From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page is automatically archived by Archiver
Archives for this talk page:

Atheist A[edit]

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)

Indeed, we do: Scarlet A.png

Ta da! Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 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? Atheist circled A.gif Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 02:10, 31 October 2008 (EDT)
Although, this: Metal atheist A.jpg
is much more reminiscent of the violently-drawn anarchist "a in a circle" than the previous. Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 02:10, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

Having decided to read this article[edit]

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. Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 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)


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. weaseLOIdWeaselly.jpg~ 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. weaseLOIdWeaselly.jpg~ 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)

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. weaseLOIdWeaselly.jpg~ 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)
"Perhaps we can differentiate between the popular use of the term, and the use of the term in the anarchist movement". Exactly, that's why we now have two articles. I thought that's what you were objecting to. . . . ? weaseLOIdWeaselly.jpg~ 16:02, 1 November 2008 (EDT)
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. weaseLOIdWeaselly.jpg~ 01:31, 2 November 2008 (EST)

Anarchy vs Mobocracy[edit]

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)

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)

The Problem with Anarchy[edit]

So... our article curiously doesn't go into the biggest flaws in Anarchism in general. That is;

  • Large scale construction projects absolutely require a hierarchy of some sort
  • Ditto for research projects, e.g., the LHC and the space program
  • Some people simply are smarter or more skilled than others, and not everyone's input is equally valid in every discussion
  • Any type of highly skilled profession is going to require some sort of certification process, which is going to require an organization with a hierarchy. Unless you like the idea of anarchist medicine
  • Etc

Not sure where to begin, or how.

So, anyone want to chime in? Am I horribly misguided on these points, am I missing other major points? I just want to restrict it to things that Anarchists can't just say "Nuh uh!" to. CorruptUser (talk) 03:52, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Keep it simple. Start with, 'Do anarchists spank their children?', 'What does an anarchist do when their 5 year old says, "Fuck you,"' or do anarchists make their kids wash their hands before coming to the table. If any of these are true, they are more forms of authoritarianism or paternalism than anarchy. Then include your list, which is bound to be endless. nobs 04:52, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
I can preface this by saying that I've talked to a lot of anarchists and used to kinda be one in a sense of the word. The biggest issue I've seen with anarchy is kinda baked into the premise. There's no way to enforce anarchy, if people are free to associate they can create new states, some of them might be utopias and some of them might be shit and the shit ones might try to take over the utopias. Anarchy is the original state of humanity, but there is a reason it didn't last. Any ideology that requires something close to 100% buy in from everyone is never going to work. The problems you bring up are predicated on the assumption that anarchists don't believe in any hierarchies at all and are hopelessly egalitarian. A lack of a state does not necessitate the lack of certification boards. Depending on whether you're syndacalist or ancap, there can be council or private organizations for such things. Huge projects that require an immense amount of resources would indeed be more difficult but not necessarily impossible. Anarchist nations can still be big and still pool resources and do big projects, but again that requires an unrealistic amount of cooperation and buy-in from the people involved. Hentropy (talk) 05:48, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
I think that in anarcho-communism, worker councils or the commune would evaluate who is qualified for what. In anarcho-mutualism I'm sure there would also be a similar organization, since the means of production are owned by the workers. In "anarcho"-capitalism and anarcho-individualism this question doesn't have to be asked. But frankly, you should just ask to anarchists themselves these questions, and there are many places in the internet to do that.
Well, you can start by reading their answers there : (talk) 09:40, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
That also had me skeptical, that's why I think anarchism would be a process, a tendency a direction, probably bound to be imperfect, but the right word I think it's balance, basically enough people need to voluntarily maintain this balance and of course also find it convenient to do so. :Such balance would be making no one reach the power egemony but handling the conflict at a low level. Basically enough people need to practice the anarchism to make it possible. It needs a different way to see the economy, participating in attributing value to a work, criticizing the money and devalue it dynamically depending on the situation. Ensure a reciprocity and mutualist cycle of reinforcement. About the skill, I don't see a problem in recognizing objective skill and the fact that this makes one more qualified. That's not authoritarianismo or hierarchy but a rational division of roles, for the necessity of people skilled in their tasks, whatever they are (of course in a different way). Of course it's not indeed a pure anarchy, but more like libertarianism inspired by anarchy in the sense of no centralized power. :) -- (talk) 00:12, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
In my opinion, and just as with so many other "-isms", anarchy is unworkable as nice as may sound because of human nature. What works well on isolated, small communities where everyone meets everyone cannot do the same on large scale (and especially in the modern world so technologized) where, as stated at first, not everyone is equal to others and especially that not everyone is equal means for every kindred person there will be other that is the opposite and will take advantage of that on its benefit in one way or in another even if it was possible to destroy all weapons on the planet. Sooner or later hierarchies -thus states- would pop up again. (Limited) resources are another issue; it they were limitless things could be different still.
More than often to be anarchist it's just the product of hormones on teenagers and young adults, to rebel against society and because it sounds cool. Just like Objectivists, whose members include young people who joined it for similar reasons, I seriously doubt some of those those who call themselves anarchists will know anything about its philosophy and it's just an excuse to do whatever they want. --Panzerfaust (talk) 21:33, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
That's not at all Bakunin or Kropotkin idae of anarchy, that of doing whatever one wants. It would also means other person are organized to prevent another to phisically takeover, but also to symbolically takeover, which is what most of current power position consist of, capital, finanancial mediation? That's completely symbolical power, especially if you look back at bargaining. Of course I also think the ideal anarchism is hardly possible but tendencial anarchism is, with enough participation. Though nowadays I think it needs to be built on an international cooperation of individual, for mutual help and exchanging. Basically people are turned against each other in terms of nation and because of their propaganda, even if most of them don't actually benefit from the clash and competition between them, only people at the top, hence it's just an illusion on which is based the feeding identitarian nationalisms and racisms and fundamentalism. By collaborating, people would stop to see in each other the soulless hiveminded enemy the media painted them to be, which reinforced eachother's closed identity, muslims (at least many of them) would stop seeing infidels allied to exterminate and invade their population and other people would stop seeing fundamentalist invaders, as fundamentalism and xenophobia are both defensive reactionaries identities which grow more in specific situations. They would start to realize that the oppression is tranversal and more to be gained is there by helping each other resist against the exploiters, also transversal class to most nations, than to fight. The resource are also relatively scarce, but it's the very concentration which is the problem and needs to be contrasted and prevented in first place. This is only a small part of the problem, but seems to exemplify :)-- (talk) 23:16, 11 May 2017 (UTC)