Most informative/useful/interesting post of the week/month

chekov wrote:

905 wrote:The idea that people should work is not radical, but I thought anarchism was about breaking old trends. Would people be forced to work?

I would disagree with Vodovnik and Zinn, I think that putting the confusion over the word 'anarchy' directly down to fearful powers is ignoring the history and everyday use of the word. Or have the powers that be corrupted the dictionaries in some sort of Orwellian twist? Certainly Vodovnik's idea that the word is being misused makes no sense to me, as if there were was only one correct way of using the word.

Forgive my insistence on arguing semantics but the thread is supposedly about the misunderstanding of anarchism. I would agree that the status quo is afraid of anarchism, of course they would be! To claim that it is 'true democracy' is a bit strong though, implying that all other froms of democracy are false. What if people want control, as Edo argues? Is that not their democratic wish?

The etymology of the word comes from Athens of the fifth century bc. The archos was the elected leader - although his powers were increasingly constrained as the century progressed, eventually becoming a figurehead. For several years in the 460 b.c.s the records indicate "an archos" - no leader.

The word was introduced into English as a synonym for chaos in the 16th and 17th century (during the period when scholars were consciously attempting to make English less Ango-Saxon and more classical).

In the mid 19th century, the french 'mutualist' Pierre Joseph Proudhon, declared himself an anarchist. This was a conscious attempt to challenge the assumption that "no leader" = chaos. The idea that societies needs a leader with special powers to give orders was and remains deeply embedded in social discourse, to the extent that it's embedded in our language itself. The choice of label was a deliberate attempt to challenge this assumption, as well as a means of indicating how great a rupture anarchism would be with the current system of social organisation.

So, in summation, the 'chaos' meaning was not invented to blacken the names of anarchists - it preceded them. It does, however, embed a particular idea of social organisation in the language itself.

However, that's not to say that there has been no name-blackening. Ever since the anarchist movement emerged in the 1870's, there has been a persistent and sustained effort to smear, vilify and slander its name. It is a tendency which is philosphically and politically more removed from violence than pretty much any other political tendency bar pacifism, yet in our media it is almost synonymous with violence. It is a tendency that tends to attract thoughtful, questioning people, deeply wedded to the principles of education, coopearation and debate, yet it is most commonly associated with unthinking teenage rebellion or some sort of personality defect. The common associations are, more or less, purely the inventions of the enemies of anarchism. You occassionally find somebody who is attracted the the nihilist tabloid image of anarchists and, based upon that, decides to call themselves an anarchist - but that's pretty rare. I've met thousands of anarchists from all over the world and I only remember encountering such people on two occassions ever - such eejits generally don't stick around long anyway.

The strength and depth of the anti-anarchist misinformation is breath-taking. On many occassions, in conversation with others, I've challenged the slanders about anarchists by using myself as an example of what anarchist actually believe and do. I regularly receive a response along the lines of "yeah, but you're not a real anarchist". The amazing thing is that in most of these cases I'm the only effing real anarchist the people have ever met.

Auditor #9 wrote:

The question makes oil look very ordinary which it is or should be. People survived before without it didn't they? Even though there is 6 times the number of people on the face of the earth now probably as a result of the wealth oil has brought to the people of the planet, we will all survive when it goes, won't we? People are ingenious and will invent ways to get around a lack of oil, won't they...?