Nope. "Ana" from the greek means "against" and/or "without", depending on context. "Arch" refers to ruler. Anarchy refers to a form of political organization which eschews leadership and rulers. Not rules. And anarchist groups are more likely than hierarchical groups to truly have "a body of principles and rules that are applicable to all members of a community" because there is no hierarchy among the members allowing a rule to apply to one person but not another.
Originally Posted by grumpy
That's what it literally means. It also has a concrete history going back centuries, of which you appear to know absolutely nothing.
These are all conjectural -- they refer to what you may think a theoretical anarchist society might be like if such a thing existed, but presumes it does not, because there is no need for conjecture about what really existing things "might" be like.
The pessimist's view of anarchy is a lack of government, with a fragile state of cooperation, and the society exhibits chaotic behaviour if enough individuals choose not to cooperate with others. The realist's view of anarchy is somewhere between those.
Since there are real anarchist communities and organizations in the world, your conjecture is meaningless (even that of supposed "realist"). Empirically, it can be observed that anarchists do follow rules and are organized. No grand conjecture needed. I often criticize religion, but when I do it, I at least make reference to the actual behavior of real religious people.
The pejorative and inaccurate use of the term "anarchy" floated by people who's political experience mostly takes place in an armchair in front of a TV is just that. I could teach my children that US Republicans eat babies for breakfast. The fact that they might believe me does not make it true.
I am not questioning the value of what you refer to as "the pessimists view", however, that is not a view of anarchism, it is a view of a society which "exhibits chaotic behaviour if enough individuals choose not to cooperate with others". I think it is worth noting that anarchism requires cooperation -- without sufficient cooperation, you do not have anarchy, you have chaos. Chaos does not equate with anarchy, and using it that way is just about political spin and slander. If I hear of someone eating babies and say, "This is what the US Republicans have brought us to, everyone knows that is what they are advocating", I think it would be fair to say I am employing spin and slander. Same thing.
Sure there are good leaders and bad leaders. However, I do not see how one person can force one's will on another if you are equals -- you have to be in a position of power, whether it is one you take by force or one given to you because of the "informed choice" of others. Hitler was a leader in both ways at different times, but IMO at least, always a bad one. Anarchism does not allow for one individual or group of individuals within the community to take power (by any means) and wield it, hence the kind of domination you are talking about would be considered illegal and dealt with by the community appropriately.
You are also mixing up the concepts of leadership and domination. Leadership is not about forcing one's will upon others - it is about having attributes that others are willing to follow through informed choice. Domination is about forcing one's will on others.
It is important to understand that there is no such thing as an "Anarchist Nation" that holds dominion over its subject. Anarchists communities are voluntary. If you do not agree with or cannot abide by the tenants of anarchism and the community, then you do not have to participate.
Yes, it does. That is what it is by definition. As you admit, theoretical despots that may rise up out of anarchist communities would not any longer be members of an anarchist community. Their despotism would be taking place in society at large, not within an anarchist context. Of course, this is still very conjectural, because AFAIK, no (former) anarchist has ever done such a thing anyway.
Anarchy does not prevent leaders arising (although, when that happens, the society may become something other than an anarchy)
Going back to my example about the "anarchistic" side of cboard: beyond webmaster, there is no mechanism to allow anyone to seize power or attain leadership at present. By not allowing it, we prevent it. That is also how anarchism works.
Again, you are talking about some theoretical state that does not exist. Eg, Somalia is not a homogeneous anarchist state. It is just a state without a central authority, and various warring despots. Ie, it is heterogeneous and chaotic.
an anarchy, dominators (or dictators) often become firmly entrenched, because there is no systematic way to remove them.
WRT to the anarchist communities that do exist, as I've said repeatedly, these do have systematic means of removing would-be dictators. However, again, if your political experience is imparted to you solely via the mass media, this might have escaped your attention. But having an entrenched opinion on something completely off your map does not make you informed -- it makes you ignorant. By definition.
Again, you are speaking of something you are completely ignorant of; no actual anarchist community has ever operated that way. Previous to the modern age, "anarchy" in colloquial English may often have been used as a synonym for chaos. Very likely, this conflation was natural to people fiercely committed to their rulers, people who could not imagine getting along with out them.
But the rules at any point in time in an anarchy are determined by who is strong enough to defend or enforce their chosen rules, or who can persuade or force others to enforce those rules. An anarchy does not offer any consistency of rules, orderly evolution of rules, or even any attempt to treat individuals fairly. It only guarantees that the rules will be chosen by the strongest or the most influential, without any checks or balances associated with other types of society.
But that usage become apocryphal during the 18th century, when actual anarchists came into being. You will not find a reference to anarchists previous to that because there were not any. Since then, people on the political right have often resurrected the apocryphal usage in order to create the impression that there is some group of wacko leftists -- the anarchists, who do really exist, and are often very critical of the hegemonic right -- who's goal is to bring society to a state of chaos. Which has never been true. But telling the truth is not always high on everyone's political agenda.
At the very least, people who call themselves "anarchists" and advocate social chaos are A) a self fulfilling prophecy of the hegemonic right, and B) a rare exception*. I'd also guess: not part of any collective. The vast majority of anarchists do not promote chaos. This is sort of like cyber crime "hackers". Most people and organizations who call themselves hackers are not criminals.
* The hegemonic right would like to convince you these exceptions are a representative norm, because of course everyone on the left is some form of wacko, from who's chaotic tenancies all decent people need protection.
Over and over again: there is nothing about the philosophy of anarchism which rejects rules or consistency. In fact, that would be oxymoronic, since it literally means, no leaders. A consistent rule.
Unlike an anarchy, other forms of society attempt to guarantee some consistency of rules and orderly transition of rules
There are plenty of books by and about anarchists, grumpy. I assume either you are unaware of this or you have choosen to ignore this and make yourself the authority. The later is an attempt to edit/re-write history and a dismal standpoint epistemologically; if I decide knowledge is whatever I want to believe and completely eschew empiricism, what does that knowledge reflect? The world, or just me?
Yes, grumpy, in real life anarchism is pretty much always a form of direct democracy, and very often operates by consensus (100%) and not majority (51%). Meaning it is more democratic than most citizens of modern "democracies" can wrap their head around (because, of course, our society is already perfect and so anything that is not exactly the same must be flawed).
What you describe here is not anarchy (although it is what idealists claim anarchy to be). It is actually a form of democracy.