 |
|
DinoDoc
|
 |
AECCP loves Democracy
Sep 1999 time: 23:17
|
|
The Anarchist version of a state would be that of Catalonia as it existed during the Spanish Civil War. What I find odd is that they would choose as thier "utopia," so to speak, a state that lasted barely two years and who was completely and uterly crushed due to its ineffective leadership.
Last edited by DinoDoc on 31-01-2002 at 23:47
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Velociryx
|
 |
of Candle'Bre
Apr 1999 time: 05:17
|
|
Here’s an interesting one. Osweld’s post got me thinking….there’s just something about the words: “anarchist’s ideology” that sounds cool together, you know? Fun pair of words to say together, so I figured I’d amuse myself further with the whole notion.
Having discerned that an anarchist (see above definition), is one who practices anarchy, I re-visited Webster….
Anarchy
1 a : absence of government b : a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority c : a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government
2 a : absence or denial of any authority or established order b : absence of order : DISORDER
Ideology
1 : visionary theorizing
2 a : a systematic body of concepts especially about human life or culture b : a manner or the content of thinking characteristic of an individual, group, or culture c : the integrated assertions, theories and aims that constitute a sociopolitical program
What’s interesting to me here is the way the two words above stand in opposition to each other.
In order for a code of thought to be considered an “ideology”, it must have systematic (orderly) conceptualizations of society, which stands at the polar opposite of the anarchist’s “beliefs.” Thus, there can be no such thing as an Anarchist’s Ideology, despite the fact that it’s a fun phrase to say.
-=Vel=-
|
|
|  |
 |
|
- Groucho -
|
|
Harumph, steady on there, Osweld old chap. Seems a bit presumptuous of you to denigrate the very institution you're currently using to communicate. After all, you're a member of this particular club.
Now, where did I put my pipe? Harumph.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Shai-Hulud
|
|
Finland
Jan 2002 time: 07:17
|
|
quote: Capitalism is, IMO an invention to express the human desire for control. In the abstract, "buying stuff" is exerting control over various aspects of your day to day life...structuring "your place" how you want it, and such. |
Capitalism is in my humble option a system that allocates resources and power in a human society by the success of an individual. A freedom of competition over limited resources in orderly society. The cornerstone of democracy and individual freedom.
Control? I think you're talking about individual's the need of sovereignty. I could agree with your opinion. I think it's just the same thing, in the end. Desire to own, desire for control.
Dictatorship is an expression of human desire for control...so it's not really particularly characteristic to capitalism alone. Only capitalism ensures the freedom of individual to "buy stuff".
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Velociryx
|
 |
of Candle'Bre
Apr 1999 time: 05:17
|
|
Osweld, two things. First, hello again! It seems strange to be on the opposite side of an issue from you, since when I was last here regularly, we often shared similar views.
At any rate, thing two is simply this: I believe you misunderstand me. It's not that I don't care what their views are, simply that, having LOOKED on the 'net...having come to an understanding of the meaning of the words...of the language used to describe their "ideology," I have come rapidly to the conclusion that there's not much to it.
The definitions of the words themselves are pretty clear, and speak volumes about the whole notion of an "Anarchistic Ideology"
If, perhaps, you think I tweaked the definitions, by all means, hit the webster's site yourself and have a look!
Shai - Agreed....sounds like we're on the same page, even if we're approaching it using different words...
-=Vel=-
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Shai-Hulud
|
|
Finland
Jan 2002 time: 07:17
|
|
quote: And he continues this absurd, one-sided "debate". |
This debate could have even more sides than two if you would define your vision of anarchism. After all, there are several different interpretations of this ideology.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
- Groucho -
|
|
It's interesting that in your taxonomy it is the anarchists who actually know somehting about anarchism that don't participate in the class struggle. Kinda suggests something about the legitimacy of that "struggle", doesn't it?
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
Timexwatch
|
 |
Columbia Heights, Washington D.C.
Jul 1999 time: 00:17
|
|
Obviously some people forgot what they learned in comparative politics...
quote: The definitions of the words themselves are pretty clear, and speak volumes about the whole notion of an "Anarchistic Ideology"
|
Just looking up the definition in the dictionary doesn't do you any good. Let me break down the political scientist's definition of ideology (roughly speaking, there's no completely agreed upon definition):
An ideology is a political term that contains several different aspects, including a view of the current social and political situation and a definite view of the future which is usually materially better than the current situation. Ideologies also give specific direction on how to make the desired situation come about. Finally, ideologies are usually presented in simple terms so that the 'masses' can understand it.
quote: In order for a code of thought to be considered an “ideology”, it must have systematic (orderly) conceptualizations of society, which stands at the polar opposite of the anarchist’s “beliefs.” Thus, there can be no such thing as an Anarchist’s Ideology, despite the fact that it’s a fun phrase to say.
|
There is nothing that says that ideologies have to be orderly or that the intended result has to be orderly. Fascist ideology, for example, deserves more to be studied like theology than political science, IMHO.
If you use ideology in a political science sense, then individualist, pacifist and radical Anarchism all can be considered ideologies.
quote: Anarchist:
1 : one who rebels against any authority, established order, or ruling power
2 : one who believes in, advocates, or promotes anarchism or anarchy; especially : one who uses violent means to overthrow the established order
Anarchy
1 a : absence of government b : a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority c : a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government
2 a : absence or denial of any authority or established order b : absence of order : DISORDER
|
Once again, the dictionary definition completely misses the boat. Anarchy does not equate with anarchism. Anarchists contend that people have outgrown the government and that people should govern themselves. This doesn't mean that they desire the complete absence of government, only the absence of institutional government.
Anarchism is also a cross-spectrum ideology. Leftist anarchists believe that government should be stripped down and that people, regardless of class, should contribute the most when government is least. Some, like Tolstoy, advocated passive resistance of state power an an adherence to the principals of "Christian Peace and human fraternity" (quote from one of my polisci books). Others like Bakunin emphasized a violent revolution by the lumpenproletariat that would create a society of maximum personal freedom. Only Nihilists like Sergi Nechayev sought the complete destruction of the state through violent means. Men like William Godwin and Pierre Proudhon espoused syndicalism as the solution to the intrustion of the state. Individualists like Max Stirner proclaimed the "soverignty of the individual" and for people to act without regard to society at large. Ayn Rand promoted objectivism and rugged individualism..
So, anarchism runs over both sides of the fence. It's a big ideoligy that's impossible to sum up in a simple sentence.
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
Velociryx
|
 |
of Candle'Bre
Apr 1999 time: 05:17
|
|
Timex, interesting post!
And correct me if I'm wrong here but:
One of the key differences between us and the other monkeys is the fact that we can use *language* to communicate ideas.
In order that we can communicate effectively, is it not a pre-requisite that we have standardized meanings to words? Otherwise, how can ideas be communicated at all?
I do not deny that your words contain truths....they most assuredly do.
I take issue with the words used to describe a belief system.
Politics *implies* a group. A guy on a deserted island cannot create politics. Just doesn't happen. (well...okay, if he has multiple personalities, perhaps, but that's another topic! lol)
So...if you can't have politics without a group, then such "ideologies" as *Individualist* tho it can be a personal ideology, cannot very well be a political ideology on the basis of the definition of the root word (individual = 1---> 1 = Not a group----> Not a group = No Politics ----> No politics = No political ideology).
Thus my earlier statement that ideologies (specifically POLITICAL ideology) requires and implies a group, and groups, by their nature have structure.
The word anarchy (root word of anarchist) implies the lack of structure. No structure = No group. No group, and we're back to the individual, in which case there is no politics.
-=Vel=-
(havin' fun, killin' time, posting on the clock, and bein' an "anarchist" in general)
|
|
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:17. Apolyton Time is 00:17. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|