Anarchopedia talk:en:what Anarchopedia is not

On the english anarchopedia, i just see that :

American Committee of the Fourth International

American Workers Party

Bolshevik Tendency

Che-Lives

Communist League of America

Communist Party of Colombia

Communist Party of Greece

Communist Party of Indochina

Communist Party of Indonesia

Communist Party of Kampuchea

Communist Party of Nepal (Fourth Convention)

Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist)

Communist Party of Nepal (Masal)

Communist Party of Nepal (Mashal)

Communist Party of Nepal (Mashal-CC)

Communist Party of Nepal (Mashal-COC)

Communist Party of Nepal (Unity Centre)

Communist Party of Peru Communist Party of Vietnam

Communist Workers Party

FARC

FARC-EP

International Bolshevik Tendency

Khmer People's Revolutionary Party

Peruvian Communist Party

Progressive Labor Party

Revolutionary Communist Party

I don't see what can be the interest of knowing the leninist's party/history. That there's anarchists critical articles on marxists/marxism or leninist inside anarchopedia is not a problem, but that it be just a descriptive article on "communist leninist party" without anarchist's positions, i think it is without interest, and that a link on (->) wikipedia would be sufficient. Cause, what about articles on "fascists party", "capitalists party", "nationalists party", "Étatist party", is it too 'acceptable' (fr) factions ? I don't think so. "Communists parties" (even if they have nothing of communist, except the flag) are f...... dictators which could assasinate anarchists on the 20 century, and that have blow down (fr:écraser) the worker movement. i think it's not necessary to help authoritarian to be known (they have suficients capacities). Libre 04:32, 3 May 2005 (CDT)

When eng: whould have a lot of articles (10.000?), 50 or 500 articles about history of communist parties would not be a problem. I think that we should have more articles about anarchism and anarchist organizations, and I don't think that we should remove someone's work. In this case User:Lance Murdoch is writing about Marxism and Marxist organizations. As I know, the same texts exist at (anarchist) Infoshop Open Wiki. If it is OK for Infoshop Open Wiki, I don't see any reason why it wouldn't be OK for Anarchopedia. --Milos Rancic 10:58, 3 May 2005 (CDT)

The pedagogic reason that i could expose (put an anarchist's critic POV). If infoshop doesn't do that, why, here, won't it be done (eg: a link to a critical article about leninism or to what_Anarchopedia_is_not) ? i think it would be better to clarify anarchopedia. no ? Libre

I was living in one communist country (Yugoslavia). When someone thinks about communits regimes, (s)he thinks about brutal Stalin's or Pol Pot's regimes. But, I was living in very different conditions: Yes, it was not so easy to talk about any other political option except Marxism, but: there were no hungry people (or if it was, that people didn't use social help); (2) we didn't have right-wing people: social, culture, ethnic... equality was the part of culture (even now, 90% of political parties in the countries of former Yugoslavia have a lot of that influences); (3) we didn't have influences (or we had very little) of multi-national companies; (4) political elite was working on protection of all parts of society; etc. So, I can't say that Marxists are far a way of anarchists such fascists and liberals are. --Milos Rancic 10:58, 3 May 2005 (CDT)

I am living on a country where his State's structures has been influenced, after the 2sd world war, by the french Communist Party. That doesn't change my political POV about PC's. Some "liberals party" can be interesting too (see the mexican's anarchist "flores magon"). When i read "the manifest of the communist party" from Marx/Engels, i see a project of proletarian dictature, then i think marxist, as far fascists or liberals, are very far away of anarchists. i am not friend with that movements. Libre

And one more comment: Freedom to speech is one of the most important parts of anarchist thought. I think that anarchist places, like Anarchopedia, should protect others' freedom to speech. Of course, just if it is not against anarchist principles. (As I think, descriptive historical documents are not against any anarchist principle.) Because anarchist places on the Internet have one big responsibility: To show people how anarchist would organize free society; to show them that we are not totalitarist; that we would not make crusades against anyone who thinks different and respects others' freedom. --Milos Rancic 10:58, 3 May 2005 (CDT)

Freedom to speech is what i do/did explaining my POV about that articles. I think putting articles of "Communist parties" (without anarchists critics) are without interest (a link ped: to wikipedia would be maybe better), but if some people think it is important, do it (ok, it is done). Libre 14:56, 4 May 2005 (CDT)