Should Anarchy be given a new name?

As most people on here know, the original meaning of the word anarchy as a political concept is simply "without government" and also called libertarian socialism

However the word anarchy as defined in the popular media and the minds of the majority of the world just means chaos, without organisation or mayhem and used in phrases as "descended into anarchy". Not many people know the origins of the word and often see anarchists as mindless punks who just want a fight with the police for the sheer hell of it.

So, even though it's all semantics, should we stop using the word Anarchy and start using expressions like "libertarian socialism" more, or even just create a new word entirely?

 

I think anarchists should be labeled " rebels without a back up plan or feasible mission", instead.

 

There shows your complete lack of understanding of anarchism.

 

Aye, I have to disagree with this also. I've got a lot of time for anarchist philosophy. There is a lot of merit to the movement, and they have a lot of great ideas. I'm not an anarchist, but I think the best elements of anarchy can be taken with elements of other leftist anti-capitalist philosophies to create a very real idea....

 

Considering I agree with Bug Man, tell me, what IS a feasible alternative to the many types of government already on Earth? I have read anarchist literature--it's nothing but an over-romanticization of systems that will never work anyway. In fact, I even wrote a 5 page essay on the subject of why it won't work. Anarchy overlooks the complexities of our modern world and shows no appreciation for the good things that have come out of capitalism. And no, I'm not a 100% capitalist either; at least I can acknowledge that nothing is perfect when it comes to a means of social control (even under anarchy there would have to be a way of acknowledging the inevitability of crime). My problem with anarchists is they NEVER lay out a feasible plan of what to do instead. What's the point in bitching if you're not going to help anything?

 

Firstly you can shove your governments.

Secondly I'm sure your apologist essay on behalf of the wonderous beauties of capitalism was an artwork your very proud of.

Thirdly, I doubt you ever met an active anarchist, you certainly havent met me.

And finally if you want lessons in 'anarchism' read An Anarchist FAQ, as I can't be arsed to derail this thread with someone who isn't too interested anyway...

 

And fourthly, get this week's Big Issue, this week's Big Issue folks! One pound, in the hat

 

Seriously though Paul, that's a toughy and personally I am at a loss on this question and have been for a while!

I hope that as the direct action movement grows as it is at an amazing rate that new terms/names will naturally evolve...shame is it's likely to be the media that create them!!

 

Same with communism and socialism. They both have connotations which are extremely negative. New names aren't as important as fresh ideas though I feel....

 

Anarchy, the absence of government, is impossible. Under anarchism, human nature dictates that power and government is thrown over to whoever owns the biggest stick.

 

And now I can lay the charge of making sweeping generalisations at your door. Conversely, what is government if not the people with the biggest sticks? Look at the Bush administartion, hardly a representative cross section of American society....

 

Anarchy is human nature at its utmost best, capitalism is human nature at its worse. You only have to look at the examples of anarchy in action to see this.

 

^^rofl. Alright then. So we can all agree that an anarchist government would'nt work?

edit: directed at PP

 

Yeah, the only point anyone's made so far is that anarchy is brilliant because other forms of government are slightly flawed. It's absurd. I apologise if it's been done already in the thread, but I would love to be directed to some proof that anarchy has ever worked in practise.

 

I'd like to see you prove YOUR statement.

Or would your 'proof' entail a long list of humanity's brutalism under Capitalist society?

I for one have more faith in our species, given the opportunity, the skies the limit.


Anyway....nicely derailed.

 

I completely agree with SC. Might makes Right, it's as simple as that. If I can overpower you... well it does'nt matter what you think, does it? All anarchy does is lead to an organized government. Why not cut the bullshit and just start a government properly?

 

I'd actually cite "Lord of the Flies". You're asking me to prove a negative, it's impossible to do so, there is no concrete evidence one way or the other that anarchy would or wouldn't work, so you have to base it on theoretical extrapolation.

If you work to the assumption that human beings are inherently peace-loving, egalitarian and benificent, then anarchism might work. But there is a shitload more evidence that human beings are corruptible, weak, avaricious, lascivious, gluttonous and cruel. There's so much evidence that to reference a specific example would undermine the vast weight of others.

Working to the assumption that human beings aren't all kind and benevolent, extrapolating an anarchist model leads someone seizing power, simply because that is the way human beings are. The reason that anarchy doesn't work is because, in the absence of government, some kind of government will invariably form. People need to eat and to survive. In the absence of government, it is possible for someone to steal away another's food and shelter to further their own survival. Government is required to aportion these basic amenities fairly.

In the absence of government, you have no guarantee of your rights, because as soon as someone is able to take them away, you are only as able to defend them as your fists are.

 

Like I said...that's what I thought you'd say.

http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/secI5.html#seci513 if you care to read it.

Now back to Paul's thread?

 

This is the bit I have trouble with. It makes vast assumptions about anarchistic society, like assuming that everyone involved in the movement would be in it for the right reasons. It says that they would have organised themselves, but that in itself is a form of government, and who does the organising?

Also, as I already said, saying that other ideologies allow power to be taken by whoever has the biggest stick is only the same as saying "Other systems are ass shit as anarchy is". This is not a valid argument in favour of anything.

This, is tandom with your signature, confirms every generalisation I've ever made about those who subscribe to anarchism. If you want to argue on that level:

Nihilism > anarchism.