Thread: There we go again.

Originally Posted by MK27

That's what it literally means. It also has a concrete history going back centuries, of which you appear to know absolutely nothing.

I am aware of that history (or, more precisely, the derivation of the word). What you are neglecting is that, although english words are derived from words in other languages (greek in this case), the english words do not mean precisely the same as the words from which they are derived.

The word "anarchy", as it has been used in the english language for some centuries, has the meaning I described. Granted, your description captures the derivation of the word "anarchy". But, given that I was writing in a modern english rather than in ancient greek, the definition I gave is one that may be found in any current and reasonably comprehensive english language dictionary.

I wrote in english, not in greek, so I will concede my argument may not seem quite right if my words were translated literally into greek.

Originally Posted by MK27

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.

A large part of political theory is concerned with progressing towards a desired end-state that is resisted by a number of your ostensible equals.

Originally Posted by MK27

Again, you are speaking of something you are completely ignorant of. Previous to the modern age, "anarchy" was in colloquial English, often 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.

No, you are deeming me ignorant based on the fact I am not using the same modes of expression that you are. So I can justifiably accuse you of as much ignorance as you accuse me. Pot, kettle, black, and all that.

Originally Posted by MK27

There are many well known and definitive 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 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?

If I was to decide knowledge is only what I can observe empirically, and can only be expressed with reference to a particular historical context, what would that knowledge reflect?

Originally Posted by grumpy

I am aware of that history (or, more precisely, the derivation of the word). [...] The word "anarchy", as it has been used in the english language for some centuries, [...] I wrote in english, not in greek, so I will concede my argument may not seem quite right if my words were translated literally into greek.

Originally Posted by MK27

I brought up the etymology because I think it is fundamental to understanding where anarchists came from and why they would choose to call themselves that.

You are right, pure etymology or semantics is not much of a "defense" of anything. But it can shed light on who said what when and why.

Originally Posted by MK27

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 that usage become apocryphal during the 18th century, when actual anarchists came into being.

Originally Posted by grumpy

A large part of political theory is concerned with progressing towards a desired end-state

I'm not against this ideal (progress), but I'm skeptical of how it is defined and understood, which is part of why I would call myself an anarchist. A major significance of anarchism in the 19th and early 20th century was that it was taken up by people who dissented inside communist groups (who were very much about proceeding toward a "desired end state"). Some leftist-marxist types (the anarchists) said this was too crass an application of dialectical materialism and pointed out it would most likely lead to one lousy system replacing another, which turned out to be mostly true. Because of this history, communist regimes are extremely intolerant of anarchists and consider them dangerous opponents to be weeded out and eradicated.

I suppose I don't see that as progress toward a desirable end state, maybe you have some other version.

If I was to decide knowledge is only what I can observe empirically, and can only be expressed with reference to a particular historical context, what would that knowledge reflect?

If the other choice is "whatever pie in the sky party goes on between my ears", I'll settle for the empirical.

Again, the big issue here is your desire to conflate anarchy with chaos. The only reason I see to do this is because you want to align yourself with a tradition whereby human beings are naturally inclined to destructiveness (might be so!) and the only way to restrain this ungodly chaotic nature is a strong hierarchical hegemony of Rulers (not so).

You are entitled to disagree with the philosophy of anarchism. Unfortunately, you have chosen to do it by attacking a textbook straw dog.

Originally Posted by MK27

Again, the big issue here is your desire to conflate anarchy with chaos.

I had no such desire. I simply observed that, in practice, anarchy is often overtly associated with some forms of chaotic behaviour.

There are rules that govern how gaseous particles interact (based on interchange of momentum and energy) but observable net effects such as brownian motion are difficult to predict in advance so exhibit some elements of unpredictable, possibly chaotic, behaviour. Analogous statements might be made about any type of complex system, including societies.

My actual points though (coming back to the topic of this thread) are that a forum site needs rules, it needs some systematic enforcement of rules (by moderators), that moderators are imperfect but things are usually alright as long as they genuinely try to do the right thing, and that tying moderators hands is not a solution to any problems in a forum.

It is you who interpreted my words as a wider attack on your specific preferred form of society.

Originally Posted by grumpy

I had no such desire. I simply observed that, in practice, anarchy is often overtly associated with some forms of chaotic behaviour.

You have to define anarchy as chaos to do that, otherwise you do not have any observations of anything in practice, because your examples did not involve anarchism or anarchists.

In fact, the whole discussion of "what happens under chaos" (I'm going to save confusion and use that word) hinges on the reification of the concept of social chaos. But there is no real thing "social chaos" (conversely, there are real anarchists) -- it is just conceptual.

That concept is weighted in order to produce a desired conclusion (a cart before the horse) because otherwise it is unnecessary. I referred to Somalia as "heterogenous and chaotic", but that does not explain why something really happened or what could really happen. To understand that, you would need to understand the actual events, the people involved, the specific history etc.

If you were interested in doing something in Somalia (start a business, wage a war, whatever), the stupidest thing you could do would be to hire a consultant working "top down" from Mario or grumpy's premise (various reified armchair philosophy things about what happens in "a state of social chaos"). Instead you would hire someone who knew specific details of what is really going on where and when.

Ie, the concept is useless except for curmudgeons in armchairs to mull over after dinner, or as political rhetoric in influencing policy making, etc. That's why ALL of Mario & grumpy's posts dealt in complete abstraction, without any real examples.

So if

I had no such desire.

You are unconsciously playing out someone else's (inherited hot air), which is probably even more unfortunate.