[i]Anarchy (from Greek: αναρχία anarchía, “without ruler”) may refer to any of the following:
“Absence of government; a state of lawlessness due to the absence or inefficiency of the supreme power; political disorder.”[1]
“A theoretical social state in which there is no governing person or body of persons, but each individual has absolute liberty (without the implication of disorder).”[2]
“Absence or non-recognition of authority and order in any given sphere.”[3]
Without government or law
A state, free from coercive authority of any kind, is the goal of proponents of the political philosophy of anarchism (anarchists). Anarchy is distinct from omniarchy, a chaotic situation in which all rule over all, in the sense that anyone can commit aggression against any other person.[/i]
I have a friend who claims to be an anarchist. He says that anarchy has been given a bad name for no good reason. I promised to look into the subject and gain a better understanding of where he is coming from.
For starters, looking at the above definitions in Wikipedia - From my initial perspective, a “good” anarchist is an oxymoron. By those definitions any anarchist has to be anti-social and can only exist in isolation. Other than that we are all inter-dependent and are subjected to government, at the very least, by natural laws of non-trespass.
So, as far as I can see, his idea of being an anarchist is, at best, a romantic fallacy. At worst, a cop-out for being selfish.
Any other anarchists around to further enlighten me?
anarchy really makes absolutely no sense what-so-ever. In every human society ever (minus short term rioting or whatever) there have been human hierarchies, people striving to be on top, or at least higher than a closer peer, on top of that theres a bunch of cross cultural/universal human mental architecture or ‘adaptations’ like cheater-detection mechanisms, that make anarchy an impossible shot in the dark.
people naturally build hierarchy social systems.
people can be naturally violent
we have a bunch of ‘laws’ in all societies, that when people break them, they get subdued in some significant way by ‘society’ or tribe or clan, or whatever.
Anarchy doesn’t seem possible in humans to me, it doesn’t even seem possible in chimpanzee groups, in-fact its not. chimpanzee’s display this ingroup/outgroup categorization (as do humans) complex social structure, etc.
most societies have ‘government’ even chimps have ‘government’ or proto government, a hierarchy that obeys complex social rules and can also be effected by complex social displays/actions with people striving against each other.
no chimp groups are just going to stop raiding each other ‘just because’ they’re sick of ‘established’ rule.
when social hierarchy is built into humans/apes in general, theres not much chance of being without somthing VERY close to government.
Still, instead of trusting what their own minds tell them, men have as a rule a weakness for trusting others who pretend to supernatural sources of knowledge- Schopenhauer
Small anarchic tribes are and have been possible. It’s not encoded in our biology that we can’t live in lawlessness. There is no gene that forces us to become a member in a massive social group.
1. people naturally build hierarchy social systems.
Tribally, this is only enough to get by. There is no real ‘leader’ who dictates labor and trade; just a pipe smoking spirit speaker.
2. people can be naturally violent
Anarchy doesn’t contradict this.
3. we have a bunch of ‘laws’ in all societies, that when people break them, they get subdued in some significant way by ‘society’ or tribe or clan, or whatever.
But again, it’s not limited to a scale of civilization.
i’ve studied hunter-gatherers/tribes for years, I own a small library on both prehistoric and modern ones. There are not ‘anarchistic’ tribes, theres ones where religious leaders are very high up on the social hierarchy though.
getting free shit for performing what the others see as valuable services. tribes have social hierarchies, in fact they are some of the very best examples of exactly that.
learn- some thing.
Thats a lot of bullshit, but please, provide me with hunter-gatherer’s/tribes who don’t have massive social hierarchy, that don’t obey fairly common social ‘laws’ or suffer the consequences.
Wow. you have a naive view of tribes/hunter-gatherers. theres often-times tribal leaders and tribal shamans, who are actually higher in the hierarchy than each other in a number of different ways. but often-times both *demand, things like war/sacrafice.
Tribes are made up of clans sharing a common ancestry.
Clans have chiefs.
Clans are made up of families who share a common ancestor.
Families have parents.
Human familes come from primate origins.
Primates have a domminant member.
Services are only provided by people. Certain groups of people represent the government. A forceful & monoploistic setting is always in play within any given society despite the type of government ruling the people or the temporary lack of one. Governments are primarily and fundamentally based on predominant ideals.
Anarchy is anti-statism. MagnetMan and Cyrene are trying to make it out to be some anti-social movement where people don’t want anything to do with each other and want to live alone. You’re completely twisting every definition there is of it. There are anarchist capitalists, socialists, collectivists, communists; no “I just want to be by myself because I hate everyone.” Small, unwritten social orders aren’t going against fucking anarchy. Anarchy is anti head authority like we have under our current government. You need to pick up a dictionary. Read Noam Chomsky.
But do not tell me Anarchy is incompatible with itself when you are giving it an entirely backwards definition.
i’m somewhat of a marxist so i have to deal with anarchists in my social circle. the main thing about anarchists that most of them were communists at some point and became disillusioned with the idea of socialism, the dictatorship of the proletariat. they see it as hopelessly vague and an easy system for opportunists to take advantage. that’s why lots of anarchists use the term anarcho-communism.
and to touch on “By those definitions any anarchist has to be anti-social and can only exist in isolation.” is a completely ridiculous assumption. anarchism needs an incredibly “social” society to even FUNCTION properly. read homage to catalonia for an interesting account of anarchism.
If you read my OP more carefully you will see that I never mentioned government via artificial political inventions. ALL of them, with the possible exception of benevolent dictatorships, are passe in my opinion. An adult society with parental responsibilities does not need written constitutions of any kind to live well-ordered and self-disciplined lives. Anarchy has no place there. I am saying anarchy is un-natural. It is another invention of ego.
So I say again, so-called anarchists are either immature romantic self-deluders, or cop-outs not willing to do their fair share in supporting society.
^^^
And you, sir MagnetMan, insist that anarchists must have anti-social tendencies to hold their ideology. Forget discerning their psychology; look at how you’re displaying your own.
Anarchy has every place there. There is nothing unnatural about self sufficiency.
But self-sufficiency, if it is to have any real meaning, must include the efficiency of the state. No man is an island.
I described a state of mature Democracy where equality, liberty and fraternity means exactly what it says. Why confuse the issue by calling it anarchy?
What anarchists don’t get is that it all started out as anarchy and ended up here. The development of heirarchies is the fundamental activity of creatures on this planet. The first creatures didn’t set out to create organized governments, they set out to fill their stomachs, and organized governments were the result.
Your statement would imply that primitive peoples aren’t as evolved as we are, and that there is evolutionary course of progress. Unproven propaganda of elitist indoctrination. There is no ‘progress’.
I didn’t say progress, I said heirarchy. It happens in the East, too. And in South America. And sure, it’s unproven. The fact that you find it in every single culture as far back as we can discover, does not of course, constitute proof. It could just be a coincidence.
It is just not possible to understand the philosophy of anarchism off the internet any more than it is possible to appreciate metaphysics by reading wikipedia.
Much more prudent, would be to aquire a print copy of more than one key anarchist work, and reading slowly, understand. For example, spend an afternoon reflecting on Tolstoy’s study of the anarchist school he created at Yasnaya Polyana. Once reading his account, it will become much clearer, I’d guess, what anarchism is and how it is applied.
Authoritarian says: NO Smoking, 500 dollar fine.
Anarchist says: What do you think? do you think it is a good idea to smoke here? right next to the pre-school front doors? inlight of what we know about tobacco smoke and respiratory disease…