[chongli]

That’s the first definition of anarchy:

anarchy |'anəki| noun [mass noun]

1. a state of disorder due to absence or non-recognition of authority or other controlling systems: the country has been plunged into a state of anarchy.

2. the organization of society on the basis of voluntary cooperation, without political institutions or hierarchical government;

anarchism.

[public_defender]

I can't tell if you understand or not, but your "first definition" is a grammatically correct pejorative. The second is a reference to a political philosophy.

What's happening in this comment thread is that people are "confusing" a mastodon instance dedicated to the political philosophy with a group dedicated to being in a state of disorder. It's neither productive to the discussion nor witty.

[chongli]

It’s only come to be a pejorative in recent times. Originally it was the only definition. This goes back at least as far as Aristotle’s political theory in which he categorized systems by the number of rulers (one, few, or many) and whether or not the rulers were “correct” (working toward the greater good) or “deviant” (working toward selfish aims). Aristotle did not recognize rule by “none” or “all” within his schema.

As for the modern pejorative connotation, it’s grounded in a critique: how do anarchist societies cope with motivated and determined rule-breakers without devolving into chaos?

[public_defender]

So you understand the difference between the two definitions and you are falsely equating them in your first comment on purpose? In order to derail the conversation? That's disappointing.

[chongli]

No, I’m not equating them. I’m relating them. They are related. Anarchists have yet to demonstrate that they can build a robust society grounded in their theories (second definition) that doesn’t descend into anarchy (first definition), or result in some individual/group seizing power and putting down the opposition, betraying anarchist principles.

What anarchists propose is not in principle impossible, but it’s never been demonstrated to be practical. A near-universal critique of utopias is that they are not robust in the face of sustained opposition: that is, they assume everyone is ideologically aligned.

[briantakita]

> Anarchists have yet to demonstrate that they can build a robust society grounded in their theories

Fwiw, Anarchists use the analogy of nations having anarchist relationships with other nations.

[chongli]

Nations absolutely have strong hierarchical relationships with one another. The US, for example, tends to use a lot of strong-arm tactics in its foreign policy in order to force smaller nations to toe the line.

If that's the sort of society anarchists envision for individuals, I have to say they're not being very ambitious!

[atlantic]

Nations are highly-organized grouping of people. So what you're saying is, very large and cohesive groups of people can relate to one another without overt rules, therefore, so can individuals. That's a non sequitur.

[guerrilla]

That definition has nothing to do with political anarchism.

[BasedAnon]

Stirner would disagree

[guerrilla]

What makes you think that?

[BasedAnon]

I recall him saying something in his works about not caring if his writings led to complete disorder and destruction, because it is irrelevant to him so long as he pleases his ego by writing.

Edit, here's the quote from The Ego and Its Own:

"Do I write out of love to men? No, I write because I want to procure for my thoughts an existence in the world; and, even if I foresaw that these thoughts would deprive you of your rest and your peace, even if I saw the bloodiest wars and the fall of many generations springing up from this seed of thought – I would nevertheless scatter it. Do with it what you will and can, that is your affair and does not trouble me. You will perhaps have only trouble, combat, and death from it, very few will draw joy from it."

[guerrilla]

Yeah I guess that's one interpretation of that but I would interpret that rather as pessimism and staunch authenticity while he actually did want a better world (which is what all anarchism is really about.)

[BasedAnon]

I think that Stirner would say you're telling a bunch of ghost-stories :)

[chongli]

The second definition covers that.

[guerrilla]

Yes, I mean the first one that you refer to in "That’s the first definition of anarchy." The disorder definition is irrelevant to this conversation.