Talk:Anarchy
Contents |
[edit] see also
[edit] Philosophical angle
This article doesn't really address the philosophical angle of anarchism at all. I'll have to add something about that when I feel motivated.--Bobbing up 14:27, 26 November 2007 (EST)
[edit] Reality angle
This article is irational and based on faith in the present order, confirmation bias, as it were. 19:21, 26 November 2007 (EST)
- As the author of this article, I object to the anonymous and badly-spelled slur on my good character. It is based on time-honored and repeated empirical observations of the nature of any anarchic system. Seriously, have you seen the mess in Somalia/Iraq/etc.? Researcher 22:41, 26 November 2007 (EST)
- As an anarchist and a human fairly skilled at spelling, I must object to how your article repeatedly insults myself and those in whose footsteps I have chosen to follow. I don't have time to do a very detailed follow-up at the moment, but I assure you such as Emma Goldman probably had a better concept of reality than either you or I. Yes, anarchists are idealists who dare only dream of accomplishing all their goals, for the most part - but in many ways, we've come quite far, in the United States at least. Freedom of the individual is our goal. Is it incomprehensible that we might have a cooperative society which does not rob its members of their fundamental rights? Indeed, anarchy's ultimate goal may be utopian, but we can work to free the minds, needs, and conduct of individuals from government control in many more practical fashions. Anarchic systems of education have proven at least, if not more, effective than traditional schooling (Montessori method and "unschooling" being examples; see Francisco Ferrer). Please look into this further; I'll try and help...eventually. Assume a!=a 17:23, 4 January 2008 (EST)
- As a political scientist, I stand by my observation about anarchic systems. There has yet to be any kind of anarchic system on a large scale that has worked. (Some small, Utopian communities where everyone is there by choice don't count as a "large scale.") Perhaps it is possible for humanity to change and for anarchism to be possible in the future--I expect that most people in the Middle Ages would have considered a system like the United States (with it's emphasis on impersonal law and rights) to be a dramatic failure as well. But, for now, all evidence points otherwise. (For the record, I am somewhat familiar with Goldman, as well as other anarchic variants. I'm not convinced.) Researcher 04:04, 5 January 2008 (EST)
- Problem here is, you're not taking it from an objective view point. Ok. You're a political scientist. But so was Rothbard, Nozick, Von Mises (well, an economist, but pretty solid in politics), among hundreds of others. What of Francois Tremblay? What of Pierre Proudhon? What of Mikhail Bakunin? Are we to just reject the actual insights and arguments of Anarchism because you perceive it as utopian? Jesus Christ man, you called Marxists anarchist, when they're nothing even close! Marxists and Anarchists have a history for being at each others throats, and for good reason! To even act like you have some sort of authority to decide what is and isn't a tenet of anarchism is just sheer unacademic. AnarchoJesse
- As a political scientist, I stand by my observation about anarchic systems. There has yet to be any kind of anarchic system on a large scale that has worked. (Some small, Utopian communities where everyone is there by choice don't count as a "large scale.") Perhaps it is possible for humanity to change and for anarchism to be possible in the future--I expect that most people in the Middle Ages would have considered a system like the United States (with it's emphasis on impersonal law and rights) to be a dramatic failure as well. But, for now, all evidence points otherwise. (For the record, I am somewhat familiar with Goldman, as well as other anarchic variants. I'm not convinced.) Researcher 04:04, 5 January 2008 (EST)
- As an anarchist and a human fairly skilled at spelling, I must object to how your article repeatedly insults myself and those in whose footsteps I have chosen to follow. I don't have time to do a very detailed follow-up at the moment, but I assure you such as Emma Goldman probably had a better concept of reality than either you or I. Yes, anarchists are idealists who dare only dream of accomplishing all their goals, for the most part - but in many ways, we've come quite far, in the United States at least. Freedom of the individual is our goal. Is it incomprehensible that we might have a cooperative society which does not rob its members of their fundamental rights? Indeed, anarchy's ultimate goal may be utopian, but we can work to free the minds, needs, and conduct of individuals from government control in many more practical fashions. Anarchic systems of education have proven at least, if not more, effective than traditional schooling (Montessori method and "unschooling" being examples; see Francisco Ferrer). Please look into this further; I'll try and help...eventually. Assume a!=a 17:23, 4 January 2008 (EST)
[edit] Ireland??
How does the country that provides so many awesome legends about kings count as anarchy?? Researcher 01:31, 28 March 2008 (EDT)
Check wikipedia:[1] says it was anarchist with source and [2] which says the kings you speak of were elected prior to feudal times:
In historical times, the offices of high and low kings in Ireland and Scotland were filled by election under the system of tanistry, which eventually came into conflict with the feudal principle of primogeniture where the succession goes to the first born son.
139.133.7.37 10:15, 5 April 2008 (EDT)
[edit] Atheist A
do we have an example of this symbol we can add for compare-and-contrast? Wazza (Not Wazzock, Wazza)Approach the Presence 23:21, 30 October 2008 (EDT)
Ta da!
Radioactive Misanthrope 00:21, 31 October 2008 (EDT)
- And the "circle and point"? Which is even more like the Anarchy symbol. Gods, it took me three tries to write Symbol, which bodes well for my halloween partying. It's not even 6 o'clock yet. Wazza (Not Wazzock, Wazza)Approach the Presence 00:23, 31 October 2008 (EDT)
- You mean this one?
Radioactive Misanthrope 02:10, 31 October 2008 (EDT)
- Although, this:
- is much more reminiscent of the violently-drawn anarchist "a in a circle" than the previous.
Radioactive Misanthrope 02:10, 31 October 2008 (EDT)
- You mean this one?
- And the "circle and point"? Which is even more like the Anarchy symbol. Gods, it took me three tries to write Symbol, which bodes well for my halloween partying. It's not even 6 o'clock yet. Wazza (Not Wazzock, Wazza)Approach the Presence 00:23, 31 October 2008 (EDT)
[edit] Having decided to read this article
from the beginning and I rapidlyI found myself stymied by this sentence.
- "Amish populations of the Appalachians"
and have been trying to discover where these are? Please, someone, help me?? Carptrash 01:08, 31 October 2008 (EDT)
- All I know is, the Appalachians are the mountains of the easternmost states of the United States. But other than that, I can't really narrow it down for you. I'm as bewildered as you are on this one.
Radioactive Misanthrope 01:28, 31 October 2008 (EDT)
Well there is a lot in this article that bewilders me too. Sometimes that is the point, you have to watch these anarchists carefully, but I don't think that is what is going on here. Seems more like . . . .. (can I say this, here?) . .... IGNORANCE. if we are lucky. Carptrash 01:35, 31 October 2008 (EDT)
- You got me. I wrote the original article, but I didn't include that stuff. Researcher 02:46, 31 October 2008 (EDT)
Well screw it. Let's chop it out. Carptrash 03:22, 31 October 2008 (EDT)
[edit] WTF?
Tuna, you are massively re-defining what the term anarchy means. Anarchy is simply the lack of government. As such, Somalia is a perfect example of anarchy. You may have a preference for a particular *type* of anarchy, which Somalia may not correspond to, but southern Somalia (the parts not including Somaliland and Puntland) have quite often been quite literally anarchy. Researcher 15:48, 31 October 2008 (EDT)
- I think this article should be retitled "anarchism" as that's what it's largely about - the philosophy advocating that people should live without governments & that existing governments should be abolished. "Anarchy" is vaguer term, meaning, as Researcher says, simply the lack of government. This can occasionally mean the anarchist utopia, but is more often used to mean disasterous breakdowns of government like in Somalia, or just as a biword for chaos. If this is moved to anarchism & reworded slightly, we can then have an article here discussing the various meanings of anarchy. weaseLOId
~ 15:57, 31 October 2008 (EDT)
- I originally made this article as a link from Somalia, and I want to keep it focused on what anarchy has been in practice. A separate article on anarchism makes sense, but there should also be an article on anarchy itself. Researcher 16:28, 31 October 2008 (EDT)
- Anarchism redirects to this. Either way, anarchy, that is, 'no rulers', would at least mean the absence of major hierarchies. The state, at least? Also, anarchism was discussed here. One does not have anarchy with archy. -Sρΐяαl.Дгсђıτέςτstand up and shout 18:03, 31 October 2008 (EDT)
- I think anarchism should be made a separate article, strongly linked from here. Unintentional anarchy is quite a distinct thing from intentional anarchy. weaseLOId
~ 20:27, 31 October 2008 (EDT)
- I agree: Anarchy is simply the lack of government, whereas anarchism is something else entirely. Right, Noam? PFoster 21:01, 31 October 2008 (EDT)
- I don't know who Noam is, but I'm on board.Researcher 02:03, 1 November 2008 (EDT)
- Anarchy is order. Also, I'm quite sure that was a reference to Chomsky, I'm not sure why. Anyways, Somalia, after having done some research on it, certainly had rulers, just loads of them rather than a single one. Rulers, thus not anarchy. Again, anarchy literally means 'No rulers'. Presumably plutocracy and plutocratic refer to completely unrelated things. If we acknowledge that anarchism is defined by a lack of hierarchies and rulers, what do we call the kind of society that anarchists want to create? Anarchy. Also, you were arguing against anarchism based on Somalia, last I checked. 'No rulers'. Archy is not anarchy. -Sρΐяαl.Дгсђıτέςτstand up and shout 04:17, 1 November 2008 (EDT)
- Actually, anarchy is literally "no government." The fact that there were no universally accepted rulers, that no one had "the monopoly on the legitimate means of coercion," means that Somalia WAS and IS in anarchy. I don't understand this desire to redefine anarchy. Anarchy has a very particular meaning in political science, and has had such for a long time. Researcher 07:22, 1 November 2008 (EDT)
- Anarchy is order. Also, I'm quite sure that was a reference to Chomsky, I'm not sure why. Anyways, Somalia, after having done some research on it, certainly had rulers, just loads of them rather than a single one. Rulers, thus not anarchy. Again, anarchy literally means 'No rulers'. Presumably plutocracy and plutocratic refer to completely unrelated things. If we acknowledge that anarchism is defined by a lack of hierarchies and rulers, what do we call the kind of society that anarchists want to create? Anarchy. Also, you were arguing against anarchism based on Somalia, last I checked. 'No rulers'. Archy is not anarchy. -Sρΐяαl.Дгсђıτέςτstand up and shout 04:17, 1 November 2008 (EDT)
- I don't know who Noam is, but I'm on board.Researcher 02:03, 1 November 2008 (EDT)
- I agree: Anarchy is simply the lack of government, whereas anarchism is something else entirely. Right, Noam? PFoster 21:01, 31 October 2008 (EDT)
- I think anarchism should be made a separate article, strongly linked from here. Unintentional anarchy is quite a distinct thing from intentional anarchy. weaseLOId
- Anarchism redirects to this. Either way, anarchy, that is, 'no rulers', would at least mean the absence of major hierarchies. The state, at least? Also, anarchism was discussed here. One does not have anarchy with archy. -Sρΐяαl.Дгсђıτέςτstand up and shout 18:03, 31 October 2008 (EDT)
- I originally made this article as a link from Somalia, and I want to keep it focused on what anarchy has been in practice. A separate article on anarchism makes sense, but there should also be an article on anarchy itself. Researcher 16:28, 31 October 2008 (EDT)
Some guy with a dictionary busted into my place and made the article anarchism. It was weird.--Tom Moorefiat justitia ruat coelum 07:30, 1 November 2008 (EDT)
- So wait, now we're defining 'anarchy' as a place 'without government' (using Researcher's definition of government, though, as Proudhon says, attacking government is equivalent to attacking capitalism and religious authority, "Capital . . . in the political field is analogous to government . . . The economic idea of capitalism, the politics of government or of authority, and the theological idea of the Church are three identical ideas, linked in various ways. To attack one of them is equivalent to attacking all of them . . . What capital does to labour, and the State to liberty, the Church does to the spirit. This trinity of absolutism is as baneful in practice as it is in philosophy. The most effective means for oppressing the people would be simultaneously to enslave its body, its will and its reason."), and then saying that anarchism is the belief that anarchy is the best system? Bullshit. What would be the point in separating the articles anyways, in that case? Also, yes, it does mean 'no ruler'. Heh, as Bartolomeo Vanzetti put it, anarchists are "the radical of the radical -- the black cats, the terrors of many, of all the bigots, exploiters, charlatans, fakers and oppressors. Consequently we are also the more slandered, misrepresented, misunderstood and persecuted of all." To quote David Weick's summary of anarchism (and by extension anarchy), "Anarchism can be understood as the generic social and political idea that expresses negation of all power, sovereignty, domination, and hierarchical division, and a will to their dissolution. . . Anarchism is therefore more than anti-statism . . . [even if] government (the state) . . . is, appropriately, the central focus of anarchist critique."
- tl;dr: "The term anarchy comes from the Greek, and essentially means 'no ruler.' Anarchists are people who reject all forms of government or coercive authority, all forms of hierarchy and domination. They are therefore opposed to what the Mexican anarchist Flores Magon called the 'sombre trinity' -- state, capital and the church. Anarchists are thus opposed to both capitalism and to the state, as well as to all forms of religious authority. But anarchists also seek to establish or bring about by varying means, a condition of anarchy, that is, a decentralised society without coercive institutions, a society organised through a federation of voluntary associations." -Sρΐяαl.Дгсђıτέςτstand up and shout 14:55, 1 November 2008 (EDT)
- I don't quite see what point you're trying to make. The distinction between the two articles is that anarchy has at least two different interpretations, while still effectively meaning 'no rulers'. Anarchists propose a peaceful society in which there is total equality and no need for government. This is one meaning of anarchy; however the word is often used to mean a state of chaos when government has failed or collapsed. These societies are not 'true anarchies' in the anarchist sense of the word, since they frequently result in violence, looting, huge societal problems or organised crime taking over as an informal kind of government, all things which anarchists would not want. Hence the need to differentiate to two concepts of anarchy as a utopia, and anarchy as a breakdown in government. weaseLOId
~ 15:07, 1 November 2008 (EDT)
- Heh, utopia. Also, the current article says that 'anarchists believe in implementing anarchy' or something of the sort. If we're going to differentiate between anarchy and archic anarchy, then at least let's specify which one we mean, alright? However a breakdown in government hardly means that there is anarchy, especially when there are rulers. It doesn't matter if there are quite a few rulers, or no 'universally recognised' ruler, there are still rulers. The whole 'anarchy is chaos' thing is just people's opinions, usually coming from the belief that anarchy involves not only no rulers, but no rules (New order? Disorder). It deserves a passing mention, but that's about it. Anarchy goes from the bottom up, archy goes from the top down, mmk? (Private) Property is theft. Perhaps we can differentiate between the popular use of the term, and the use of the term in the anarchist movement? -Sρΐяαl.Дгсђıτέςτstand up and shout 15:31, 1 November 2008 (EDT)
- I don't quite see what point you're trying to make. The distinction between the two articles is that anarchy has at least two different interpretations, while still effectively meaning 'no rulers'. Anarchists propose a peaceful society in which there is total equality and no need for government. This is one meaning of anarchy; however the word is often used to mean a state of chaos when government has failed or collapsed. These societies are not 'true anarchies' in the anarchist sense of the word, since they frequently result in violence, looting, huge societal problems or organised crime taking over as an informal kind of government, all things which anarchists would not want. Hence the need to differentiate to two concepts of anarchy as a utopia, and anarchy as a breakdown in government. weaseLOId
- It claims that anarchy is a 'lack of government' or whatever at the top, and then claims that anarchists believe that anarchy is the best possible system. The word 'government' is too vague, IMO. For example, not many anarchists would accept Somalia as an example of anarchy. Also, the two articles could probably be merged. -Sρΐяαl.Дгсђıτέςτstand up and shout 00:54, 2 November 2008 (EDT)
- The two articles shouldn't be merged. The anarchism article was created as a result of this discussion. The reason we need two articles is because there are (at least) two meanings of anarchy. Have you read beyond the first line of the anarchism article? It explains some of the different types of anarchists & what they do & don't believe in. This article deals with the different meanings of anarchy, which can include societal chaos like in Somalia as well as the strictly anarchist meaning of a free & equal society. If you have a problem with the content of either article, why not edit them? That's what the wiki's built for. But I don't agree with merging them after we've taken the trouble to create the separate anarchism article as a solution to this problem. weaseLOId
~ 01:31, 2 November 2008 (EST)
- The two articles shouldn't be merged. The anarchism article was created as a result of this discussion. The reason we need two articles is because there are (at least) two meanings of anarchy. Have you read beyond the first line of the anarchism article? It explains some of the different types of anarchists & what they do & don't believe in. This article deals with the different meanings of anarchy, which can include societal chaos like in Somalia as well as the strictly anarchist meaning of a free & equal society. If you have a problem with the content of either article, why not edit them? That's what the wiki's built for. But I don't agree with merging them after we've taken the trouble to create the separate anarchism article as a solution to this problem. weaseLOId
[edit] Anarchy vs Mobocracy
I fail to see the distinction on practical grounds. On definition grounds, yes, anarchy is "no ruler" while mobocracy is "rule by the mob". But how, without a leader, do you ensure this lack of leadership (to stay truly "anarchic") and prevent mobocracy from occurring? Indeed, aren't they two sides of the same coin, as when you have anarchy, things descend into mobocracy - a more accurate term for the "descend into anarchy" that might be used to describe lawlessness. Without a ruler, you have a power vacuum ready for people to take, and the resultant squabbles are all based on what the mob wants to support at any one time (and remember not to confuse what the mob wants, with what a majority wants). After all, in mob rule any rule can be overridden, so it may as well be the case that there are no actual rules that are fixed. But, they're overridden by powerful individuals - at least in so much that power in mobocracy is assertiveness multiplied by support, so mob rule can work with one powerful individual ruling or a hundred less powerful ones ruling, and at all times this is fluctuating because it's just a sub-trope of anarchy. This is especially galling when anarchists try to talk about it being beautiful and fair and great freedom for everyone. What utter bullshit, when you turn to anarchy you get mob rule by fiat, and in mob rule the minorities or the unassertive get no voice, because they're completely drowned out by the assertive and the majority. Anarchy therefore leads to less freedom and less fair ruling, because the mob is self-interested and unaccountable. ADK...I'll pander your tomfoolery! 10:50, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
- In anarchy you have individuals doing whatever they like. In mob rule you have mobs doing whatever they like. Anarchists are quite happy to ignore the wishes of the mob - as is sometimes demonstrated here. I agree that the results may seem to be the same but the way of getting there is different.--BobSpring is sprung! 11:16, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
- Which is why my objection is that they're the same on practical grounds. It's like arguing that the path of least action and Newton's laws of motion are totally different things - they might be, but lead to the exactly same result anyway. A mob can be any sized, including a mob of one. And in mob rule if that one is strong enough, they can have rule. The distinction that "one is individuals, the other is mobs" is fairly arbitrary in that case, and so might only be applicable to describe that short instant that happens after you dispose of an established ruler but before the mob(s) start to form but that's hardly meaningful when discussing a system of rule (or lack of). There is also nothing about mobocracy that says you have to obey the rule of the mob, as you can just form your own mob and try and steal back power. This is true in all systems, of course, but it is implicitly encouraged in this case. ADK...I'll cruise your imitation fake vomit! 11:25, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
- I disagree that you can have a "mob" of one.--BobSpring is sprung! 12:29, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
- Which is why my objection is that they're the same on practical grounds. It's like arguing that the path of least action and Newton's laws of motion are totally different things - they might be, but lead to the exactly same result anyway. A mob can be any sized, including a mob of one. And in mob rule if that one is strong enough, they can have rule. The distinction that "one is individuals, the other is mobs" is fairly arbitrary in that case, and so might only be applicable to describe that short instant that happens after you dispose of an established ruler but before the mob(s) start to form but that's hardly meaningful when discussing a system of rule (or lack of). There is also nothing about mobocracy that says you have to obey the rule of the mob, as you can just form your own mob and try and steal back power. This is true in all systems, of course, but it is implicitly encouraged in this case. ADK...I'll cruise your imitation fake vomit! 11:25, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Similarly "However, most anarchists would not accept this as being 'anarchy', as there were still rulers and major hierarchies, such as class and rule by warlords". Isn't rule by warlords the inevitable result of anarchy? Hmmph (talk) 16:30, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
