1) Can anyone find a positive, or even neutral use of the word "anarchy" before the 19th century?
2) Is there any reason to use the word if in its modern political context if:
a) If the word came about as a word to directly to undermine capitalism and property
b) there are a million forms of loopy groups that all use the term and they all seem to contradict each other (except perhaps in their hatred for all things bourgoise) and the use as a "pro capitalist" term was a late addition.
nah. Rothbard apparently used it to try and form an alliance with the left, and it stuck. i think we are long past that, and the alliance didn't even work. despite being true to its etymology, we need a different word.
voluntaryism misses the point, as does the NAP, because these merely boil down to reassertions of a given property rights scheme. every socialist is a voluntaryist and adheres to a NAP; it is just a different definition of voluntary and of aggression! the real action is in how one defines voluntary and aggression, and then we are back to property rights schemes. these are feel-good terms that really tell the audience nothing new. they are circumlocutions masquerading as novel assertions.
again, these terms merely reassert a property ethic but dress it up as if they actually saying something new. this is a common hand-wave in many fields, even physics. the utility of it for the presenter is that she can utter something that rings well in the ear and sounds obviously good, but is really a backdoor cowing of the audience into accepting her underlying system of property rights. that a socialist can1 use the same words in defense of her ethic oughtta be a red flag.
</tangent>
1and does: "taxes are voluntary"
I thought Rothbard was against the use of the term. "Anarchist". He preferred anti-statist instead.
The word to me seems to be used primarily to prompt attention. It's a powerful word and a good way to throw someone off beat. Especially to those who live in the left/right false dichotomy.
ZB,
The definition of aggression used by adherents of the NAP is very clear. And thus, it isn't a term someone else can use, unless they define aggression differently.
But any use of language which deviates from a particular meaning will have this problem. I can call a dog a popsicle, are you going to argue that the word popsicle is somehow at fault for that mis-categorization?
William:2) Is there any reason to use the word if in its modern political context if: a) If the word came about as a word to directly to undermine capitalism and property b) there are a million forms of loopy groups that all use the term and they all seem to contradict each other (except perhaps in their hatred for all things bourgoise) and the use as a "pro capitalist" term was a late addition.
Anarchy is apolitical. I prefer to think of it as it is meant to be understood. An-archy. Without rulers.
The same people who abuse anarchy, also abuse capitalism and property, so how many words you wanna surrender Bill? We can play this game all day long, the spazoids can hijack a term, we yield it. They hijack another, we yield it. We can play this game ad infinitum.
I prefer voluntaryist myself. But I like razzing people with anarchist.
A similar discussion at The Daily Bell today, coincidence?
I will make my same post here as I did there, in reply to the suggestion to use "voluntarism" instead:
@Mac "A satisfactory alternative...that accomplishes this goal is "voluntarism"." I would agree, this is a wonderful term and is quite descriptive. However, I still choose to not let go of the term "anarchy" in the true meaning as TDB has described, and as I have used the term here in the recent past. Perhaps I am hard-headed, but I like to think my reasons run deeper. We have lost too many words that describe liberty and freedom. These have been lost to new definitions, co-opted to a) make the discussion of liberty difficult due to a lack of vocabulary, and b) replace liberty with the state, because those co-opted terms are now defined in state-enabling ways. Imagine the term "voluntarism" takes hold, in the way you define it. Is it so difficult to see the state turning this to its advantage? We will soon find ourselves "volunteering" for many state dictated obligations (aren't our income taxes already described as "voluntary"?). We will "volunteer" for national service, in the spirit of volunteerism that our patriot (there is another co-opted term) forefathers held. This is in the great liberal (there's another one gone down the drain) tradition of our country. Somewhere we have to say words have meaning. We shouldn't have to make up new ones just to have these stolen from us as well.
my point was that voluntary and NAP echo nicely in the ear but they are not self-explanatory terms that themselves trace out an ethic, even if some seem to act as if they are. since it all comes down to having the state or not, why not focus on that? i think it is much harder to misinterpret "state" or "large central government" than to misinterpret "voluntary" and "aggression" or "coercion".
Liberty Student:But I like razzing people with anarchist.
Self-defeating uphill battle, I'm afraid: European anarchists grow more violent, coordinated.
Zangelbert Bingledack:my point was that voluntary and NAP echo nicely in the ear but they are not self-explanatory terms that themselves trace out an ethic, even if some seem to act as if they are.
Just because they don't work for you, doesn't mean they don't work for others. Your values are only your own.
Zangelbert Bingledack:since it all comes down to having the state or not, why not focus on that?
That's not all that it comes down to. It comes down to the use of force. Not only institutional force.
Zangelbert Bingledack:i think it is much harder to misinterpret "state" or "large central government" than to misinterpret "voluntary" and "aggression" or "coercion".
We can't control whether or not people misinterpret us. All we can do is be as precise and explicit as possible. I don't think a lot is gained by using the right words to express the wrong thing, when we can use the right words to express the right thing.
z1235: Liberty Student:But I like razzing people with anarchist. Self-defeating uphill battle, I'm afraid: European anarchists grow more violent, coordinated.
I don't think it is self-defeating. I don't have hard numbers, but I am pretty sure I have helped direct a couple dozen people to anarcho-capitalism.
to argue, that some words are not enough self-explanatory is kinda stupid. There is no one single word that can explain any of my views on ethics or liberty. There is no single sentence that can do that either. It has to be whole paragraph so that the other person could get what I mean, when I say, that I don't believe in state etc. And even that wouldn't be enough. So labels are just that - labels. They can give a sterotype, but not explanation.
(english is not my native language, sorry for grammar.)
Vis-a-vis unfriendly ideologies my route of attack is straight to the state. Whatever gets me there fastest. Saying "anarchy", pointing out corporatocracy, showing the gun in the room, etc. I feel like its a *race* because you can't let them talk about their little self flattering pet reasons for being a republocrat. Gay marriage, the minimum wage, and other hot button issues are too convoluted and heated to be good starting points. People build their self image around how freaking compassionate they are for handicapped minorities. I always try to derail them "Should the USG increase the minimum wage in Canada? No? Because Canadians have a right to choose for themselves what wages to set. Why don't Americans have that luxury? Why do you own Americans? I won't attack you, why will you attack me?". So yeah, whatever gets you out of the mainstream framework as soon as possible. I'm usually comfortable going with anarcho capitalist, but I'm not always the one initiating the conversation. Whatever you call yourself, you have to have guts. For me, politics is utterly serious. Holding your ground is do or die.
I'm finding that "Rothbardian Anarchist" is growing on me.
I am not ashamed to call myself an anarchist. I do not care about the negative connotations.
The same people who abuse anarchy, also abuse capitalism and property, so how many words you wanna surrender Bill?
I'll signal this sentence out as it seems the best representative to what I am trying to say:
1) The actual classic Greek term, which I will concede we may not have to care about, is meant to be used in the context of undesirable social chaos and disorder. That is the more proper classical meaning. Furthermore, I think it was used this way in the West until at least the 1800's. I already suspect the undermining of the word has caused so many "hyphenated" types of the word "anarchy".
2) When the term was used in a political fashion to imply a positive outcome; it was done by leftists who were inherently anti-capitalist and perhaps anti-property from the start. I won't say that some were not amazing people or not worth noting or drawing inspiration from (such as Benjamin Tucker), I just don't know if we are in this tradition, and the word was used too late.
3) From my personal experience, outside of this site, it has been an uphill battle to start even with the term "market anarchist", much less "anarcho-capitlaist".
* Note: It is really amazing and I think, necessary that Rothbard was able to bring together names like Burke, Tucker, Spooner, Acton, Nock, Mencken, Stirner, Bastiat, Mises, etc. I just don't know if the word "anarchy" is either a correct or desirable term to use. It isn't a surrender of a word, it is wondering if the word should be used. I just don't know Political words I happen to like at the moment: Burkean Whig, Radical Liberal (perhaps for some of you Rothbardian Liberal), Radical Whig, Radical Anti-Federalist, radical propertarian.
William:1) The actual classic Greek term, which I will concede we may not have to care about, is meant to be used in the context of undesirable social chaos and disorder.
What if undesirable social chaos and disorder is slavery and a system of institutional theft/violence?
Anarchy is a condition, not a system. You should be wary of calling yourself an anarchist as it can mean all sorts of things and nothing at all.
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
Stranger: Anarchy is a condition, not a system. You should be wary of calling yourself an anarchist as it can mean all sorts of things and nothing at all.
just like any other word.
I think the classical Hellenistic mind may just call that tyranny as one who "rules without law".
Example: there may have been accusations that Athenian Democracy was an anarchy, but no Athenian would claim that term because the inherent word "anarchy" meant bad, just as much as tyranny or bad meant bad
I may be able to get a little more in depth as to how I think the Hellenistic mind used words and how they evolved, hell it would be fun for me, but I think that may be straining from the over all point, and any explanation I gave would be that of a mere amateur. Main point being, that all people until the 18th century used the term that way, and it is possible that word should not have been undermined.
If I wanted to state that all government as government is known are bad for example, it may just be best to say you are choosing between anarchy and tyranny.
So are you agreeing with what I was saying, or am I reading you wrong? I am reading your sentence as perhaps a more clear concise way to put what I just stated.
William:If I wanted to state that all government as government is known are bad for example, it may just be best to say you are choosing between anarchy and tyranny.
I can live with that. I'm not sure the Hellenistic mind had much relevance to you and I today.
Lol, well it is very relevant to me, but point taken. I just like to ramble on about the subject when I get a chance to. Though to be fair, Aristotle seems to be viewed pretty highly at Mises.
So, that said and not to distract from what I was saying:
a) the word since it's 1st use until the 1800's (so we are talking thousands of years) always meant "bad" and maybe just a condition of society or a symptom of a problem.
b) The word was undermined and politicized (and it I claiming it should not have been), and I am saying it was FIRST undermined by blatant anti-capitalist politics. I am also saying the the word was undermined by not only blatant loony toons, but the minute the word was undermined, it started splintering into hundreds of loony toons with hyphens,. Ex: Anarcho-"I hate capitalism A" to "anarcho- I hate capitalism Z". I will grant there are a few very notable exceptions, but still too little and too late.
c) Capitalists start to use the word "anarchy", and it seems to be an uphill battle to use the word. Should the word be used? Are we associating in people's heads/ or is there a legit dichotomy created by associating a Rothbard, a Friedman, or a Nozick with a Bakunin vs a Burke when the word "anarchy" is used. Obviously we want people to think of our tradition coming from Acton, Burke, Bastiat, etc. are we hurting our position and confusing language by using the word "anarchy"? Does it prevent productive dialogue?
This is my basic train of thought at the moment. And I am wondering if I have a legit concern.
Believe it or not, I am trying to lead up to a conclusion, but I am seeing even if I have a question at this point.
To avoid confusion, hand listeners real life words, not abstract words. To understand, see Politics and the English Language: http://mla.stanford.edu/Politics_&_English_language.pdf
William:1) The actual classic Greek term, which I will concede we may not have to care about, is meant to be used in the context of undesirable social chaos and disorder. That is the more proper classical meaning. Furthermore, I think it was used this way in the West until at least the 1800's. I already suspect the undermining of the word has caused so many "hyphenated" types of the word "anarchy".
This is very interesting. I wasn't aware that "anarchy" meant "chaos" or "disorder" even to the Ancient Greeks. Do you have any sources that support your claim?
Regardless, assuming the Ancient Greeks did ascribe such meaning to "anarchy", it would imply that the word archon didn't simply mean "ruler" to them.
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
Just in case: I do not mean it in a literal 100% synonymous use of the word type of way. That is "anarchy" doesn't mean "chaos", as much as the word is used to imply a societal state of chaos, and for the Greek mind chaos is bad and contrasted with cosmos, which is good. It is simply implicit in the definitions. What we would describe as "anarchy" would be described as some form of "natural order (cosmos)" for the Greeks. That is simply how they would use their words. And for the most part I think it may have been like ths for a very very long time.
Well to be technical the word "ἀρχός " means many things such as: beginning, origin; cause, motive, principle, element, leadership, territory, empire, cornor (of a sheet, etc). Notice the word associations that may come out of this. Still my point stands, I didn't mean it in an absolute literal sense, just that "bad chaos" is implied in the word, it could not nor was ever (so far as I know) used to denote something positive for millenia.
Now on to a couple specific examples:
" For, finding the Hellenes living without laws and in scattered abodes, some oppressed by tyrannies, others perishing through anarchy, she delivered them from these evils by taking some under her protection and by setting to others her own example; for she was the first to lay down laws and establish a polity"
-Isocrates, "Panegyricus"
"And when Samuel had told them that he ought to confirm the kingdom to Saul by a second ordination of him, they all came together to the city of Gilgal, for thither did he command them to come. So the prophet anointed Saul with the holy oil in the sight of the multitude, and declared him to be king the second time. And so the government of the Hebrews was changed into a regal government; for in the days of Moses, and his disciple Joshua, who was their general, they continued under an aristocracy; but after the death of Joshua, for eighteen years in all, the multitude had no settled form of government, but were in an anarchy; after which they returned to their former government, they then permitting themselves to be judged by him who appeared to be the best warrior and most courageous, whence it was that they called this interval of their government the Judges."
-Josephus, "Antiquities"
These are just two examples, I can go on upon request. I could probably do some Latin works too (so I am could use Roman, Greek, and Hebrew thought), if you want me to show the Romans had the same view. I can also give the Hellenic text, if anyone wishes to read it, to show I'm not doing any crazy translating.
The first example was used to show how the unwanted rulership of a king is just as "chaotic" as that of rulership with no king. To be fair, tyranny did not always have a bad connotation, but by the point of this speach, it had become to mean an inherently bad rule (a lawless ruler, one could perhaps even say anarchic rule).
I brought the second example up to show that what many commentators at Mises call "anarchy" in the "Judges period" was not viewed that way among the Hebrew people. Josephus (who wrote the work in Greek) used the word "anarchy" to denote a bad societal set up before the period of Judges.
Excellent article, I wouldn't mind doing a thread on just this.
But to hammer in a point from the "Pretentious Writing" section:
"Bad writers, and
especially scientific, political, and sociological writers, are nearly always haunted by the
notion that Latin or Greek words are grander than Saxon ones..."
"Marxist writinghyena, hangman, cannibal, petty bourgeois, these gentry,
lackey, flunkey, mad dog, White Guard, etc.) consists largely of words translated from
Russian, German, or French; but the normal way of coining a new word is to use a Latin
or Greek root with the appropriate affix and, where necessary, the size formation. It is
often easier to make up words of this kind (deregionalize, impermissible, extramarital,
non-fragmentary and so forth) than to think up the English words that will cover one's
meaning. The result, in general, is an increase in slovenliness and vagueness."
Orwell hammers clearly right to the point why the word "anarchy" may have been used in the 1st place, and why the word does no good. Sorry about the font and spacing, it didn't copy and paste so well. This kind of states the conclusion I was trying to lead the dialogue to, but you beat me to it.
Once again, amazing article
It's a real shame that "nonarchist" never caught on. It's such a great word.
I call myself an anarchist because I am one, in the full sense of the word. Someone like Hoppe, Block, or Kinsella is not against rulership. I am.
My main point was it probably isn't a very good term for anyone, particularly free marketeers such as myself. But is leftists wish to use strange terms, that is their affair.
If I want to "call myself" something (or more accurately, utilize a term that could symbolize my current political aesthetics) "liberal" may be the ideal (or maybe Whig) if that term can mean opposition/ambivalence to "conservative", either left or right, thinking. That is, if the term can imply to view and speak of things in constant motion, materialistic, and independent from everything else. It would also state that while egoism is an ontological fact, the political philosophy is only good with a sort of "long haul" overview which would make a natural distaste for revolutionary activity as well as a distaste for any form of subsidy (intellectual/welfare/warfare/etc) as it is materialistic. It also would assume that civilization (meaning cities, division of labor, technology, and getting as much "stuff" as cheap as possible, etc) is a good and desirable thing, and that talk social position/status is a pointless red herring and a quixotic task. That is assuming either of those two words (liberal or whig) are salvageable, which I doubt.
As to what is or is not ruler ship/hierarchies what legal custom are you referring to at the moment? As there are only two ways the term can be coherently used; as a legal fiction or as a self evident subjective ontological reality. We can't really discuss the latter. Moreover, it makes no sense to speak of "ruler ships" that are not in place, it is creating dragons to slay. All that one can speak of are very real relationships in action, and what actual power can be used to change it in a very real specific situation.
I call myself an anarchist because I am one...is not against rulership. I am.
Perfect example of why "anarchism" should be dropped by supporters of the free market. (And excellent post William)
I find the word plurarchy to be much more descriptive of the kind of society that we must create.
Angurse, I support the free market. I don't see how that's incompatible with a dislike of cultural authoritarianism.
Wrong. There must be personal might to protect posessions in order for markets to exist. Might used in defense does not necessitate authoritarianism. An authority is someone who controls you and puts themself as superior to you. I oppose that.
Wrong. Authority - the power or right to give orders or make decisions. Since I make decisions over my possessions I am the authority. Further, if you try to take it I'm going to stop you (that is, control you). I can understand why a thief would oppose my authority however I am superior to thieves so I don't care.
vaguelyhumanoid:Wrong. There must be personal might to protect posessions in order for markets to exist. Might used in defense does not necessitate authoritarianism. An authority is someone who controls you and puts themself as superior to you. I oppose that.
This is incoherent and at best an appeal to some semantic difference. I can be the authority over my car, or my dinner or my dirty underwear.
Authority wrt property is clear ownership. You can try to call property, possessions and you can try to call authority, defensive might, but at the end of the day, you can't have free markets without property and ownership.
Angurse, LS, I feel this is sort of unnecessary as a debate because I said cultural authoritarianism, not authority over property.
So you aren't against rulership?