Can anarchy survive on a large scale?

[Sync182]

Your concept that we can have anarchy with structure is meaningless - Anarchy is the lack of structure.

 

This is wrong, and even wikipedia disagrees with you. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism

 

I'm not exactly going to put my faith in an on-line encyclopedia that anyone can edit to suit their own needs/beliefs/perceptions/experiences...

 

One could almost argue that Wikipedia itself is an example of anarchy at work, given that it is open to editing by anyone, and there are few controls that exist to regulate what information goes into it. If you then turn around and state that Wikipedia does have controls that govern what is entered into it, then you're also agreeing that any form of control is the denial of anarchy.

 

Anarchy (true anarchy, that is - not the half-baked crowd who protest against governments under the guise of anarchy without realising that they are not really anarchists) is the absence of a control structure. As soon as a structure of control is introduced, anarchy disappears.

[imperistan]

Wow, people still believe Wikipedia is unreliable. Hilarious, especially considering that any changes made that aren't legitimate get reversed within hours if not within a single hour. Especially when it comes to such a large section as the section on anarchism within wikipedia.

 

Anarchy (true anarchy, that is - not the half-baked crowd who protest against governments under the guise of anarchy without realising that they are not really anarchists) is the absence of a control structure. As soon as a structure of control is introduced, anarchy disappears.

 

Again, demonstrably false that, yet again, relies on the completely wrong definition of anarchy. You can't use one definition of a word to disprove another definition of the same word, it doesn't work that way.

 

I can't disprove the validity of the word scale (as in, a tool for measuring things such as weight) with the definition of the word scale (as in, to proportionally increase one or all of an objects dimensions).

[kvnchrist]

In what reality does browbeating opponents with ones opinions of others opinions grant anyone credibility.

[sukeban]

In what reality does browbeating opponents with ones opinions of others opinions grant anyone credibility.

I don't think he's trying to browbeat anyone. I'll admit that his vision of anarchy isn't quite what I imagined in the OP, but I'll also grant that definitions of terms have room to grow and change. That said, I do think that another term should be coined to differentiate (for the sake of helping out its proponents) what people normally (for better or worse--likely worse) think of when they hear "anarchy" and what he is talking about. He is really arguing for one thing and you another, yet both are calling it the same thing.

 

It's probably not your intent, but I do think that arguing against what imperistan is arguing for by referencing "there are no rules, man!" old-style anarchy is somewhat of a straw man. He's just asking people to address his revised theories on their merits rather than defaulting into the same arguments that people have used to refute old-style anarchy since time immemorial.

[imperistan]

^ Bingo.

 

Thing is about the definitions of the words (that I didn't really touch on in my last posts) is that both anarchy (chaotic) and anarchism and all the rest all share the same root word, which as it happens has evolved to perfectly describe it all rather accurately.

 

The real confusion comes to specifics. Anarchy is an easier word to type out than anarchism, anarchist society, etc etc so its often used even by anarchists who'd have nothing to do with chaotic anarchy just as a matter of shorthand. So when someone gets caught up on that word, regardless of whether its been specified countless times that the intended use is different from what they think, we end up seeing what we see in this thread. Coining a new term would help stem the confusion (and perhaps finally rid anarchism of the old notions of chaotic anarchy), but in general that'd be a pain and not only that, you'd have to get people to accept it otherwise they'll just throw out that you're not talking about anarchism and notch a win on their bedposts.

[Sync182]

Hold on there, folks.

 

What is the title (and core topic) of this thread?

 

Can anarchy survive on a large scale?

 

It doesn't mention anarchism, it doesn't reference an anarchist society...so why are these things being brought into the debate to prop up arguments and points?

 

So, given that some think that Wikipedia is 100% factual and the only source you can truly rely on, let's examine it.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchy

 

Some use the term "anarchy" to refer to a society without a publicly enforced government or violently enforced political authority. When used in this sense, anarchy may or may not be intended to imply political disorder or lawlessness within a society.

 

"...society...without...enforced government...or...political authority"; "...political disorder or lawlessness". Seems pertty clear-cut to me. In this definition, anarchy cannot survive, given the human predilection for order and cohesion - which is a fair point to assume, when you take into account the simple fact that if you broke the rules of this site (ie displayed anarchist tendencies to rebel against or disregard authority), you'd likely be banned.

 

Others, including most individuals who self-identify as anarchists, use the term to imply a system of governance, mostly theoretical at a nation state level. There are also other forms of anarchy that attempt to avoid the use of coercion, violence, force and authority, while still producing a productive and desirable society.

 

The first part implies that not even the anarchists know what anarchy means, they don't know what they stand for; they've made a new defiition that better suits their needs. That, in itself, is a leaning towards anarchy. The second is a "soft" definition of the term, in that they get around the definition by making their own to suit their belief in a lack of a control/authority structure, while still engaging in ordered activity...which defeats the true nature of anarchy.

 

Changing the definition of words to prove a point in an argument (and I'm NOT saying it's been done in this thread) is like changing the rules of the game at half-time.

Edited February 7, 2013 by Sync182

[imperistan]

^ Your entire argument up there falls apart if you actually read the OP, but whatever. I'll respond anyway.

 

Seems pertty clear-cut to me.

 

More relying on the wrong definitions (wrong here denoting definitions not being referred to in this thread unless specifically stated) to try and prove your point.

 

I for one think you're wrong because you're making no sense when you say clear cut. A cut is nowhere near being clear, and is in fact very bloody and hurts. You don't want to hurt me do you? DO YOU?! :rolleyes:

 

which is a fair point to assume, when you take into account the simple fact that if you broke the rules of this site (ie displayed anarchist tendencies to rebel against or disregard authority), you'd likely be banned.

 

Anarchy, in its most basic definition, means to be without rulers. Not rules. There is a MASSIVE difference. Society does not need the iron hand of singular, unquestionable, impersonal, and unopposed authority to maintain its internal rules. (which it technically has anyway, depending on what books you get your hands on. This particular school of thought can be called Practical Anarchy, among other things)

 

This is especially comes to be true when you come to accept that certain actions will automatically revoke your right to say NO, regardless of what level of freedom exists in that society, namely because of the severity of that act. Just because you're given the closest thing to absolute freedom that can rationally be afforded to a person, that does not give you right to murder or to rape or (depending on the status of private property) steal.

 

As the old adage goes, your right to swing your fist ends at the other person's nose. And in the interest of sustainability (note that the word "order" is often a loaded term, particularly when it comes to this kind of a discussion. Thus I prefer to not use it too much and instead use sustainability, a more honest and accurate term), it would then become societies right to exact justice for the wrong done.

 

Changing the definition of words to prove a point in an argument (and I'm NOT saying it's been done in this thread) is like changing the rules of the game at half-time.

 

I wasn't aware anarchism has reached the point in its theoretical and political lifetime that its definitions were set in stone, and that all former, current, and possible definitions had been abolished in favor of the one definition that happens to support your own arguments (Which by the way aren't even arguments, its all just bickering over definitions which allow you to conveniently refuse to acknowledge and respond to the actual arguments made). Communism has the same problem anarchism has, but I bet you wouldn't start bickering over definitions there. (or may be you would, but at that point I"d have to question whether you'd really have any place in that topic)

 

I also wasn't aware that it was impossible and illegal to develop a new theory within an umbrella of theories. Its actually rather funny when I see opponents do as you are now, as it implies that you're actually trying to impede our progress by refusing to acknowledge that progress can and must be made in a theory until it has reached apex of its development. Anarchism (only being little more than a century old mind you) is nowhere near that level of development, and won't be for some time.

 

Democracy as we know it took thousands of years to get to where it is now from its primitive origins. It may very well take anarchism that long as well (Though its doubtful. Our ancient ancestors didn't have the wonder that is the internet to help speed the development of thought), but that doesn't give you the right to shoot down our arguments just because they haven't been established as a full-on school of thought.

 

 

I would also like to point out (again I think), that I do not believe in anarchism either, not because of any disagreement with its internal workings but more with the situation of it. I don't believe one is afforded enough freedom within anarchy, and instead prefer to take up autarchism, or, self-rule, and as an off-shoot, self-reliance. I'm the hardcore individualist of hardcore individualists (so to speak), for its only someone like me that will tell even the anarchists that they are too oppressive.

Edited February 7, 2013 by imperistan

[kvnchrist]

Anarchy, in its most basic definition, means to be without rulers. Not rules.

 

Maybe I'm a little confused, but isn't it the nature of society to have some sort of leadership to at least speak for the group. Is this not a governing body at it's most basic terms. It's not the size and shape of a national government, but if Anarchy is eradicated at the most basic social groups, could it survive anywhere at any time.

 

Maybe I've got this wrong, but it's how I perceive the issue here.Thank you

[Sync182]

Your entire argument up there falls apart if you actually read the OP, but whatever. I'll respond anyway.

 

I'm responding to the question given in the thread title. I asusme that's allowed.

 

Anarchy, in its most basic definition, means to be without rulers. Not rules.

 

So...how does one have a hierarchical structure if there is no ruler? If a society operates on Rules, then there must be some authority figure to enforce them, yes? Someone stepped up and made the rules, yes? You can't have Rules if there is no enforcement of them - otherwise there would be absolutely no point in making rules in the first place.

 

As soon as rules are introduced, there is order and structure...and bye-bye anarchy.

 

It seems that your "most basic definition" shoots itself down.

Edited February 8, 2013 by Sync182

[Ghogiel]

Someone stepped up and made the rules, yes?

Not necessary that a someone stepped up and made the rules.

 

You can't have Rules if there is no enforcement of them - otherwise there would be absolutely no point in making rules in the first place.

So rules can in fact be part of an Anarchy, it is not a strict requirement that rules can only be created and upheld by a 'leader' or other high level governing body that all members of the society are subordinate to.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_order

As soon as rules are introduced, there is order and structure...and bye-bye anarchy.

 

It seems that your "most basic definition" shoots itself down.

In theory Anarchy is a structured society. Order doesn't need to be created and maintained by an 'authority', it is just an idea that something is structured. A farm, or any part of society can be structured, and rows of corn ordered. But does it need a government to make it so?