Talk:Anarchy
From iA wiki
This is probably the most misunderstood word in the english language. I wonder why that could be? - ABliss
I don't understand this entry. Anarchy is precisely NOT activism. In an anarchic system where anyone can do whatever they want, then who are you to say that information should (or shouldn't) be free? In practise, i believe anarchy would bring us into a much, much worse oligarchy than anything we've seen in our lifetimes. -- Amw
- Anarchy can refer to an each-man-for-himself scenario or as a state of anti-establishment. After all, in a state of emergency or martial law, someone being in-charge or power hungry is just another establishment. Only one more degenerate alpha male seeking to opress or control others. In this way, anarchy isn't a free-for-all but a free-from-all. -- Webfork
- One of the many reasons anarchy is associated with activism is that most of us live within systems where power and authority are taken for granted and anarchists must constantly be active trying to remind/convince people that ceding self responsiblity isn't necessary. Anarchism is also a mindset -- one that must constantly be maintained in order for it to work. As Webfork notes above, the "degenerate alpha males" can oppress or control others, but only if people allow them to. In good anarchy, people would be so repulsed by the idea of giving up their self responsibility that another person could never seize power. crtn
- Information just is. For example, the things in your environment convey visual information if you look at them. Think of the information in your genes, or of all the chaos in nature. These things are just spontaneously produced as a result of the natural laws of the universe. - ABliss
This page needs some headings. Few will read big blocks of text like that without some kind of break in the text. Also, this way their eyes can skip to what they like. Its something I tried to do on Piracy. Webfork
In interactions with oppression, there is often great debate about whether or when to use violence, and the movement's relationship with nonviolence in general.
This statement doesn't say anything. The same could be said of virtually any other philosophy apart from ones that are non-violent, such as Buddhists. I encourage you to add something to the topic of Anarchy but please make it less general. Webfork
- Agreed. - ABliss
Two things:
- Observation: when people hear "Anarchy," they think chaos, every-man-for-himself, and destruction. Riots, a basic lack of civil services like fire and police, and looting.
- Theory: one of the facets of anarchy is that it seems we want as much of anarchy (self rule) as is humanly possible without falling into chaos. Examples:
Examples that may prove this theory:
1. A "Police State" takes away the self-actualization and attack an individual's sense of empowerment by a sensation or fear of being oppressed. These systems are therefore less effective to society and therefore should be discouraged. A more effective and effective system is, therefore, as much Anarchy as can be tolerated.
2. Meanwhile, the "American Dream" is based on the opposite of a police state: a place somewhere that is free of Kings and Generals where you control your own destiny and where everyone is equal. This ideal supposes that a person experiences greater freedom and encouraged to self-govern and "be their own boss" instead of being told what to do.
3. The economic system of Capitalism is only governed by anti-monopoly and other things that prevent outright theft. It works more effectively and more efficiently than a police state because, ideally, a person can simply set forth to provide a better product or service and become the champion of a given market. People self-regulate and are more adventurous, driven by their self-interest. They govern themselves in this system because the "top" is something that can be changed or modified and may even be a state of mind. Again, as near to anarchy as possible but without the assumed destruction/looting/malevolence.
(Note: 2 and 3 tie in may include the faery-tale Horatio Alger story of the individual overcomming his situation and becoming rich.)
4. Religion is often tightly heirarchical but most facets of spirituality are about self-freedom and openness; a lack of systemic barriers through enlightenment and not simply moral restrictions.
5. Even the ideal Panopticon is one that has the fewest watchers versus the largest number of self-governing individuals. Still again, as much Anarchy as can be tolerated ... but to a point.
6. The Military is the best example of a perfect anti-Anarchy with individuals doing as they are told by superiors. Even in this system, some amount of Anarchy is encouraged as individuals assume more rank and more responsibility; to act independantly and intelligently. Also, there is a code of conduct in the military concerning, say if an order is made to kill 100 children: even the lowest-ranking soldier can countermand such an order. Anarchy in favor of (at least) clear-cut morality.
Thoughts? Webfork
- Interesting and relevant. I don't see anarchy as a form of government that will be achieved through activism. For me it is more akin to a community that is described as democratic. Where democracy means "of the people", anarchy means "of no hierarchical authority". To achieve equality for all people, I believe we need an anarchy with rules which are best dictated by natural law. This is where the idea of free will relates. It's definately a tough topic. Reading some of the classic anarchy texts is laborious. Has anyone come across anything more definitive elsewhere? - ABliss
A few thoughts on the topic of Anarchy. I looked up the word Anarchy on Dictionary.com
- Absence of any form of political authority.
- Political disorder and confusion.
- Absence of any cohesive principle, such as a common standard or purpose.
As far as I can tell, beyond all the technical stuff, that's the definition of the Internet. My thought on the matter is - not because anyone made it that way but because that's how it actually is, the Internet is an Anarchy. No one on the Internet has the same intention as anyone else. Even with checking e-mail, there are a trillion different specific reasons and there's definitely no coheasive principle. Its even clear with the frequency of DDOS attacks that some people don't even care about the Internet's survival, despite it being what they have expertise in. Anti-technology people probably still find each other on the Internet.
Still, Erik runs the site, bans bad IPs, and people who come through and add graffiti get fixed by regulars. There's a system, there's a hierarchy created by the regulars since people who cause graffiti here lose interest and therefore have no control. Still, I wouldn't say that these graffiti types feel opressed.
Lastly, I changed a section on the Anarchy page where it says "anti-government" ... although, strictly speaking, this is true, that term has come to be synonymous with very bad things. It tends to imply "overthrowing" which involves violence.
That's all I can think of. Feedback/thoughts are welcome.
Anarchism has become such an wide field that it is almost meaningless. You can find both those who believe a society should have an system, but it should not be an system where power (economic or political) is concentrated to just a few people, like in capitalism or the state, and there are also anti-organisationalists (lifestylists or post-leftists) who more or less believe that anarchism means that you follow and fulfill your desires and that innate human goodness and mutual aid will win in the end.
In its broadest meaning anarchism refers to almost anyone who opposes concentrations of power.
Dictionary definitions are also written by people with certain political views, so you'd be better off reading actual anarchist sources if you want an proper definition. It's not an small task though, since there are so many different views on this. I'd recommend social ecology for an consistent point of view from those who believe in society and infoshop.org to learn more on the various other ideas around.
- I thought of this as well but I'm trying to derrive a philosophy more than take from someone else's since, as you point out, its a topic diluted by all the variances, much as I suppose many philosophies are. Webfork
Can anyone give me a hand at my unfinished article, Marxism_OR_Socialism. zeenix
The paragraph that now begins "Many anarchists work in activist movements..." mad no sense at all to me in its previous form. My apologies if I've horribly perverted the original author's intent. -- mlc
Anarchy, as a philosophy is something to aim for, but can never be achieved. People, en mass, just aren't that "good" or "intelligent". Aim for it, but accept the fact that a "practical" governance is always going to be necessary. The question then is whether Libertarian or Marxist. dury
