Political Spectrum quiz
Registered User
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,808
From: San Jose, CA
Car Info: 2015 WRX
Registered User
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,808
From: San Jose, CA
Car Info: 2015 WRX
Here we go:
And:
No, "Organized Anarchists" is not an oxymoron. The simplest explanation of the political ideology of anarchism is the desire to abolish all hierarchical structures of authority--which includes most forms of government.
To put it another way, libertarianism is synonymous with anarchism in most of Europe, and the word "libertarian" was created when it was illegal to discuss anarchism in certain European countries. United States libertarians could be described as anarcho-capitalists and libertarian-socialists could be referred to as anarcho-socialists.
Even more simply, the word anarchism comes from the Greek word "anarchos," meaning "no rulers."
To put it another way, libertarianism is synonymous with anarchism in most of Europe, and the word "libertarian" was created when it was illegal to discuss anarchism in certain European countries. United States libertarians could be described as anarcho-capitalists and libertarian-socialists could be referred to as anarcho-socialists.
Even more simply, the word anarchism comes from the Greek word "anarchos," meaning "no rulers."
Then you have a misunderstanding of the political philosophy of anarchism. It is not "every man for himself." An understandable misconception, considering how anarchists have been slandered and misrepresented through history.
At its most basic level, the Latin root of "anarchy" is "anarchos." Archos means "ruler" and the prefix of "an-" means "without." So literally "anarchos" means "without rulers." All variations of anarchism taken into account, that is the most basic and accurate description of the philosophy.
There are, of course, many different flavors of anarchism: individual anarchism (which is most similar to what you're thinking of), anarcho-socialism (also known as libertarian socialism), anarcho-communism, anarcho-syndicalism, U.S. Libertarianism (somewhat paradoxically described as anarcho-capitalism), etc. What ties them all together is the unifying concept of living without someone else running your life or meddling in your affairs -- true "liberty," if you will.
(Historical side note: During the latter part of the 19th century, it was against the law in many European countries to print or discuss anarchism, so they had to come up with an alternate word to use. That word is "Libertarian.")
Oh, and don't confuse "socialism" with "state socialism." As Bakunin once said, "All anarchists are socialist, but not all socialists are anarchist." Anarchist socialism is a system of voluntary regional socialism. You take part and contribute in society because you desire it, not because it is compulsory.
At its most basic level, the Latin root of "anarchy" is "anarchos." Archos means "ruler" and the prefix of "an-" means "without." So literally "anarchos" means "without rulers." All variations of anarchism taken into account, that is the most basic and accurate description of the philosophy.
There are, of course, many different flavors of anarchism: individual anarchism (which is most similar to what you're thinking of), anarcho-socialism (also known as libertarian socialism), anarcho-communism, anarcho-syndicalism, U.S. Libertarianism (somewhat paradoxically described as anarcho-capitalism), etc. What ties them all together is the unifying concept of living without someone else running your life or meddling in your affairs -- true "liberty," if you will.
(Historical side note: During the latter part of the 19th century, it was against the law in many European countries to print or discuss anarchism, so they had to come up with an alternate word to use. That word is "Libertarian.")
Oh, and don't confuse "socialism" with "state socialism." As Bakunin once said, "All anarchists are socialist, but not all socialists are anarchist." Anarchist socialism is a system of voluntary regional socialism. You take part and contribute in society because you desire it, not because it is compulsory.
Thread Starter
VIP Member
iTrader: (18)
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,570
From: Subabrew Crew
Car Info: Broken Subarus
The very nature of a human being resulted is order, you call it "ruler", I'll call it "leader". Those that lead are always followed. Those that follow will rarely lead. The human simply being demands order.
Registered User
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,808
From: San Jose, CA
Car Info: 2015 WRX
Also, one who rules is not the same as one who leads. To say that a "ruler" and a "leader" are the same thing is purposely altering the political understanding of the words so that you can change the definition of "anarchism" to fit what you think it is.
Or, as someone smarter than me put it:
Q: What is the Difference between a ruler and a leader?
A: To lead is to show the way. To rule is to control or dominate. From this, it is possible to conclude that ruling is a hypocritical action. A leader shows the way and guides, whilst doing the thing themselves. A ruler just instructs the group, and because he doesn't have to do the thing himself, it wouldn't matter if he thought it was right or not. This is because people under the instruction of a ruler have to do what the ruler says. People under the instruction of a leader, are given every opportunity to follow suit, but in the end they aren't forced to.
A: To lead is to show the way. To rule is to control or dominate. From this, it is possible to conclude that ruling is a hypocritical action. A leader shows the way and guides, whilst doing the thing themselves. A ruler just instructs the group, and because he doesn't have to do the thing himself, it wouldn't matter if he thought it was right or not. This is because people under the instruction of a ruler have to do what the ruler says. People under the instruction of a leader, are given every opportunity to follow suit, but in the end they aren't forced to.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
