Anarchy, as a word, is scary

[space_ice_cream]

I suggest that the people who have decided to call the system of self government currently described as "political anarchy" change the name of this sytem and call it something like "total democracy" or something like that. Just the word "anarchy" comes along with so much baggage and so many negative preconceptions that it is just not wise to continue using this term.

I say this because I know you people will need support to fight your battle against the the greedy capitalists, and I think you are hindering yourself by using terminology like this.

[redstar2000]

It is an unfortunate fact that people are very attached to their favorite terminology...even in cases where reality has long rendered particular words obsolete.

But you or anyone is always free to "make up a new word"...and see if people will accept it.

But it's a tough project. :o

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Anarchist Freedom]

Usually im quick to break through the stigma with people. Its not hard for me to get rid of it when I show them through my actions that its not always chaos.

[space_ice_cream]

I think that it would be best for somebody who studies political science to make up the word. I don't think I am qualified for the job.

[Organic Revolution]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2005, 10:27 PM
I think that it would be best for somebody who studies political science to make up the word. I don't think I am qualified for the job.
ha, thus creating a ruler of anarchism... but hey atleast were not called hippies.

[Donnie]

I suggest that the people who have decided to call the system of self government currently described as "political anarchy" change the name of this sytem and call it something like "total democracy" or something like that. Just the word "anarchy" comes along with so much baggage and so many negative preconceptions that it is just not wise to continue using this term.

I say this because I know you people will need support to fight your battle against the the greedy capitalists, and I think you are hindering yourself by using terminology like this.
I like the word Anarchy and Anarchist, it's a word that says "Our movement means business", even though many people associate the word with chaos it's easy to break through that naive view. I mean I'm reading a book called "Ecology & Class" by the AF and some girl I know said since when were anarchists bothered by the environment? I explained to her and it was easy to break through her naive view.

But anyway I sometimes say to people I'm and anarchist or I'm a struggler for libertarian communism.

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

I don't use the word anarchy, but I do use anarchism and anarchist. I do come out for being an anarchist in discussions, but usually not directly. There is this stigma around this word which makes people stop listening to you. So i'll make sure that I already got their interest.

[violencia.Proletariat]

its not so much that people think its bad, its when i talk to people they wont take me seriously ;) . i kinda like the reputation though, "hey dont talk to him he's an anarchist" :P .

[space_ice_cream]

<Usually im quick to break through the stigma with people. Its not hard for me to get rid of it when I show them through my actions that its not always chaos. >

The problem is not that it goes much deeper then being just a stigma, it is literally defined as being disorderly. Go to www.dictionary.com, here is how they define anarchy:

"Absence of any form of political authority.
Political disorder and confusion.
Absence of any cohesive principle, such as a common standard or purpose."
also...
"n : a state of lawlessness and disorder (usually resulting from a failure of government)"

This is a problem of definitions. The idea of political anarchy seems to be one in which the majority are the "political authority" over the individual, but apparently the dictionary seems to imply that anarchy is total lack of any political authority so that the desires of only the individual are paramount to the desires of the majority (capitalism).

[space_ice_cream]

<I like the word Anarchy and Anarchist, it&#39;s a word that says "Our movement means business",>

It is a powerful word and that is probably why you like it but I think it is the kind of power you do not want. It makes your movement seem like some idealists movement instead of a seriously well thought out social argument.

<even though many people associate the word with chaos it&#39;s easy to break through that naive view.>

but it isn&#39;t a "naive view", it is literally defined by modern dictionaries as disorganized and with no authority...This is not the same as political anarchy, in which the majority is the authority figure. Using this word for your movement does not make any sense because, even though you can trace it&#39;s defintion back to the greek definition "without a ruler", it is not described this way in modern dictionaries.

<I mean I&#39;m reading a book called "Ecology & Class" by the AF and some girl I know said since when were anarchists bothered by the environment? I explained to her and it was easy to break through her naive view.>

You see, I don&#39;t think the girl was being naive. She was responding to anarchy as the modern definition describes it, not as your movement describes it (in the root sense). The problem is that the definition you are using is not modern.

<But anyway I sometimes say to people I&#39;m and anarchist or I&#39;m a struggler for libertarian communism.>

My opinion is that the definition you are using goes against modern dictionary definitions and as a result is not just confusing in a minor way, it is a complete contradiction in the modern sense.

[bolshevik butcher]

A lot of anarchists seem to call themselves libertarian socialists, i call myself that sometimes, as well, because a lot of people seem to associate communism with the authoratarianism of stalin and mao.

[The Feral Underclass]

I think that if we are going to replace the word anarchy or anarchism with something we should adopt the word Situationist or as Malatesta suggested Associationist

[Clarksist]

It is a powerful word and that is probably why you like it but I think it is the kind of power you do not want. It makes your movement seem like some idealists movement instead of a seriously well thought out social argument.


All movements are idealist. That&#39;s what makes them movements. If someone isn&#39;t willing to hear Anarchists out right now, what will if they changed their name to Orderists?


but it isn&#39;t a "naive view", it is literally defined by modern dictionaries as disorganized and with no authority...This is not the same as political anarchy, in which the majority is the authority figure. Using this word for your movement does not make any sense because, even though you can trace it&#39;s defintion back to the greek definition "without a ruler", it is not described this way in modern dictionaries.


It is a naive view because only people who are naive would use the dictionary and not an encyclopedia to know what an ideology is.

So if you are only going to use a "modern dictionary" you&#39;d also think Communism is Stalinism, Capitalism is Godly, and that Anarchism is disorder. In other words, those who wish to grasp a political ideology with a few lines is VERY naive.


My opinion is that the definition you are using goes against modern dictionary definitions and as a result is not just confusing in a minor way, it is a complete contradiction in the modern sense.


I&#39;m very sorry to say this but: your opinion is wrong.

The dictionary is the one that is going against hundreds of years of Anarchist literature.

The "contradiction" has been made by people against anarchism. They have forced the contradiction.

It doesn&#39;t get much simpler then that.

[JC1]

I Think this is a falicous argument, and here is why. If you guy&#39;s called "Anarchism" "Total Democracy", everthing associated with "Anarchism" would be re asscociated by the machine with the "Total Democracy" moniker. This tactic only works for bourgoise movements, becuase they already have "freinds in high places" ( EG the Nazi Movement in the US uses the "Christian Facist" moniker).

Also, I find that it dosent take an experincied comrade long to de-program someones notions about Marxism.

[space_ice_cream]

<All movements are idealist. That&#39;s what makes them movements.>

I guess I phrased that too vague or used the wrong word for my meaning. I meant it makes your movement seem like an "idealist" movement in that the dictionary definition of "anarchy" presupposes the followers of such a belief must feel that democracy can occur without any form of authority (even the authority of "the people" in general against the individual). This would seem like a starry eyed view of human nature, one which assumes that the nature of the individual works hand in hand with the nature of the majority...which it clearly does not.

I&#39;m sure this is what is going through most peoples minds who get enraged at the idea of anarchy. They think it is foolish...But apparently "political anarchy" does not go hand in hand with this idea, the modern definition.

<If someone isn&#39;t willing to hear Anarchists out right now, what will if they changed their name to Orderists?

It wouldn&#39;t carry all the dead weight of people assuming your movement is an obviously foolish movement in the way I described above (one which assumes that the nature of the individual goes hand in hand with the nature of the majority)

<It is a naive view because only people who are naive would use the dictionary>

Using the dictionary to find the definition of something is not "naive"

<and not an encyclopedia to know what an ideology is.>

Not everybody owns and encyclopedia, and not everybody goes to thier local library to get a reference about every single word they use. For instance, Satanists use the same argument you are, that if you look them up you would find that it is truely pagan and that it is not truely evil, etc, etc...but the realisty is that they are calling themselves "SATANISTS" and that comes along with alot of baggage. If they intend to start a serious following they should drop "satanists" and use the word "pagan" instead. Maybe they would develop a stronger more serious following instead of just a bunch of people with x&#39;s on thier foreheads and skull tattooes who have subscriptions to high times. Do you catch my drift?

<I&#39;m very sorry to say this but: your opinion is wrong.>

My opinion is "wrong"? I&#39;m sorry, but opinions can not be wrong. That is why they are opinions. And on another level, I don&#39;t even think you have proven my opinions to be bad, let alone wrong.

<The dictionary is the one that is going against hundreds of years of Anarchist literature.>

Yeah...but hundreds of millions of people who read the dictionary are. Are you going to go door to door offering to explain the difference and the reason why the dictionary is wrong?

<The "contradiction" has been made by people against anarchism. They have forced the contradiction.>

I don&#39;t think so. Can you tell me this then: what is the definition for a society which has no ruling at all (even by the people as a whole). I would love to hear your definition and where you got it from,

[space_ice_cream]

I have a right to my opinion, it is not "wrong". I don&#39;t think your movement will get anywhere as long as you have that confusing stigma attached to it. But keep on doing what you want, it really seems like your way of doing things is winning the war against the capitalists...

[space_ice_cream]

<I Think this is a falicous argument, and here is why. If you guy&#39;s called "Anarchism" "Total Democracy", everthing associated with "Anarchism" would be re asscociated by the machine with the "Total Democracy" moniker.>

Maybe you are right, but i challenge you to define a system of "absence of authority", since political anarchy is not absence of authority and the majority is the authority over the individual, so...What is absence of authority?

[Clarksist]

Using the dictionary to find the definition of something is not "naive"



Not everybody owns and encyclopedia, and not everybody goes to thier local library to get a reference about every single word they use.


Wikipedia is free. While I realize not everyone has the internet, they would be extremely naive to only use the dictionary as the source for explanation of political ideology. Especially if they aren&#39;t willing to hear someone out on their beliefs.


For instance, Satanists use the same argument you are, that if you look them up you would find that it is truely pagan and that it is not truely evil, etc, etc...but the realisty is that they are calling themselves "SATANISTS" and that comes along with alot of baggage. If they intend to start a serious following they should drop "satanists" and use the word "pagan" instead.


Pagan? The word "pagan" has such baggage, that it would not gain anyone who wouldn&#39;t be as "extreme" as a satanist, but they would LOSE satanists because they want the shocking word of satanism.

Either way, the "machine" would call them on the name change, and would make an even bigger mess out of the ordeal. Making it seem we are trying to trick the masses by concealing Anarchism or Communism.


My opinion is "wrong"? I&#39;m sorry, but opinions can not be wrong. That is why they are opinions. And on another level, I don&#39;t even think you have proven my opinions to be bad, let alone wrong.


You&#39;re opinion that you stated is wrong because the dictionary saying one thing and contradicting what something is is not the "modern sense" of contradiction.

It is a direct contradiction put in place for direct reasons. There is no euphemism needed to soften what is going on.


Yeah...but hundreds of millions of people who read the dictionary are. Are you going to go door to door offering to explain the difference and the reason why the dictionary is wrong?


No, but are you willing to go door to door to explain Anarchism under the new name you&#39;ve cooked up for it?

Its the same battle. Anarchism you must fight through the baggage, but if you made a new name you have to fight through the feeling of it being a "crack pot" untried theory.

Except, by making a new name, you&#39;d still have Anarchists calling themselves just Anarchists, and you&#39;d also have to convince them of changing their title.


Can you tell me this then: what is the definition for a society which has no ruling at all (even by the people as a whole). I would love to hear your definition and where you got it from,


The definition? You&#39;ve been forcing the definition down our throats for the past couple of days. The "definition" would be Anarchy.

However, the actual "none ruling" society would be more of a chaotic-y. That&#39;s it, Chaoticism.

PS, you&#39;ve posted three posts right in a row with no input between them. This is kinda "dangerous" and may be seen as post-whoring/spamming. To keep it safe, edit the last post if no one has posted after your last one. That way you won&#39;t get in any trouble.

[space_ice_cream]

<Wikipedia is free. While I realize not everyone has the internet, they would be extremely naive to only use the dictionary as the source for explanation of political ideology. Especially if they aren&#39;t willing to hear someone out on their beliefs.>

Wikipedia is not even a real encyclopedia. It can be edited by anybody.

<Pagan? The word "pagan" has such baggage, that it would not gain anyone who wouldn&#39;t be as "extreme" as a satanist, but they would LOSE satanists because they want the shocking word of satanism.>

They will never be able to build public churches with the word "satanism". They will never get real support, just the same as you guys will always only be supported by kids with mohawks and outcast teenage girls who paint thier nails black and sew patches into thier bookbags.

<You&#39;re opinion that you stated is wrong>

No, my opinion is an opinion...Opinions can not be wrong.

<because the dictionary saying one thing and contradicting what something is is not the "modern sense" of contradiction.>

Ok, let me put it this way: Anarchia (where the word Anarchy came from) is defined as one thing. Anarchy is defined as something else. Not only that, but I can argue that Anarchia could be used to define almost all modern governments, since it (if we are getting all specific and anal here about definitions as you seem to be getting) is defined as "without a leader", America is without a "leader" singular, it has "leaders" plural. In fact, the only governments that seem to have a "leader" singular, are modern communist regimes. But I&#39;ll bet I&#39;m defining this too specifically for you...It probably seems a little silly to you. That is how I felt when you started explaining that anarchy as the greek definition.

<It is a direct contradiction put in place for direct reasons. There is no euphemism needed to soften what is going on.>

It would just be a clarification of the meaning.

<No, but are you willing to go door to door to explain Anarchism under the new name you&#39;ve cooked up for it?>

I didn&#39;t "cook it up"...I LOOKED IT UP at dictionary.com, just like everybody else on earth uses a dictionary to find the defintion of words.

<Its the same battle. Anarchism you must fight through the baggage, but if you made a new name you have to fight through the feeling of it being a "crack pot" untried theory.>

All theories start out untried.

<Except, by making a new name, you&#39;d still have Anarchists calling themselves just Anarchists, and you&#39;d also have to convince them of changing their title,>

I think using the ancient greek version would be more specific to your meaning.

<The definition? You&#39;ve been forcing the definition down our throats for the past couple of days. The "definition" would be Anarchy.>

I haven&#39;t been forcing anything, it&#39;s readily available. Open any dictionary.

<However, the actual "none ruling" society would be more of a chaotic-y. That&#39;s it, Chaoticism.>

You just made that up.

<PS, you&#39;ve posted three posts right in a row with no input between them. This is kinda "dangerous" and may be seen as post-whoring/spamming>

It&#39;s obvious I am not spamming or post-whoring (whatever that means). I am just responding to the messages left for me by the people of this group. There were a few in a row because my browsers cache didn&#39;t reload and I thought my posts were lost. But if that gets me kicked off this board, then I think this board is pretty lame and I would rather write somewhere else anyway.

<To keep it safe, edit the last post if no one has posted after your last one. That way you won&#39;t get in any trouble.>

I have not been spamming or "post-whoring", I have been responding to posts which were written to me...And alot were written to me. I will not delete any of my messages however and will continue writing (not spamming or post whoring) until I am kicked off the board, which wouldn&#39;t bother me in the least.

[LSD]

Yeah...but hundreds of millions of people who read the dictionary are. Are you going to go door to door offering to explain the difference and the reason why the dictionary is wrong?

Not nescessary&#33;

There&#39;s this little thing called the internet, perhaps you&#39;ve heard of it, it&#39;s what you&#39;re using right now.

Education is always the first step. The people who balk at Anarchism because they don&#39;t like the name aren&#39;t the people who are liable to be active in the movement. Until they are informed on the politics, it really doesn&#39;t matter what they think about the name, and once they are informed, they really won&#39;t think about the name&#33;


Can you tell me this then: what is the definition for a society which has no ruling at all (even by the people as a whole).

Political nihilism.


No, my opinion is an opinion...Opinions can not be wrong.

That&#39;s ludicrous.

If it were my "opinion" that the world were flat, my opinion would be wrong. Calling something an "opinion" is not a blank check for failure to provide argumentation. Some opinions are right, some are wrong. If you want anyone to take yours seriously, you need to give them a reason.

[Clarksist]

Wikipedia is not even a real encyclopedia. It can be edited by anybody.


And its commonly edited by the Wiki community. Oh wait, that&#39;s a working form of communism and you don&#39;t like that sort of thing. :P


Anarchy is defined as something else. Not only that, but I can argue that Anarchia could be used to define almost all modern governments, since it (if we are getting all specific and anal here about definitions as you seem to be getting) is defined as "without a leader", America is without a "leader" singular, it has "leaders" plural.


America has several leaders, so it isn&#39;t without a leader. I thought that was pretty simple business. But apparently you have spoonfeed kids these days. ^_^


<No, but are you willing to go door to door to explain Anarchism under the new name you&#39;ve cooked up for it?>

I didn&#39;t "cook it up"...I LOOKED IT UP at dictionary.com, just like everybody else on earth uses a dictionary to find the defintion of words.


No, I mean if we change the word to mean political Anarchism, then we&#39;d still have to educate everyone about it. Please read my whole post.


In fact, the only governments that seem to have a "leader" singular, are modern communist regimes.


Ok, so I even had to quote the text you&#39;ve been saying you&#39;ve read "just last week" and it stated that under communism there is no state. And you now say that there can be a communist "leader" and "regime". *

This is getting more and more desperate by the moment.


All theories start out untried.


Exactly. And you&#39;ll have problems convincing people to "go out on a limb" and try this "new theory".

This all goes back to you saying Anarchists should make up a new word for Anarchism - still reading?


I haven&#39;t been forcing anything, it&#39;s readily available. Open any dictionary.


I&#39;m saying that you were constantly saying the definition earlier.


You just made that up.


Guilty as charged. :lol:

I believe LSD put a good (and real) term: political nihilism.


It&#39;s obvious I am not spamming or post-whoring (whatever that means). I am just responding to the messages left for me by the people of this group. There were a few in a row because my browsers cache didn&#39;t reload and I thought my posts were lost. But if that gets me kicked off this board, then I think this board is pretty lame and I would rather write somewhere else anyway.



I have not been spamming or "post-whoring", I have been responding to posts which were written to me...And alot were written to me. I will not delete any of my messages however and will continue writing (not spamming or post whoring) until I am kicked off the board, which wouldn&#39;t bother me in the least.


I&#39;m only pointing out that it may bother people. And most boards with a good amount of members won&#39;t tolerate chains of posts. I do not care, but you might piss some people off that you don&#39;t mean to piss off.

But, whatever you say man...




*"When, in the course of development, class distinctions have disappeared, and all production has been concentrated in the hands of a vast association of the whole nation, the public power will lose its political character. Political power, properly so called, is merely the organized power of one class for oppressing another. If the proletariat during its contest with the bourgeoisie is compelled, by the force of circumstances, to organize itself as a class; if, by means of a revolution, it makes itself the ruling class, and, as such, sweeps away by force the old conditions of production, then it will, along with these conditions, have swept away the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms and of classes generally, and will thereby have abolished its own supremacy as a class. In place of the old bourgeois society, with its classes and class antagonisms, we shall have an association in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all." - Karl Marx & Friedrich Engels, The Communist Manifesto.

[space_ice_cream]

<And its commonly edited by the Wiki community. Oh wait, that&#39;s a working form of communism and you don&#39;t like that sort of thing.>

I wouldn&#39;t be writing in a communist message board giving you people my opinions on how to help your movement if I wasn&#39;t trying to support it.

<America has several leaders, so it isn&#39;t without a leader.

It is "without A leader"....SINGULAR. It isn&#39;t "without leaders" PLURAL.

<I thought that was pretty simple business. But apparently you have spoonfeed kids these days>

Look, I&#39;m not your sonny boy. I am a grown man with opinions equal to yours. I think you should just try and respect that.

<Ok, so I even had to quote the text you&#39;ve been saying you&#39;ve read "just last week" and it stated that under communism there is no state. And you now say that there can be a communist "leader" and "regime". *>

Stalin? Lenin? Mao? Castro? These guys were not political leaders of communist regimes?

<This is getting more and more desperate by the moment.>

You certainly sound desperate, you are resorting to calling me a kid and that I need to be spoonfed. Whats next? Will you be calling me a capitalist worm or something like that?

<Exactly. And you&#39;ll have problems convincing people to "go out on a limb" and try this "new theory".>

The only people I have had trouble convincing are a handful of anarchists in this message board. It&#39;s not that surprising that few people here would agree with me. BTW, it&#39;s not a theory

<This all goes back to you saying Anarchists should make up a new word for Anarchism - still reading?>

I am not even trying to convince anybody, I am offering my opinions on how you can help your movement. You are perfectly welcome to disagree, but don&#39;t expect me to just turn around and run away when you present your big huge mature mentally endowed experienced opinion. I will defend my ideas until I feel you have convinced me I am wrong, which has not happened as of yet.

<I&#39;m only pointing out that it may bother people. And most boards with a good amount of members won&#39;t tolerate chains of posts. I do not care, but you might piss some people off that you don&#39;t mean to piss off.
But, whatever you say man...>

If people do not like the fact that I am responding to people who are writing to me on a message board, then i am sorry. I always thought this is what message boards were for, working out opinions and sharing ideas. Apparently new ideas are not welcome. Maybe next time i will just come in with an icon next to my name of the sex pistols.

<*"When, in the course of development, class distinctions have disappeared, and all production has been concentrated in the hands of a vast association of the whole nation, the public power will lose its political character. Political power, properly so called, is merely the organized power of one class for oppressing another. If the proletariat during its contest with the bourgeoisie is compelled, by the force of circumstances, to organize itself as a class; if, by means of a revolution, it makes itself the ruling class, and, as such, sweeps away by force the old conditions of production, then it will, along with these conditions, have swept away the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms and of classes generally, and will thereby have abolished its own supremacy as a class. In place of the old bourgeois society, with its classes and class antagonisms, we shall have an association in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all." - Karl Marx & Friedrich Engels, The Communist Manifesto.>

What is the purpose of this quote? Are you trying to tell me something?

By the way, one last thing, I don&#39;t really have the time to keep writing these long responses unless we are going to argue the topic at hand, but it feels like we in some kind fo vortex of "I don&#39;t like you" "You don&#39;t like me" and for some reason you refuse to hear me out for any reason you can grip onto, and that is fine. YOU DONT HAVE TO. Thank you for your opinions, if you have anything further to add, please do, but I don&#39;t want to just have a written arm wrestling match with you ending with insults...I just don&#39;t have the time for a myopic conversation like that.

[coda]

I&#39;m not so much concerned with the word.. or even the misunderstaning of the word, as it conveys the element of rebellion and class struggle in it and also the rejection of heirarchy and authoritarianism and all the classic anarchist principles. I am much more concerned that anarchism is seen and being represented by lifestylism, -- a laid back everybody do what you want- anything goes sort of tendency with emphasis on personal autonomy albeit, with leftist sentimentalities but with a rejection of class struggle and traditional anarchist and syndicalist methods in favor of it. I hope anarchism is not going to split off into a theory isolating itself off from the working class into predominate self-expressionism.

Welp, that&#39;s my gripe... for today atleast. It&#39;s been on my mind forawhile.

[space_ice_cream]

<I&#39;m not so much concerned with the word.. or even the misunderstaning of the word, as it conveys the element of rebellion and class struggle in it and also the rejection of heirarchy and authoritarianism and all the classic anarchist principles.>

I think that if you have a movement, the word and it&#39;s meaning should be clear. Though it does convey rebelllion and class struggle and rejection of hierarchy and authoritanarianism, it also portrays chaos and structureless society, it seems like something highschool kids who listen to punk rock would be into, not revolutionary politics for the working class. I don&#39;t know, that is just my opinion and you are perfectly welcome to disagree with it.

<I am much more concerned that anarchism is seen and being represented by lifestylism, -- a laid back everybody do what you want- anything goes sort of tendency with emphasis on personal autonomy albeit, with leftist sentimentalities but with a rejection of class struggle and traditional anarchist and syndicalist methods in favor of it.>

I completely agree. I also think that it feels so extreme that it scares people. political anarchy is not very extreme, it is based on the principles of "we the people" having the power, not "I the person (king)". It isn&#39;t as crazy as most people think. It is extreme but not in a chaotic way, it is only extreme in an ultra-democratic way...An Ultra-American way...At least, the original Americans, not modern Corporate America.

<I hope anarchism is not going to split off into a theory isolating itself off from the working class into predominate self-expressionism.>

Anarchy is so isolated right now that to have large groups of people take it seriously at this point is almost laughable. I think that a movement like anarchy will take over, but it will have it&#39;s own name...But the same concept. It may also take over without any overthrow or major widespread violence. It just needs to be presented in the proper way and sold to people like coca cola. The very idea of a real and true majority overthrow revolution would be enough to scurry most rats away like the forecast of a hurricaine. Most modern countries are at least slightly democratic on the surface. Modern communist regimes seem more embrassing than helpful. This is not the way a true revolution will surface. For a true revolution we need unity, advertising, political power and to be taken seriously by the public.

[Black Dagger]

I think that if we are going to replace the word anarchy or anarchism with something we should adopt the word Situationist...

Why?

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Black [email protected] 4 2005, 07:08 AM

I think that if we are going to replace the word anarchy or anarchism with something we should adopt the word Situationist...

Why?
There can easily be a synthasis between Situationist and anarchist politics and attitude.

[coda]

:)

am I the only person who loves the word anarchy&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33; Come onnnnnnn. without Archy, man. without Archy&#33;

It&#39;s not the word that is not clear. the word is right. An/without Archy/government, rule. It&#39;s those Dictionaries and nomanclature idiots trying to define and expousing on it in the wrong way.

there&#39;s way to much rich history invested in the word to drop it.

when I am trying to explain the theory.. i never mention the word right off. I more less present it as... "There is whole other social and economic system that...."
It entrances the person to listen everytime&#33;

[novemba]

The sad thing is the same goes for communism. Lemme demonstrate.

Sit. 1
-"So what&#39;s your political affiliation?"
-"I&#39;m a communist."
-"Oh my&#33; Aren&#39;t communists bad people who do bad things that are bad in the name of freedom?"

Sit. 2
-"So what&#39;s your political affiliation?"
-"I&#39;m a Marxist."
-"A Marxist? I&#39;m not completely familiar with that ideology. Can you please elaborate"?

Sit. 3
-"So what&#39;s your political affiliation?"
-"I&#39;m an anarchist."
-Yeah, I like the sex pistols, too. But seriously, what&#39;s your political affiliation?

Sit. 4
-"So what&#39;s your political affiliation?"
-"I&#39;m an anarchist."
-**runs away in fear**

[Clarksist]

It is "without A leader"....SINGULAR. It isn&#39;t "without leaders" PLURAL.


Well, Anarchism is without leaders, except EVERYONE in general. To just play around and make a straw-man out of anarchists by saying "America is what Anarchists want&#33;" is just saying it to piss off people.

I would hope that you would know Anarchists are very much AGAINST bureaucratic governments, seeing as many people have sent you vivid Anarchist FAQs.


Stalin? Lenin? Mao? Castro? These guys were not political leaders of communist regimes?


No. They were leaders of dictorial state-capitalist cluster-fucks. Seriously, I quoted the book that you have said you&#39;ve read several times and have used in defence of your opinions, yet you STILL say that communism can exist without Anarchism.

Please, I am not trying to get in a blinking contest, I&#39;m trying to pinpoint where your reasoning has failed so that you can see why almost EVERY communist feels this way. It is very frustrating when you don&#39;t read my entire post and instead take my quotes out of context.


Will you be calling me a capitalist worm or something like that?


No, you fascist pig. :P


BTW, it&#39;s not a theory


Anarchism is a political theory.


You are perfectly welcome to disagree, but don&#39;t expect me to just turn around and run away when you present your big huge mature mentally endowed experienced opinion.


What I meant is that you seem to be "skimming" my posts, as you&#39;ll comment on a sentence of mine, and take it out of context.


If people do not like the fact that I am responding to people who are writing to me on a message board, then i am sorry.


That&#39;s not the problem. The problem is that you make multiple posts in a row without anyone posting between them. Instead, you should edit the post if you read something you missed.

But I&#39;m guessing this isn&#39;t being read.


What is the purpose of this quote? Are you trying to tell me something?


That is a quote from The Communist Manifesto. Remember, that book you read last week? In that quote Marx and Engels lay the foundation for why Communism needs Anarchism. Just thought I&#39;d point that out, as you don&#39;t believe me when I say this.


It&#39;s not the word that is not clear. the word is right. An/without Archy/government, rule. It&#39;s those Dictionaries and nomanclature idiots trying to define and expousing on it in the wrong way.

there&#39;s way to much rich history invested in the word to drop it.


Exactly. Exactly.

-----

BTW, Necro Oner, I believe I&#39;ve seen all four situations played out. :lol:

[bombeverything]

I suggest that the people who have decided to call the system of self government currently described as "political anarchy" change the name of this sytem and call it something like "total democracy" or something like that. Just the word "anarchy" comes along with so much baggage and so many negative preconceptions that it is just not wise to continue using this term.

Ofcourse anarchism has a bad name, it threatens the existence of the state. I understand what you are saying, but why should we have to change the name because some people are ignorant?


It is a powerful word and that is probably why you like it but I think it is the kind of power you do not want. It makes your movement seem like some idealists movement instead of a seriously well thought out social argument.

This seems to be your opinion. Different dictionaries define it in different ways. Focus on the word anarchism rather than the word anarchy. Anarchy is what we want, but anarchism is a political theory which aims to create a society within which individuals freely co-operate together as equals.


It is a naive view because only people who are naive would use the dictionary and not an encyclopedia to know what an ideology is.So if you are only going to use a "modern dictionary" you&#39;d also think Communism is Stalinism, Capitalism is Godly, and that Anarchism is disorder. In other words, those who wish to grasp a political ideology with a few lines is VERY naive.

Exactly. Should all of these terms be reworded? Relying on a dictionary is hardly reliable. You have to criticise these definitions.

[Vallegrande]

It&#39;s not the word that is not clear. the word is right. An/without Archy/government, rule. It&#39;s those Dictionaries and nomanclature idiots trying to define and expousing on it in the wrong way.

Indigo said it right. It all comes down to linguistics and how you interpret the morphemes. Linguistics has been used as a way to create unity or divisions.

[Bannockburn]

Dictionaries will just confuse people more. Do you really expect to get an accurate definition of &#39;Philosophy&#39;, in 3 sentences? Well of course not. Same applies to anarchism.