Langbahn Team – Weltmeisterschaft

Talk:Insurrectionary anarchism


Greece

Greece 2008 Insurrection Vs Organization: This part that quotes the Gelderloos piece is misleading. That piece wasn't writing about something that happened during 2008 but way before that. The piece itself predates that.

As was mentioned before, insurrectionary anarchist discourse also had relevance in Greece. In the 2008 Greek riots the old disputes between organizationalist and insurrectionary anarchists reappeared when there was a conflict "between insurrectionary anarchists associated with the Black Bloc, and the heavily organized Antiauthoritarian Movement (AK, in Greek)...the schism between insurrectionists and the Antiauthoritarian Movement has even led to physical fighting...People with AK bullied and beat up anarchists whom they suspected of stealing some computers from the university during an event AK organized, getting them in trouble. In response, some insurrectionists burned down the Antiauthoritarian Movement's offices in Thessaloniki." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.230.134.2 (talk) 18:19, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Leon Czolgosz?

This article seems to say that Leon Czolgosz was an insurrectionary anarchist, and while his actions alone seem to say he ascribed to that belief, he was widely considered to *not* be an anarchist at all, rather, a sympathetic man (potential mental issues) who actual anarchists (like Goldman) avoided. Should this be written in, or is it unimportant? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.204.82.82 (talk) 16:11, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Definition

This definition of insurectionary anarchism needs some refinement. As it stands, IA seems to oppose liberal reforms and prefer direct action and informal organization. This completely misses an opportunity to differentiate IA from every other form of anarchism. Added expand tag to article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rthunder (talk • contribs) 21:09, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comment, I agree. Do you know of any reliable source that gives a better definition? Skomorokh 21:13, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Some material, if it can be sourced, can be drawn from this attempt at capturing the essence of IA. Added it to the external links section. --Rico (talk) 21:21, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nice. Is that by Wolfi Landstreicher by any chance? Skomorokh 21:24, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, not sure. But then if he wanted to reveal his authorship he would have, n'est pas? If you want to try to work it into the article -- hopefully using good cites -- I'm sure an anarchist audience confused about the difference between anarchism, revolutionary anarchism, insurrectionary anarchism, and anarcho-whateverism will be highly appreciative.
Oh, and here is a better source. --Rico (talk) 22:00, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"As was mentioned before, insurrectionary anarchist discourse also had relevance in Greece. In the 2008 Greek riots the old disputes between organizationalist and insurrectionary anarchists reappeared when there was a conflict "between insurrectionary anarchists associated with the Black Bloc, and the heavily organized Antiauthoritarian Movement (AK, in Greek)...the schism between insurrectionists and the Antiauthoritarian Movement has even led to physical fighting...People with AK bullied and beat up anarchists whom they suspected of stealing some computers from the university during an event AK organized, getting them in trouble. In response, some insurrectionists burned down the Antiauthoritarian Movement's offices in Thessaloniki."[15]"

this paragraph referring to the dispute between tendencies did not happen during the 2008 greek riots. the piece by gelderloos that is quoted precedes that insurrection. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.230.134.2 (talk) 22:33, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected until October 22

This article has been semi-protected until October 22 after one of my "friends" (term used more loosely after this incident) on Facebook encouraged people to start vandalizing the page. I have admonished those involved on Facebook. This semi-protection ought to keep the article trouble-free for a bit, and maybe will help those involved treat Wikipedia with respect, considering one of their friends had to put an end to their vandalism spree. Thank you to all who helped revert the vandalism. SchuminWeb (Talk) 07:55, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, it's no trouble. What's anarchism for, if not to challenge the rules? Lol. Piano non troppo (talk) 08:00, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Challenge the rules, sure. But this falls under the same scope as these people who go around breaking windows at protests. In the end, what have you gained? More corporations just get wealthier because they have to replace the window, and the insurance underwriters can charge higher premiums - counter to the whole concept in the first place, and looking stupid in the end. SchuminWeb (Talk) 08:10, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is absolutely not how insurance works. Nothing about what you just said is true and I challenge you to provide non-anecdotal evidence from multiple sources to back that up. Also, vandalizing wikipedia is simple pranksterism. You lack a sense of humor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.15.36.38 (talk) 01:54, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sad to say but it isn't that far fetched. Modern insurances originated in European merchant navies as ships full of cargo, when sunk, could bankrupt the owner because they were bloody expensive (at least that's what they told me when I started working in one modern insurance company). The system worked (and still works today) like this: whenever someone's ship was lost at sea, the merchants shared the financial losses, resulting in less bankrupcies. And by paying a fraction of someone else's lost ship every now and then, their own business was safe from the forces of the nature. This is how it works in modern insurance companies as well, with one differece - the insurance costs are used not only to cover the damages of customers, but to provide profit for the owners. It is a company, after all. Thus, when more windows are broken, the company has to pay more to replace them, and increase insurance costs to cover the losses. 87.108.22.140 (talk) 06:55, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm smiling, because I did stuff like that in my teens. The vandals did not meet their goals, but they may have learned something about making an effective statement. Social expression in Wikipedia may be as worthwhile as the information itself, in some instances. A social experiment in process? Best Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 11:03, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 13:16, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Glad I could help! -FASTILY (TALK) 02:35, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 11 external links on Insurrectionary anarchism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:29, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Insurrectionary anarchism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:21, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Insurrectionary anarchism. 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:

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) 10:53, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Insurrectionary anarchism. 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:

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) 13:38, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

POV tag

This is what @Kakurokuna, wrote in a follow-up edit summary:

numerous anarchist views, including those of labor unions and of Marx, are not properly couched in qualifying language to indicate that these are the criticisms of *insurrectionary anarchism*. Notably, these claims tend to cite anarchist zines and infodrops

Putting here for discussion. czar 18:15, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for tagging me. While I think my edit summary speaks for itself, I would like to point out the fact that most of the sources (especially the most frequently cited) are primary sources or very close to being such. This isn't *wrong*, per se, but it does warrant secondary and tertiary sources when claims are made without qualifying language. Where these views are relevant, qualifying languages such as indicating who says what should be used IMO. More pressing, however, is the fact that a significant amount of the article is basically just wholesale quoting these sources with little attempt to work it into an encyclopedic form (again, something which would be fixed by properly using secondary sources). In general, this is the most pressing issue facing this article in my opinion. Kakurokuna (talk) 23:26, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
When those sources are removed, what's left? @Kakurokuna, what do you think of my below comments on scope? czar 15:26, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Kakurokuna: Hey, I just went through and excised all of the information pulling from the questionable polemical sources, replacing it with text sourced to more clearly reliable sources. Could you give it a read over and let me know what you think? --Grnrchst (talk) 15:41, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Scope

The scope of this article is a mess. Do reliable, secondary sources actually refer to "insurrectionary anarchism" as a school of thought or discrete idea? Or is the idea, as it is currently cited, a hodge podge of ideas in anarchism's relation to insurrectionism? Would it not be sufficient to merge the little relevant content to anarchism and violence or another parent article, where it can incubate summary style? I can appreciate that the "anarchism and violence" article doesn't completely overlap the scope of this article, but the majority of the sourced content here is about anarchist beliefs surrounding use of violence. czar 18:26, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Is this a tendency within anarchism? Or is it just a vague mixture of ideas within anarchism? -- Moreover, I think you right to point out that this isn't merely an overlap with anarchism and violence and thus probably warrants its own article. Yet, as it stands, it's very confused and almost entirely parrots primary sources. Kakurokuna (talk) 23:32, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Kakurokuna, I said the opposite—that if there is nothing to say beyond what can be said in the anarchism and violence article, it should be merged/redirected there and expand summary style. (We can't write on topics about which we have no secondary sources.) czar 15:30, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pic

Picture is Anarchists in Raqqa and another is just people at a demo. Does images have an relation to 'Insurrectionary Anarchism' proper, or are we okay being so vague? SP00KYtalk 02:31, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't find anything linking the two, so I removed the image. To be honest, if we removed every image that didn't have an explicit connection to insurrectionary anarchism, the only one left would be Galleani's portrait. -- Grnrchst (talk) 10:48, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm. It is a hard one for me. I like the pictures on the article a lot and think generally we should have more pictures in articles, but it is very hard to find good pictures that are not against Wikipedia's exceedingly stringent rules around image copyright. I did like these images too. IDK what to do with regards to getting actual related images that the copyright can be proved to be 100% usable here to the kind of freaks that scour images for 'copyright infringement'.. It's a head scratcher.. SP00KYtalk 14:59, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I kept a couple and commented out the rest. Honestly it seems like the criteria for most of them was "does this look radical and cool?" rather than whether it had any relation to the topic. -- Grnrchst (talk) 15:38, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite

I went bold and decided to rewrite this entire article from head to toe. The previous version was frankly an unreadable mess, consisting almost entirely of scattered quotes from anarchist magazines and pamphlets, compiled in such a way as to be completely unusable for an encyclopedic article. I've since rewritten it based on more clearly reliable sources. It's not as complete as it could be, and if anyone wants to expand on it then there are numerous places to pull from in the bibliography, but this should provide a better skeleton for improvement than the previous iteration. Let me know if there are any problems with the new version that I can clarify. -- Grnrchst (talk) 15:37, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

THANK YOU! You are a machine! It is an area I'd say I have a good understanding of and keep very up to date on, so I will try to help out and expand where I can, i wanted to ask if there are any places yourself think are weak or need expansion?
I think a big thing to keep at the center of this page is to not synthesise Insurrectionary@ in to one thing, i do not think it is really a problem here but perhaps could become one, by this i mean the Insurrectionary Anarchism we assign to Galleani is very different than FAI or CCF's conception, a world apart I would say, and again with relation to the Tiqqun/Appelistas. What i'm saying, to try to be more concise, is that it it would pay us to be present that Insurrectionary Anarchism intersects with a large amount of 'ideologies' within anarchism, and be mindful of this watching others edits so as to not get another 'Anarcho-* brought to you by the supermarket of ideologies!' kind of article.
That was not in fact more concise but I hope you get my drift. :)
SP00KYtalk 18:57, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I guess currently the "development" section could use a bit of work, like going over its origins. The "theory and practice" section definitely needs expansion, but I just couldn't leave the previous version as it was, it was nonsense. And I guess going over more modern developments would be good, as it's currently quite focused on the FAI.
It wasn't my intention to synthesise anything, rather I was pulling from sources that all used the term "insurrectionary anarchism". I tried to clearly delineate that the Galleanisti and the post-Bonanno insurrectionists were their own separate things (albeit both referred to as insurrectionary anarchists), but if that's not clear, maybe we can rework that.
Thanks for offering to help. I do indeed agree that we should avoid creating another "supermarket of ideologies" article, but my research is only as good as the sources available to me. --Grnrchst (talk) 20:16, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Quelle: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Insurrectionary_anarchism