Anarchy as a Innovation, can it happen?
Sep 16 2009 17:40
As a sophomore i am required to do this project that lets me choose something and show how it is a innovation. I believe that anarchy is a innovation because without anarchy there'd be no government. Government is to control, but if there is nothing to control there would be no government. So in that being said, anarchy is what gave reason to have government, but that does not mean the government is corrupted, right, and is as high and strong they claim to be. So my question is, once again, can and is anarchy a innovation?
Sep 16 2009 18:19
#2
Quote:
By 'anarchy' we mean a highly organised society that operates on the basis of equal power
The ways you can minimize a hierarchy vary in many different ways. Government was created or made to minimize chaos and disorder, but to go against government is anarchy and causes chaos and disorder.
Anarchy itself is to fight for what you believe in, to fight is to cause chaos and disorder to get what you believe. Anarchy comes in many forms.
Innovation as in, how it has helped us in history, 'us' as humans.
Sep 16 2009 18:38
#3
Quote:
Government was created or made to minimize chaos and disorder, but to go against government is anarchy and causes chaos and disorder.
Anarchy itself is to fight for what you believe in, to fight is to cause chaos and disorder to get what you believe.
I disagree with every single statement in the above post.
For t3h anarkeyzz.
~J.
Sep 16 2009 19:12
#4
learning how wrote:
Quote:
By 'anarchy' we mean a highly organised society that operates on the basis of equal powerThe ways you can minimize a hierarchy vary in many different ways. Government was created or made to minimize chaos and disorder, but to go against government is anarchy and causes chaos and disorder.
Anarchy itself is to fight for what you believe in, to fight is to cause chaos and disorder to get what you believe. Anarchy comes in many forms.
Innovation as in, how it has helped us in history, 'us' as humans.
like the other poster says, these statements are all incorrect.
Sep 17 2009 08:00
#5
Then give me a correct statement.
Sep 17 2009 11:38
#6
As Alderson said:
By 'anarchy' we mean a highly organised society that operates on the basis of equal power (i.e. with as little hierarchy as possible) and personal freedom (so that as many things as possible depend on the consent of the individual).
In this sense, it's not true that 'without anarchy there'd be no government'. Rather, with anarchy there'd be no government (by definition, since government is hierarchical and coercive).
We also don't think that the government's origin or purpose is simply to establish 'order'; it's to establish a certain kind of order, where some people exploit others. Government works to maintain and stabilise oppression.
That all seems pretty correct to me. I'm sure there are aspects of it you could describe as an innovation, tho, like basing the economy on the principles of mutual aid instead of the free market.
Sep 17 2009 15:24
#7
Anarchism seeks to progress towards a society based on mutual aid & cooperation (as opposed to rugged individualism and mutual struggle). A society which places individuality within the community and which is without illegitimate authority and governance. It seeks a highest form of (self)organisation based on humanity's basic social nature. As a political theory and practice it is part of the libertarian left; quite the opposite to the chaotic conditions seen in Somalia.
If you're doing an assignment on 'anarchy' maybe research some core terms like the Spanish civil war, prefigurative politics, participatory democracy, decentralisation, 'c'ommunism, grassroots federalism and legitimate authority.
Sep 17 2009 15:44
#8
learning how wrote:
Then give me a correct statement.
Anarchy is an absence of power structures, this is often taken to mean a free-for-all like Mad Max where might is right and so on. Ironically the people who claim this are often strong advocates of so-called 'free markets' and the violence required to maintain them.
Anarchism is a belief in a lack of power structures. The idea is that in a fair and equal society people will not need to be told what to do. Where there are structures in place these will be practical (for example you can't perform brain surgery unless you've been trained, but anyone who wants to can be trained) and any roles within these structures will be executive. For example my workplace might elect me as a delegate to attend a meeting on behalf of my co-workers. I will represent them and I will do what we have agreed that the representative needs to do. If I don't do what was agreed or my colleagues change their mindss they can vote to replace me. This is called a mandated, instantly recallable delegate.
Sep 17 2009 20:10
#9
Learning How, I want to say three things.
1. Innovation is when something new is concieved and tried. Your teacher is going to be looking for a clear description of how things were before, what the innovation was, how it was innovative, and how it actually changed things.
2. Anarchy is not a good topic for your paper. It would be impossible for you to get a clear understanding of how things were before government began, because it happened so long ago that even your best description would be full of guesses. You would also find that the innovation was government, not anarchy, and you'll end up writing a boring paper about government.
3. You've hit upon a very important concept and I encourage you to listen to the replies you are getting from others. Even though you'll probably want to write about something else, you really could learn a lot from this discussion. There is a lot of confusion about what anarchy means. Most people think that it is chaos, but it is not. I know that might be hard to understand, but try to remember that most people who describe anarchy do not like anarchy. They use words which make anarchy sound bad. If you keep talking to the others on this site, they'll help you understand what anarchy really is.
Sep 17 2009 20:23
#10
Remember:
How Things Were = Anarchy
Innovation = Government
How was it innovative? =
How was the new idea (government) different from what came before (anarchy)? This is hard to describe in a small paper. Those who wanted to create government thought that ... it would bring order? ... they could make people do what they wanted?
How did it change things? = What actually changed once the innovation was tried? Again, too much information for a small paper. Governments ... turned people into slaves? ... created Kings? ... led to taxation and war?
Sep 17 2009 20:29
#11
learning how wrote:
anarchy is what gave reason to have government
according to political science rooted in hobbesian philosophy. not according to a raft of empirical anthropological/archeological evidence that links it to the emergence or calorie surpluses in the agricultural revolution circa 10,000 years ago. this made a division of labour possible between those who governed and those who were governed.
learning how wrote:
So my question is, once again, can and is anarchy a innovation?
if you take 'anarchy' to mean the highly ordered egalitarian society known as libertarian communism as opposed to 'chaos' then certainly it's an innovation, imho.
Sep 17 2009 20:55
#12
Fordism was an innovation. Write about that.
Sep 17 2009 21:21
#13
learning how wrote:
Anarchy itself is to fight for what you believe in, to fight is to cause chaos and disorder to get what you believe
By this definition doing anything is anarchy since everyone "fights" for what they believe in one way or another. Even the blindest obedience to rules and laws will eventually get into a big chaotic mess as these are the product of often conflicting human wills, not immovable and eternal givens.
As has been stated above, anarchism as a "political philosophy" (for lack of a better term) is a highly developed (and innovative, yes) body of knowledge that has nothing to do with the scary (and completely illogical) Hobbesian notion of "the tyranny of all against all."
I'm not sure exactly what your paper has to be about, but if you're writing it about anarchy as innovation, then you should write about what would constitute an anarchist society (and there is plenty of information, on this site alone, you can use for this purpose), not about how anarchy is bad because it means fighting and wrecking things.
Sep 17 2009 22:04
#14
Anarchy as innovation? Try this bit of graffiti spotted a few years ago:
ANARCHY - THE KEY TO A DOOR
FASCISM - THE LOCK TO A CELL
Sep 18 2009 12:20
#15
Learning how, if you're still reading this (god help you poor child if you are), let me make a simple reccomendation, do your report not on "Anarchy," but "anarchism" and begin with the anarchist FAQ: http://www.geocities.com/capitolHill/1931/
Also, you seriously need to avoid anarchy (dot) net. They are a fascist front and I'm deadly serious when I say that: http://libcom.org/forums/thought/anarchist-fascist-website-13032008
Sep 18 2009 19:11
#16
My "paper" as you all have been calling it is a project in which I must show how anarchy has help,developed,forms of it, and yes even the irony of it all. As a bonus I choose to show how so many people use the same word, but have their own meaning, which when presented with my question, caused disorder in a text-written form.
Sep 18 2009 23:17
#17
"As a bonus I choose to show how so many people use the same word, but have their own meaning, which when presented with my question, caused disorder in a text-written form."
Berkman wrote:
Therefore I must tell you, first of all, what Anarchism is not.It is not bombs, disorder, or chaos.
It is not robbery and murder.
It is not a war of each against all.
It is not a return to barbarism or to the wild state of man.
Anarchism is the very opposite of all that.
Anarchism means that you should be free; that no one should enslave you, boss you, rob you, or impose upon you.
It means that you should be free to do the things you want to do; and that you should not be compelled to do what you don't want to do.
It means that you should have a chance to choose the kind of a life you want to live, and live it without anybody interfering.
It means that the next fellow should have the same freedom as you, that every one should have the same rights and liberties.
It means that all men are brothers, and that they should live like brothers, in peace and harmony.
That is to say, that there should be no war, no violence used by one set of men against another, no monopoly and no poverty, no oppression, no taking advantage of your fellow-man.
In short, Anarchism means a condition or society where all men and women are free, and where all enjoy equally the benefits of an ordered and sensible life.
From: http://libcom.org/library/what-is-anarchism-alexander-berkman
Sep 22 2009 20:19
#18
But where did Berkman get that from?
Sep 23 2009 13:37
#19
His experience and study of the anarchist movement?
Book's worth reading, my friend.
Sep 28 2009 19:12
#20
How would someone study anarchy if anarchy has a diverse meaning that of which causes what others claim it doesn't?
Sep 28 2009 19:19
#21
Yeh, you seem to think "anarchy" is a thing, its not. Anarchism is a political ideology, anarchists practice it and the end goal is an anarchist society.
Sep 28 2009 19:36
#22
That doesn't answer my question, how would one study anarchy, if its a thing or not.
Sep 28 2009 19:44
#23
You could study anarchism, anarchy is not a word we generally use.
Sep 28 2009 21:03
#24
learning how wrote:
How would someone study anarchy if anarchy has a diverse meaning that of which causes what others claim it doesn't?
Because anarchy, like any other ideology is not a single fixed idea.
Sep 28 2009 21:23
#25
berkmans book is a great intro. There are loadsa books in the library on libcom aswell. So just read abit and you should understand the main principles of libertarian communism/anarchism.
Sep 29 2009 20:47
#26
ugh communism
Sep 29 2009 21:13
#27
yeah we are communists really 
but not of the stalin type. 
Oct 1 2009 23:42
#28
Not funny..Well i got my research and everything I need to get this thing done, thanks to all of you.
Oct 2 2009 00:42
#29
No seriously, we are communists.
Oct 2 2009 03:03
#30
learning how wrote:
Not funny..Well i got my research and everything I need to get this thing done, thanks to all of you.
Right so you're ready to write a paper on the concept of anarchist society but you don't think communism has anything to do with it? Good luck.
"without anarchy there'd be no government...anarchy is what gave reason to have government"
It sounds like you think anarchy means chaos and disorder? As in, the government exists to prevent civil war and constant conflict?
That's not what anarchism is about. By 'anarchy' we mean a highly organised society that operates on the basis of equal power (i.e. with as little hierarchy as possible) and personal freedom (so that as many things as possible depend on the consent of the individual).
In this sense, it's not true that 'without anarchy there'd be no government'. Rather, with anarchy there'd be no government (by definition, since government is hierarchical and coercive).
We also don't think that the government's origin or purpose is simply to establish 'order'; it's to establish a certain kind of order, where some people exploit others. Government works to maintain and stabilise oppression.
Either way though, I'm not really sure what you mean by 'innovation' or how you want to relate it to anarchy/anarchism.