I think one of the biggest problem anarchists have when presenting an argument is overcoming the negative connotations to the word "Anarchy."

People just plug up their ears at that point -- it conjures images of crowds rioting in the streets, violence, gangs, and a big spray-painted letter "A" in a circle on a brick wall somewhere.

If people actually took the time to research what "Anarchism" is in reality, and establish even a rudimentary understanding of it, I think it would go much further.

Anarchism is an approach to the most moral, free, and nonviolent society possible. Not a love of chaos.


[edit on 8-12-2008 by RavagedSky]

Originally posted by RavagedSky
I think one of the biggest problem anarchists have when presenting an argument is overcoming the negative connotations to the word "Anarchy."

People just plug up their ears at that point -- it conjures images of crowds rioting in the streets, violence, gangs, and a big spray-painted letter "A" in a circle on a brick wall somewhere.

If people actually took the time to research what "Anarchism" is in reality, and establish even a rudimentary understanding of it, I think it would go much further.

Anarchism is an approach to the most moral, free, and nonviolent society possible. Not a love of chaos.


[edit on 8-12-2008 by RavagedSky]

One of the most relevant definitions of Anarchy would be one with a base in the actual meaning of the word Anarchy. An (negation off/abscense of) and Archy (From the Greek word Arches/Arch, meaning rulers/rule). In short.. a society with an abscense of rulers.

In addition to this it is highly relevant to also look to how anarchism has maniested itself through history, as anarchism at it's core has always strived to be dynamic. What anarchism is, will always be connected to how it manifests itself.

Today the word has turned into something bad, the word has failed. The idea lives on, but the meaning of the word has changed. It is usless to try to save it. But the ideas can be lived still.

It is clearly ignorant to confuse it with chaos, as chaos is a highly authoritarian state where rulers WILL emerge almost always in a more authoritarian state than in any orderly society.

This may seem like a paradox for some, but it's really not. Some of the confusion can be traced to the anglophone language. You probably noted that I used the word "rule" earlier. It is very easy to misunderstand this. I am not talking about a rule as in a prescribed direction for conduct (directions which bind an individual to behave according to rules and laws that are in place to ensure the safety of the collective), but rule, as in an authoritarian regime.

Rules are in my opinion paramount in any society, also one that seeks to pursue degrees of anarchism. Without rules, there WILL be rulers, highly authoritarian ones. Rules will make the collective an authority over the individual, but that is the case in any governing form. What is important is to ensure the freedoms and influence the individual have in the collective. This is the core of democracy.

When I was younger, I was leaning more towards anarchism as a governing system I could support. I still think highly off it, but do not identify myself with anarchism. I never advocated the destruction of the state, but viewed anarchism as a concept in a dynamic series of reforms that could shape my local and national society on the road to a less authoritarian one.

I vote an economic liberal and social liberal party on the centrum-spectre of the linear right-left party-politics meter (Keep in mind, this is Norway. Our Conservative party is more socially liberal than the US Democratic party, and the only more conservative alternative are populists). I support more funding to the police, a modern and strong military and an active particepation in NATO (This does not mean that there are no problems with NATO). I am an advocate of a free marked economy (capitalism, as there are no other real alternatives for economic control/non-control) but believe that the economy should be a social free market economy and that we should work on more transparancy and control organs to police the economy. I think some of the raw capitalism we see today, and some of the free trade agreements being pushed are highly authoritarian and not exactly what Adam Smith had envisiones as an ideal.

I believe that the anarchist idea can be useful, but for it to be relevant, we need to understand it, and realize that it is not a means to an end, like for example marxism, but infact a dynamic concept that exists to some degree at all times.

Anarchism as a word has failed, exactly because of what RavagedSky mentions about the negative connotations. It has been killed off by lack of understanding, or deliberate demonization not only from the critics of anarchism, but by the supposed anarchists themselves as well.

The media constantly use the word "anarchy" interchangably with "chaos". Can it be denied that chaos is an authoritarian state were rules emerge? Hardly. Can the real meaning of the word "anarchy" be denied? No. So why would you reffer to a highly authoritarian state of mob rule/violent rulers by calling it a negation or abscense of rule or rulers? And a word that defines a state of governing that even the laziest student of political ideologies KNOWS pursues anti-authoritarian ideals? Hardly the worst crime of the media, but it goes to show how lost the word "anarchy" is.

Anarchism today is infested with authoritarian elements, with ignorant kids, pure adrenaline junkies, individualists, and.. random radicals who are too dumb to even begin to understand how complex the politics and governing-principles behind anarchism is, or has to be. They gather behind the banner of revolution with higly authoritarian people of marxist and communist beliefs.

The word "revolution" was never right for anarchism. "Revolution" is connected to a sudden and often violent overthrowing of the status que, something that, unless the society is governed in authoritarian ways immediatly afterwards, will result in chaos. According to Marx this immediate following of an overthrowal of the ruling capitalist powers should see a strong leader (dictator) step up and rule with an iron fist until the people was ready to take the power themselves. Anarchism takes a completly different route, a higly non-radical route at that (the idea).

Anarchism was always anti-communist, anti marxist even, or at least it should be. Anarchism has existed in a state of revolution only one time, and that was in Spain (Anarchists have fought in many revolutions, and not for the communists or for the ruling class, but I'm talking about manifested anarchy, existing as a part of a violent revolution). The revolution was not anarchist from the start, but it did take on an anarchist character and made parts of spain anarchist for a little while, before it was all ruined by authoritarian elements within the communist movement. It strikes me as odd that "anarchists" today often walk side by side with people waving the red flag, where in other parts of the world, and in other times, those weaving the red flag would decapitate or hang them for their non-authoritarian beliefs. It's quite telling for the state of anarchism today.

The rioting youths in Greece (A country with a very organized and at times very constructive anarchist scene) are a fine example. They riot under the red and black flag of anarcho-syndicalism. Riot. Who will bother to try to understand or reform the word "anarchy" back to it's core meaning when the anarchists themselves particepate in creating higly authoritarian conditions in their home countries? Who cares if not all anarchists are throwing rocks and burning cars? A lot of them obviously do. I say particepate and not create here, as the police in Greece are also highly authoritarian, and they are also responsible for how the population relates to them.

[edit on 8-12-2008 by me_ofef_seraph]

How an idea manifests itself, or how fast it turns ugly is always regulated by the conditions in the environment the idea manifests. Norway is one of the least authoritarian nations in the world. I have a friend who was an anarchist, he is still sympathetic to the idea, much like myself. He was in the Coast Ranger Command for 14 months while he served and is now a police officer. He is educated, and smart. I'm not talking about youth delusion and growing up here.. Im talking about how ideas manifest themselves in a non-authoritarian environment where people feel empowered and does not have to fear their own government, and how they manifest in environments where people fear even the police.

The idea of anarchism is in my opinion non-radical. It is a question of degree, not a question of all or nothing. While communism lead to highly authoritarian regimes, millions of deaths and even wars because of a largly incomplete (even from Marx's own perspective) and flawed (yes, also in theory for those who claim it is a good idea) idea, anarchism is about a dynamic road to.. whatever we evolve into. Anarchism exsists to some degree or not WHILE it manifests itself. There is no end goal to grasp for.

We should strive to evolve calmly and steadily, and always try to better ouselves and society through as non-authoritarian means as possible. All changes should have a deep root in the fabric of society, instead of threatening to throw it into chaos. Nations like Norway has changed through reform and slowly but steadily evolved into very non-authoritarian democracies with advanced and stronge economies. That is the how we should live change in the times to come. We have revolutions on a steady basis... every 4th year. We reently passed a bill to allow same-sex marrige... we did not have that 5 years ago. Anarchism should be about securing changes like that, and if we must, fight to combat authoritarian tendencies that tries to sneak in.

I disagree to the notion that anarchism is about non-violent ideals. We need to accept that violence is a part of our lives. If we shelter ourselves from it, we will not evolve. If we induldge the illusion that violence is evil, how can we accapt that our state, police and military use it to protect us, and secure the peace? What good is any idea if it can not be defended? We do not live in a dream world. Pascifism is in my opinion higly fanatic, and counter-productive. If another nation threatened to invade my country and enslave me and those I love, I would view it as my duty to take arms and paticepate in a military effort to stop the invadors. What would we have achieved by now if NONE of my grandfather's generation grabbed their rifles and took to the mountains in the spring days of 1940 and refused to submit to fascism?

The word is useless ideologically for me. I no longer feel it is wise or correct to identify myself with anarchism. I cannot change the perception of anarchy my peers have, and I can't lable myself similarly to most of those who call themselves anarchists today.. Neither can I exclude them from anarchism from my high horse. There are still many ideas and concepts in anarchism I believe in, and hey will guide me in how I choose to live and use my democratic influence as a citizen of my nation. Anarchism was never a unified movement anyway, and it never will be I suspect, not on more than the odd isolated manifistation.


[edit on 8-12-2008 by me_ofef_seraph]

I have embraced anarchist thought and my conclusion is it will not work unless you are a cognitive intelligent person.Many people get blinded by their ambitions, desire and addictive habits that spiral them into ignorance and callousness.The legacy of brutality has perpetuated the madness of killing and abuse.
Anarchists who assasinate corporate heads or associate with terrorism are Nihilists not Anarchists.
I believe in Democranarchy.
I do not believe Democracy works after reaching millions of people.It only works on a local and grassroots level because it needs constant communication and representation everyday.Once the population is only represented by One person and it's over a million souls, it is lost and it starts to embrace socialist and facists idealogies.
I enoyed reading everyone's replies on this thread.Excellent Intelligence level here. like this place.

Interesting discussion of anarchy/ism I have discovered.

Some of it was contradictory, but no contradictions I'm harsh against.
I've been thinking of anarchism a lot lately. Rediscovering it, and that I am truly an anarchist.

I like to go beyond the punk rock definition, though, in my musical ecclecicism I actually like punk rock. Though, I'm not sure the punk rock image has benefited anarchism. I suppose there is a difference between anarchy and anarchism. Anarchy being the state of chaos and anarchism being the political philosophy. Though, there probably is an alternate word to "political" philosophy.

Anarchism has existed 2 places, Danes if there are any, feel free to correct me if you feel I am wrong or mistaken.

The examples to anarchism are Spain during the SCW, and til a few years ago, Christiania, which as far as I think I know, was a squre mile surrounded by Stockholm.

About Christiania, I'd heard as it was Danish military base that was abandonned and closed, and was then taken over by anarchists, punks, and hippies. There were two laws, no cars and no guns, so cars were parked outside and people walked in, and people who were paranoid about personal
security, had dogs. From what I've heard recently, the Danish government has cracked down on the drugs. I can say shame on you, paranoid government. Though, at the same time commending them for being as tolerant as they were, for as long as they tolerated it. In the US the government would have immediately cracked down killing many people in the process. I actually, look forward to the Danish correction if there are any Danes reading this.

I have lately, learned a lot about Spanish anarchism in the SCW from Youtube. A great thing this Youtube, no more government secrets, as long as Youtube lasts, I hope it does last forever.

I do find that I am an anarch-syndicalist, from what I've learned about that. It does seem to be between Communism (more later on communism, as it too is a word that has similarly been destroyed) and capitalism or free-enterprise. Though, the anarchist regions of Spain were anti-money, and pro-barter. Now, I would say, take a slow process using barter, but don't completely abandon money, but eventually abon it as hopefully it becomes an anachronism, as I believe it would and will. Trying to predict the
time that the money concept dies off, slowly convert money to land and other goods, and technologies

The anarchists of the SCW were more communist, truly communist than the communists calling themselves communist. Communism is, a potentially beautiful concept, though, realize, there is nor has there ever been a communist country. I'd say the so-called communist countries were more nationalist than communist. When you first look at the word, "communism" you see "commun". I've been to a commune, they are now often called "interntional communities", probably in an effort to escape the bad press of the word commune. Most communes are collections of dozens, maybe 100, people who have chosen to live in cooperation with people they've chosen to live in cooperation with. Most so-called communist countries have populations of millions of people. I would say, these "communist" countries are more nationalist that communist. I'll also mention that a few of the political subdivisions in Switzerland are called communes, most of them are called cantons. If the word hadn't been destroyed as it has, I'd call myself a communist.

As for anarchist, I do sometimes call myself an anarchist, but I am still somewhat selective of who I tell that to. And then I have to preface it with "but I'm not a bomb thrower". Though, people probably aren't so shocked by the word in places like Spain and Russia, though, they might still disagree with it. I have seen that a synonym might be nice. I have stumble upon this one, "decentralist".
why is there a character limit? I'm not finished.

Where was I?
I was disrupted by that 4000 character limit.
I do call myself a decentralist to avoid the shock at "anarchist" or the need for "...but I'm not a bombthrower." I was at church, I don't want to go into that whole discussion either, it is an alternative church, I believe some call it, "newthought", anyway, I was at church, after the service socializing, with an elderly woman, and it somehow slipped out that I'm an anarchist, and the second after, I though, oops, oh #, but turns out she wasn't shocked, and actually agreed with the idea. Now I have to figure out who it was as I forgot.
Though, one of the problems is so you have the anarchist philosophy, and all the neat idea, etc, etc, and so forth. Now, how to take it beyond just a lively chat? How do we get there. I truly am not a bombthrower, actually, I'm mostly pacifist, and the truth is, there is no more powerful weapon than pacifism. The government's specially is, dealing with terrorists, and people with guns and bombs, and they are easily justified and applauded for executing the bombthrower. They don't deal so easily with dedicated non-compliance.Though, for the weapon of passive non-compliance to work enough people need to do it.

And seeing the failure of revolution, it is the only way to achieve effective change. All revolutions so-far with few exceptions and those are in the short-term, end up reversing themselves and eventually becoming worse governments than the ones they threw off.