The Conspiracy to Misrepresent Anarchy

page: 1
6

log in

join

posted on Mar, 1 2013 @ 09:45 AM
link   
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, Archon.

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 anarchist.

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 :

Freedom Press

The Anarchist Library

Insurgent Anarchism: an idea whose time has come

Anarchist Art

anarchism.net
edit on 1-3-2013 by robhines because: added link




posted on Mar, 1 2013 @ 11:34 AM
link   
Bravo!

And thank you for making this thread. I completely agree, this is actually one of my pet-peeves, along with how people inappropriately use the word jealousy...same thing as anarchy! People say anarchy, but really should use the word chaos; just like people use jealous when they should be using the word envious! Totally misused and misunderstood! Thank you for helping to bring some attention to this very common misconception!


It would not surprise me one bit if this were not only ignorance, but ignorance by design!!



posted on Mar, 1 2013 @ 11:41 AM
link   
I'm a Libertarian. Libertarianism is many-many times equated to anarchy by the "others"...makes me laugh. I don't think our society or the evolution of our specie is quite ready for "real" anarchy...lets face it...we have some really stupid people that must be led and controlled or they will cause damage to those around them.

To me, Libertarianism is a step toward "self governing"...it is based on the principles of individual liberty and personal responsibility. Because the general masses of people are not too bright, there has to be "some" governing body in place. We Libertarians just believe it needs to be smaller and more minimalistic. The Gov should do no more than what the Constitution says they can.

I hold out hope for the future that one day we will not need leaders like we have today...that one day we as a species will evolve to a point of being capable of governing our individual selves ad still fill a responsible role in society. I see "anarchy" as the epitome of human social evolution.

I'm sure that is not going to happen any time soon. As long as their is corruption and wickedness in the hearts of humans...
edit on 3/1/2013 by Jeremiah65 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 2 2013 @ 12:16 AM
link   
New school anarchy = Cryptoanarchy

Anarchy and freedom is not an option without an effective means of data transfer free of law and rule





 
6

log in

join