Note to mods (Who are probably keeping an eye on me after a recently deleted thread, but hopefully I can stick around for a while longer if I play
nice.) : I think this is a general conspiracy related to Anarchism and the elite's loathing of it, one that's affected one of our real chances of
freedom over a long period of time. If this thread has to be moved though, like most of mine usually are for various reasons, please add it to
Philosophy and Metaphysics. One definition of Anarchism as a philosophy being the main reason.
This is a post from my own site that's being also added here. I'm not linking my main site though as I don't want anyone to think I'm trying to
promote it :
When many people think of the word anarchy, they think of chaos. Maybe some even think anarchy actually means chaos, but it doesn't. Let's start with
looking at the origin of the word. From Etymology Online :
1530s, from French anarchie or directly from Medieval Latin anarchia, from Greek anarkhia "lack of a leader, the state of people without a
government" (in Athens, used of the Year of Thirty Tyrants, 404 B.C., when there was no archon), noun of state from anarkhos "rulerless," from an-
"without" + arkhos "leader" (see archon).
Ok, now let's go to Archon :
one of the nine chief magistrates of ancient Athens, 1650s, from Greek arkhon "ruler," noun use of prp. of arkhein "to rule," from PIE
*arkhein- "to begin, rule, command," a "Gk. verb of unknown origin, but showing archaic Indo-European features ... with derivatives arkhe, 'rule,
beginning,' and arkhos, 'ruler' " [Watkins].
Sources : Anarchy
So anarchy doesn't mean chaos at all, it means without rulers. The idea of chaos only comes from the idea that without rulers we'd have chaos. That if
we had a way of governing ourselves it wouldn't work out. Isn't that a convenient idea to make sure all the current (and often corrupt.) systems of
power stay in place?
Noam Chomsky explains anarchy clearly and simply in this extract from news.com.au :
Professor Chomsky said if anarchy meant questioning authority and demanding the truth, then everyone should be anarchic.
"In that sense I think everyone should be an anarchist," he said, in response to heavy applause from the audience.
Anarchism should not be viewed in a negative light, Prof Chomsky said.
"It's not the conception of anarchism as people running wild and breaking windows.
"In our age we have to overcome the barriers introduced by the ranks of capitalism and corporate capitalism and I think there is some sense in that,
at the core of the anarchist tradition ... is to ask and raise questions about authority, hierarchy and domination.
"And if it cannot justify itself, then it should be dismantled. That's the core principle of anarchism."
Source: Anarchy rules OK
Chomsky tells Australia
At his site
, Chomsky goes into a lot more detail on anarchy and related issues.
So we're told that anarchy equals chaos. Well we're not usually told that exactly, but we'll occasionally find someone talking about how things will
descend into a "state of anarchy" if not dealt with, or that anarchy will be the result of this and that event if it's allowed to continue, but isn't
that backwards? Look at the world and those we look at as our rulers. Aren't they the ones creating chaos? So isn't it ironic that we're conditioned
to think of anarchy as chaos when the opposite, the rule of the many by the few, is causing the chaos instead?
Banking systems, corporations, think tanks, armies, police forces, agencies, politicians and so on, could be seen as a way of chaos if we simply look
at what's going on in the world. They clearly want to keep hold of their power, so why would they explain to us properly what anarchy actually is? Why
would they not
distort its meaning? Maybe something to think about for the next time you read or hear the words anarchy, anarchism, anarchic or
Will finish with this :
There is probably more rubbish talked about anarchism than any other political idea. Actually, it has nothing to do with a belief in chaos,
death and destruction. Anarchists do not normally carry bombs, nor do they ascribe any virtue to beating up old ladies.
It is no accident that the sinister image of the mad anarchist is so accepted. The State, the press and all the assorted authoritarian types, use
every means at their disposal to present anarchy as an unthinkable state of carnage and chaos. We can expect little else from power-mongers who would
have no power to monger if we had our way. They have to believe that authority and obedience are essential in order to justify their own crimes to
themselves. The TV, press and films all preach obedience, and when anarchy is mentioned at all, it is presented as mindless destruction.
Source: Everything you ever wanted to know about anarchism but were afraid to ask
Links for further research :
The Anarchist Library
Insurgent Anarchism: an idea whose time has come
edit on 1-3-2013 by robhines because: added link