nettlau czar 12:58, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Doubts about the title

As I see it, 'precursos' would mean with immediate relation with something that comes, which also mean something that has prepared the 'ground' for this emergence. But by looking at it, i can see that the only distinctive reason for this article is too expand on the non-immediate and non-influencing kind of manifestations of 'anarchism'. Its a purely retrospective article, that applies backwards a modern concept, which is a marginal approach in history. Because of that I think that the best approach for the article is to differenciate the point where historiographic reconstruction goes, around medieval movements and so on, from the point where we are dealing with this kind of immaginative (which does not means unconstructive) approach, doing some big jumps with the intellectual history aspect of the thing. From this differentiation becomes clear that the reason behind the article should do the second thing, and let the first with the main history of anarchism. JoaquimCebuano (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 09:20, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

First paragraph

Under 'Antiquity', the opening paragraph is wildly biased. The concept that all of humanity was essentially anarchist prior to the rise of "hierarchical societies" is an opinion and one that isn't even guided by the historic record. The first writings of each language we have explicitly reference hierarchies, whether religious or secular, which means that hierarchies precede the written record, which means the statement that humans lived in some anarchist utopia as unverifiable as the Garden of Eden. 2601:8C0:983:83E0:B5D6:E0CD:848:2212 (talk) 10:56, 8 October 2024 (UTC)