an?ar?chism (nr-kzm)
n.

1. The theory or doctrine that all forms of government are oppressive and undesirable and should be abolished.
2. 
   Active resistance and terrorism against the state, as used by some anarchists.
3. 
   Rejection of all forms of coercive control and authority: ?He was inclined to anarchism; he hated system and organization and uniformity? (Bertrand Russell).

Anarchism is the philosophy that there should be no laws and no government. Therefore, combining the term "anarchism" with any political philosophy that advocates government of any sort is a contradiction in terms.

The term "anarchy" became a hip rebellious in-word among the punk subculture of the 70's (for example, the Sex Pistols classic song "Anarchy in the U.K.), at which point it's meaning became muddled among posers of that sort. Their usage of the word is always pretty meaningless.

However, most political theorists still use the dictionary definition given above. Anyone who uses the term in another sense demonstrates ignorance.

Anarchy is what exists in Lagos, Nigeria, right now. It is not a desirable state of affairs. Anyone's rights can be trampled with impunity.

Libertarians would be offended to have their philosophy defined as "conservative anarchism".

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: msm on 2002-02-04 10:42 ]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: msm on 2002-02-04 10:43 ]</font>

On 2002-02-04 10:40, msm wrote:
an?ar?chism (nr-kzm)
n.

1. The theory or doctrine that all forms of government are oppressive and undesirable and should be abolished.
2. 
   Active resistance and terrorism against the state, as used by some anarchists.
3. 
   Rejection of all forms of coercive control and authority: ?He was inclined to anarchism; he hated system and organization and uniformity? (Bertrand Russell).

Anarchism is the philosophy that there should be no laws and no government. Therefore, combining the term "anarchism" with any political philosophy that advocates government of any sort is a contradiction in terms.

The term "anarchy" became a hip rebellious in-word among the punk subculture of the 70's (for example, the Sex Pistols classic song "Anarchy in the U.K.), at which point it's meaning became muddled among posers of that sort. Their usage of the word is always pretty meaningless.

However, most political theorists still use the dictionary definition given above. Anyone who uses the term in another sense demonstrates ignorance.

Anarchy is what exists in Lagos, Nigeria, right now. It is not a desirable state of affairs. Anyone's rights can be trampled with impunity.

Libertarians would be offended to have their philosophy defined as "conservative anarchism".

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: msm on 2002-02-04 10:42 ]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: msm on 2002-02-04 10:43 ]</font>

Here is a supplement: http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/secA1.html

madscientist: <font color=blue>True, but what about the other issues?</font>

I'm glad you agree.

The other isssues weren't in the poll, in any of thew reports I saw. All I have seen are reports that said, essentially "Look, the kids support legalizing marijuana. Look, they support gay marriage." and somehow concluding that the Millies are liberal.

The poll missed a big piece of the equation: where do they stand on issues of government management of the economy? Are they for higher taxes?

I'm aware, of course, that the term "liberal" is problematic, although the term "classic liberal" has arisen to stand in for what "liberal" used to mean 200 years ago. Here, I'm using the term in the sense it's is currently used on the contemporary American scene.

Since all Millies are quite young, my stance it, even the Millies don't know what they stand for yet. Young people's opinions are still being formed when they are in their teens and early twenties. (That's why advertisers target them.)

madscientist: <font color=blue>Here is a supplement...</font>

I opened that link and began reading it. I quickly recognized it as being the sort of thing I've read many times before.

There are people who try to redefine "anarchism" to mean something else, but they have always been in the minority. I could write an essay about how when I say "black" I really mean "gray", but nobody would take me seriously. The majority does not, and never will, take anarchists seriously.

The very article you linked agrees that "the term is very misunderstood". The question is, who is misunderstanding?

I especially like the "anarcho-syndicalist" who try to pretend they're not socialists. What a hoot!

At least "libertarianism" has a place under the conservative tent. "Anarchism", per se, is found only among people quite divorced from the real world. I would avoid the label if I wanted to be taken seriously.

I tend to make a distinction between "anarchy" and "anarchism".

When I use the term "anarchy", I use it in the liberal sense, as being without order.

"Anarchism", as I use it, is very different from "anarchy". Anarchism is a social theory that states that coercive organizations are evil. But in no way does "anarchism" mean chaos. Anarchism always arises in a dynamist (Second or Fourth) turning, while it lays dormant in a stasist (First or Third) turning.

Usually, "anarchists" are not against government, per se. What anarchists are rebelling against is "bad government".

American culture has a very strong anarchist/libertarian element. Unlike the rest of the world, the American dynamists turnings all have a strong anarchist element. In fact, our nation was founded upon the ideals of anarchism. And recall that S&H say that 4Ts usually start out with an anti-market and anti-global-power phase. This is the anarchist phase. The late 1670s and the 1680s were anarchist periods. The 1770s and 1780s were likewise very anarchist periods in our history. The original Articles of Confederation was an anarchist document. In the 1930s, this same brand of anarchism was very prevalent.

If there is one thing we can observe, it is that anarchism leads to order. When people participate in the destruction of the old, they are paving the way for the construction of the new. This is how chaos theory works. During a 1T, the order is very secure. In the 2T, the order starts extremely secure, but internal elements begin to break it apart. In a 3T the order starts to decay. In a 4T, there is a sudden destruction of the order, and a quick replacement of a new one. This is where anarchism comes in. Whenever there is too much order, anarchism weakens this. Whenever there is little order, anarchism breaks the old order, and forms a new.

<font color=blue>anarchism leads to order</font>

because people don't like to live in anarchy.

I get your gist, but I'm sorry, Thomas Jefferson saying that having a revolution every now and then is a good thing does not mean he was an "anarchist".

You seeem to be saying that anarchists want to destroy the old (bad) order to pave way for the new (good) one. Why don't they identify themselves with the new (good) one, instead of the transitory transitional state? It's just silly.

While I have little desire to enter into the nit-picky portion of this anarchy debate, it did get me to thinking about how we (meaning the rest of us regular folks out here) use the term.

In my 30 years of teaching history, I've realized that the use of the term "anarchy" and "anarchist" depends alot upon point of view. To illustrate, TJ and the Fore-Boys were not considered anarchists during my childhood education; they were more akin to heavenly angels sent to save this savage land from the Evil Mother England and the indigenous Evil Natives. The perceived anarchists we labelled for educational purposes then were along the lines of Emma Goldman, Mexico's mythical Zapata, and even Ayn Rand at one point, as I recall. :smile: I also recall that anarchy was believed to be not so much of an ideology as a political action that was anti-order (chaos) for its own sake, without anything else or better in mind. For example, Goldman was considered a socialist / communist who believed in anarchy as a means to her end. The perception was that she just wanted to break things apart for no good.

Once the teaching of American history began to lose its nationalistic or propoganda-ized influence, though (ie, the 70's), the term began to take on more dimension and definition. And, for the first time that I knew, the Forefathers were included as possibles. And, it's all because of point of view.

Looking back in retrospect, this modern viewpoint of the ForeDads seems to make the most sense to me. But, then, I don't consider anarchy to be Evil in all circumstances, you see. Certainly, one can credibly argue, that in that time, the ForeDads were definitely perceived as anarchists, at least by the Old Order and conventional wisdom/custom. And I believe they either feared (and perhaps a few were proud of the fact) that they indeed were, or at least they knew the perception was very present. As an aside, I always thought John Locke was a big closet anarchist fantasizer, who liked to keep the door open all the time and walk in and out whenever it suited him. Sometimes it takes that, to get people to notice your ideas. :smile:

Also, I do believe there is a definite Anarchy Stage in the process. Old Order --- Anarchy ---- New Order (which either succeeds or things return to Old or Anarchy).

Oh, and I forgot to add, that the event which kicked off the anti-anarchy scare in the 20th century was of course the assassination of President McKinley by a self-titled anarchist, Leo Something-Russian, I think (sorry, slept alot since then).

"Has 911 Triggered a 4T?"

The Winter Oympic torch run came through my community this morning. With so much talk about security and terrorist threats, and 911 still in our minds, I thought the parade through town would be a real patriotic bash ("USA! USA! USA!). Remember Utah is solid red zone. Yes, there were lots of American flags,and much red white and blue, but the Olympic rings dominated, and the spirit was one of welcoming the world to Utah.

Native Americans were the honored speakers.
Every one joined together to thank the Great Spirit for the beautiful day.

Very joyful and peaceful. The tragedy of 911 was forgotten for awhile.

msm asks.. You seeem to be saying that anarchists want to destroy the old (bad) order to pave way for the new (good) one. Why don't they identify themselves with the new (good) one, instead of the transitory transitional state? It's just silly.

It is much easier to see that the current establishment is flawed, needs to be improved or replaced, than to get a fractured 3T culture to agree on what the replacement should look like. This is why a regeneracy is necessary. I think it is clear that this is not the best of all possible worlds. As Peter Paul and Mary sang...

If I had my way... If I had my way, in this wicked world... If I had my way I would tear this building down.

It is far easier to tear down buildings than build something truly new. The lack of focus on these pages, arguments over definitions of words, discussions on abstract levels that barely address real world lives, illustrate.

On 2002-02-04 14:09, Bob Butler 54 wrote:
As Peter Paul and Mary sang...

If I had my way... If I had my way, in this wicked world... If I had my way I would tear this building down.

Interesting, Bob, that you would quote this song. I've been re-listening to that same Peter, Paul, and Mary CD this week. Maybe they answer themselves later on (courtesy of Lee Hays of the Weavers, I believe):

It's the hammer of justice, it's the bell of freedom, it's a song about love between my brothers and my sisters, all over this land.

Maybe that's what we should build the future upon.

Kiff '61

Anarchism is nearly useless as a tool to describe a political philosophy. Break to word down: "An-" ('not', or 'without') "-arch-" ('ruler'). Anarchy, alone, offers no clue as to what the world should be. It's pretty much impossible to be a rational person and hold the philosophy of 'anarchism'.

However, modifiers can be added to the concept of 'anarchy' -- or rather anarchism added to another system -- to express the type of world you want to live in.

For example, an anarchist socialist wants to live in a society set up around the socialist ideal. S/he understands and accepts, however, that this is not everyone's ideal, and that people who want to live another way are under no obligation to follow her lead.

On the flip side, a market anarchist (sometimes anarcho-capitalist) has his own idea of a desireable society. He and the anarchist socialist are no threat to one another. There are certainly other flavors to which the spice of anarchism can be added. All it really does is affirm that the basic nature of whatever society is desired is to be non-coercive. That freedom to live as one wishes encompasses freedom to [try to] establish whatever type of society suits you -- provided you don't try to force it on anyone else.

The fundamental difference between libertarians and market anarchists (their closest counterpart) is that, while libertarians see the good they could do by seizing the reins of power, anarcho-(anythings) see no need for the reins in the first place, and would be happier without them.

I submit that libertarianism without anarchism is self-contradictory at its most basic level; the basic tenet of the non-initiation of force may be broken to prevent the dissolution of the libertarian State.

On 2002-02-04 14:43, Kiff '61 wrote:

On 2002-02-04 14:09, Bob Butler 54 wrote:
As Peter Paul and Mary sang...

If I had my way... If I had my way, in this wicked world... If I had my way I would tear this building down.

Interesting, Bob, that you would quote this song. I've been re-listening to that same Peter, Paul, and Mary CD this week. Maybe they answer themselves later on (courtesy of Lee Hays of the Weavers, I believe):

It's the hammer of justice, it's the bell of freedom, it's a song about love between my brothers and my sisters, all over this land.

Maybe that's what we should build the future upon.

Kiff '61

It's been tried. Usually ends painfully.

On 2002-02-04 09:45, Bob Butler 54 wrote:

"statist conservatism" is also a contradiction in terms, madscientist! Conservatives are opposed to the trend of greater power of the State.

And yet one group of people I worry about are religious moralists who wish to use the power of the state to impose thier sense of morality on everyone. The Taliban take this to an extreme. Our religious right does it as well. From a Libertarian position, Freedom of Religion means you cannot use the power of the state to impose religious values on others with differing systems of morality. This might be one of many basic issues we must address in the near future.

Everyone wants to impose their morality on others, since morality simply refers to one's beliefs about what good and evil are.

The degree and nature of the imposition varies, but all the factions in the Culture War seek to impose their morality on the society. To some degree, that's what the 3T and 4T periods are about.





<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: HopefulCynic68 on 2002-02-04 23:36 ]</font>

On 2002-02-04 06:21, msm wrote:
"statist conservatism" is also a contradiction in terms, madscientist! Conservatives are opposed to the trend of greater power of the State.

*exasperated*

By no means! Liberals (social libs anyway) want to use the State to Do Good in society, to engineer superior results within the society, the create a more 'fair' society, since they see the natural tendency as being Progress, which should be encouraged.

Conservatives want to use the State to suppress the Libs, and to enforce Tradition, since they see the natural tendency as being Decline, which must be fought.

(Those are both radical, almost laughable oversimplifications, but they do form the seed cores of the two sides.)

Justin'77 writes:

<font color=blue>Anarchism is nearly useless as a tool to describe a political philosophy. Break to word down: "An-" ('not', or 'without') "-arch-" ('ruler'). Anarchy, alone, offers no clue as to what the world should be. It's pretty much impossible to be a rational person and hold the philosophy of 'anarchism'.</font>

Agreed. Put another way, people are trying to define "anarchists" as anyone who wants to change the existing order. Practically everyone wants to change something about the existing order, so this would make everyone an anarchist, rendering the term meaningless.

The meaning of "anarchist" that always rises to the top of this muddle in the minds of people in general is "someone who believes that all government should be eliminated". The qualifier "coercive" is irrelevant, as all forms of government are coercive to a certain extent. No man is an island; we live in societies that effect us.

<font color=blue>However, modifiers can be added to the concept of 'anarchy' -- or rather anarchism added to another system -- to express the type of world you want to live in.</font>

You're beginning to lose me.

<font color=blue>For example, an anarchist socialist wants to live in a society set up around the socialist ideal. S/he understands and accepts, however, that this is not everyone's ideal, and that people who want to live another way are under no obligation to follow her lead.

On the flip side, a market anarchist (sometimes anarcho-capitalist) has his own idea of a desireable society. He and the anarchist socialist are no threat to one another. There are certainly other flavors to which the spice of anarchism can be added. All it really does is affirm that the basic nature of whatever society is desired is to be non-coercive. That freedom to live as one wishes encompasses freedom to [try to] establish whatever type of society suits you -- provided you don't try to force it on anyone else.</font>

The concept of a "society of societies" is interesting, one where you could pick and choose among which governmental plan you live under, which tax code you live under, which menu of government benefits you receive. However, implementing such a plan would be complicated and be problematic. (Would socialists be allowed to drive on roads built by the capatalists?) For now, we all have ONE Congress and ONE set of laws. While that is the case, your definition of "anarchism" is also false.

<font color=blue>The fundamental difference between libertarians and market anarchists (their closest counterpart) is that, while libertarians see the good they could do by seizing the reins of power, anarcho-(anythings) see no need for the reins in the first place, and would be happier without them.</font>

If "seizing the reins of power" means winning elections and eliminating laws which deprive individuals of freedom, yes, that's what libertarians want. As for anarchists, they can ignore the "reigns of power", but they can't just wish those laws away. They'll still be jailed for breaking them.

<font color=blue>I submit that libertarianism without anarchism is self-contradictory at its most basic level; the basic tenet of the non-initiation of force may be broken to prevent the dissolution of the libertarian State.</font>

This it completely illogical. You are quite wrongheaded about this. Libertarianism is not self-contradictory because libertarians accept that government is neccessary. Murderers should be "coerced" to not kill. Rapist should be "coerced" to not rape. Libertarians are not against government.

Perhaps one of you budding "anarchists" could explain how murderers could be dealt with in a "non-coercive" way.

Anarchism is at best meaningless, at worst the philosophy of nihilists and terrorist thugs. It is associated in the minds of the majority with assassins, window-smashers, sanctimonious fools divorced from the real world, bomb-throwers, socialists, and terrorists, whatever you want to believe it is.

Your best idea is of somehow establishing a society where people could choose among a menu of governmental policies. (This idea is not new, incidentally). But this is not anarchism.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: msm on 2002-02-05 05:46 ]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: msm on 2002-02-05 05:47 ]</font>

On 2002-02-04 23:23, HopefulCynic68 wrote:

On 2002-02-04 14:43, Kiff '61 wrote:

On 2002-02-04 14:09, Bob Butler 54 wrote:
As Peter Paul and Mary sang...

If I had my way... If I had my way, in this wicked world... If I had my way I would tear this building down.

Interesting, Bob, that you would quote this song. I've been re-listening to that same Peter, Paul, and Mary CD this week. Maybe they answer themselves later on (courtesy of Lee Hays of the Weavers, I believe):

It's the hammer of justice, it's the bell of freedom, it's a song about love between my brothers and my sisters, all over this land.

Maybe that's what we should build the future upon.

Kiff '61

It's been tried. Usually ends painfully.

Still gives me a reason to get up in the morning, though. Someday we'll get it right. :smile:

Kiff '61

On 2002-01-31 23:09, madscientist wrote:
Xers have circled the wagons in March 2000.

Excuse me, but since when have Xers been "circling the wagon"? And why March 2000, of all times? Does that have something to do with the age the oldest of us were turning? I certainly didn't see any whopping change in direction in my generation around that time.

On 2002-02-05 15:27, voltronx wrote:

Excuse me, but since when have Xers been "circling the wagon"? And why March 2000, of all times? Does that have something to do with the age the oldest of us were turning? I certainly didn't see any whopping change in direction in my generation around that time.

I noticed a very sharp change in March 2000. This was the month of the Nasdaq bust. From what I saw, before March 2000, the nation was still in the hyper mode. The Tech industry was still very large and red-hot. Xers seemed to be partying a lot. After March of 2000, I noticed a distinct change. Xers turned more conservative, began to focus more on family, and started to feel more "old". From what I've seen, the Dot-Com bust removed the glitz and roar of the 3T. The rest of the 3T was more quiet, until E2K.

<font color=blue>Xers turned more conservative, began to focus more on family, and started to feel more "old".</font>

It's bad enough when a Millie claims to speak for all Millies, but I draw the line when one claims to know what's on the minds of all X-ers. You got any statistics to back up your observations? How many X-ers do you hang with?

Millies are just entering their most stupid years, punk; we X-ers are now in our prime.

"Watch your mouth, kid, or you're going to find yourself floating home!" :wink:

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: msm on 2002-02-05 16:52 ]</font>

Wow msm such hostility :???:

I guess YOU are still an Xer at heart anyway! A bunch of tough-guy survivalists, vieing for living space in the jungle of chaotic America. No family or civic consciousness there!

Plus you seem to think Bush really won the election :lol: :lol:

Talk about making excuses for the retrograde attitudes. :razz:

On 2002-02-05 16:50, msm wrote:
<font color=blue>Xers turned more conservative, began to focus more on family, and started to feel more "old".</font>

It's bad enough when a Millie claims to speak for all Millies, but I draw the line when one claims to know what's on the minds of all X-ers. You got any statistics to back up your observations? How many X-ers do you hang with?

Millies are just entering their most stupid years, punk; we X-ers are now in our prime.

"Watch your mouth, kid, or you're going to find yourself floating home!" :wink:

Obviously, the tone of your post indicates to me that you are not trying to debate nor dialogue, but instead to bash. So let me talk a little bit of sense into you.

voltronx wrote:
<font color="red">Excuse me, but since when have Xers been "circling the wagon"? And why March 2000, of all times? Does that have something to do with the age the oldest of us were turning? I certainly didn't see any whopping change in direction in my generation around that time.</font>

Read this post carefully. Notice that he is asking me questions. What are you supposed to do when someone asks you a question? Yes, that's right. You are supposed to tell that person why you feel that way, and what you've seen to make you form an opinion about something.


madscientist wrote:
<font color="blue">I noticed a very sharp change in March 2000. This was the month of the Nasdaq bust. From what I saw, before March 2000, the nation was still in the hyper mode. The Tech industry was still very large and red-hot. Xers seemed to be partying a lot. After March of 2000, I noticed a distinct change. Xers turned more conservative, began to focus more on family, and started to feel more "old". From what I've seen, the Dot-Com bust removed the glitz and roar of the 3T. The rest of the 3T was more quiet, until E2K.</font>

Now, let's look at my reply. He asked me how I came to my conclusion. In the blue text above, I write how I came to that conclusion. Nowhere did I imply that he was wrong, or that I was right. And if I am wrong, the proper response would be to attack the idea, not the person.

And another thing. This is called a discussion forum. This means that we discuss things. So am I supposed to NOT ever speak a word about other generations? If I have an opinion that I think is revelant to the discussion of generations, then I am going to post it. What would this board be if Xers said nothing about Boomers, or vice versa, or that we didn't discuss GIs? Maybe we should make new rules stating that you cannot talk about another generation because we are ignorant. Because we are all TOO ignorant of the generations.

And by the way, I can find sources, but expect me to dig deep into some archives, if you want it.

_________________
Robert Reed III (1982)
---------------------------------------------
"Where they have burned books, they will end in burning human beings." -- Heinrich Heine
"Not to know is bad, but to refuse to know is worse." -- A Gambian Proverb

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: madscientist on 2002-02-05 19:09 ]</font>

On 2002-02-05 17:57, Eric A Meece wrote:

Wow msm such hostility :???:

I guess YOU are still an Xer at heart anyway! A bunch of tough-guy survivalists, vieing for living space in the jungle of chaotic America. No family or civic consciousness there!

Plus you seem to think Bush really won the election :lol: :lol:

Talk about making excuses for the retrograde attitudes. :razz:

Now, now, Eric. Don't judge all Xers by Marc S. M...I mean MSM. I'm more the tough-guy survivalist (libertarian). MSM appears to be a fascist (neocon) bootlicker.

We saw this same game played out in nations on the European continent at this point in the last saeculum. My faction disappeared completely. MSM's triumphed...temporarily. Past is prologue.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Stonewall Patton on 2002-02-05 18:38 ]</font>

Patton:

Are you hinting that msm is Mark S. Lamb.too?

I have had the thought that this 4T Forum consists of two or three History Grad students hired by Strauss and Howe to post their brains out.

I can just picture them in a room somewhere, far far away.