Why American people is so ignorant about Anarchism?

I've seen thousand of times tha American think that anarchism is only the anarchocapitalism. Something that is a really modern invent. It is from the 50s of the XX century, while anarchism already existed for one hundred years.

Yes anarchism, is from the XIX century and when it was strongest it was when it was in the First International. Yes anarchism appeared from the First International of Workers. Surprise? Then you shouldn't.

Also that people were known as libertarian, even in USA. But again in the 50s the American ultraliberals started to called themselves libertarian, and now in USA the word libertarian is linked to this group of liberals or classic liberals or old right.

But libertarianism or anarchism until middle XX century were the same thing. But as always, the liberals started to create their neolingua and use words with different meanings to make their ideology prettier.

 

Anarchism definitely has multiple schools of thought. I didn't realize libertarianism as a term existed before the 50s though. That's news to me.

 

Because some people aren't weird and creepy, and they like civility and they enjoy being apart of an organized society.

 

Its funny that anarchism would not exist without society. That which gives anarchy life is that which anarchists hate.

Go figure.

 

What is anarchism? Everyone gets to go around and burn things? No thanks.

 

I hope that was a joke due to the title of this thread, 'Why American people is so ignorant about Anarchism?'

 

Well, anarchy means no police so who would stop it if anarchists decided to burn down buildings?

 

It looks like posters are proving the OP's point.

 

It looks so

Misinformed people that don't want to inform themselves. And they leave that the prejudices lead their life without questioning them.

 

For such a rich and colorful philosophy, people will definitely butcher it based on their sophomoric misunderstandings and prejudices.

If Americans do have an understanding of anarchism, it is often associated with anarcho-capitalism. This is most likely due Ayn Randians who hijacked libertarianism from the mutualists during the 20th centurty and the recent resurgence in Austrian economics and politicians like Ron Paul.

Overall, I think this is good, but I have concerns that anarchocapilatism will lead to unbalanced hierarchies that are coercive in nature, and hence antithetical to anarchy.

While I gravitate towards left-anarchism, I find it to be a bit utopian and not feasible. However, I don't throw the baby out with the bath water. Currently, I fall along the lines of a minimal statist who subscribes an inter-generational Lockean Proviso and democratic workplace structures.

 

I couldn't help notice this in your signature..."The union of workers brings the victory."

Isn't a worker's union in direct contrast to an anarchy?

 

Anarchism has existed throughout history. Anarchy means a stateless society... not lawless.

Government is a parasite that requires a society to feed on, society needs no government.

Celtic Ireland was a stateless society from AD 650 to AD 1650... a thousand years without a central government.

Then there's the Icelandic Commonwealth which existed from AD 930 to 1262.

Most people believe anarchy to mean without order... they are mistaken.

 

I'm always amused by the desire for new, hip labels.. if the old ones start to lose luster, it's fun to recycle some old ones, update them a bit, then reintroduce them as the new cool.

The labels don't really matter. Just state your views & define individual issues. I'm sure the helpful people here will be glad to provide you with a very nice label.

I am much more impressed with well thought out, consistent views.. but those aren't as fun, & don't have much elitist appeal.

Anyway, i don't think americans are that ignorant of anarchism, just your new definition. Words evolve, too, and meanings once reserved for a particular descriptive word change. If you want to insist on a particular definition, you will have the frustrating responsibility to explain it every time. Now if enough people jump on the bandwagon for the new definition, or the revived definition, then that makes it easier.

Reading furnishes the mind only with materials of knowledge; it is thinking that makes what we read ours.
John Locke

Political language -- and with variations this is true of all political parties, from Conservatives to Anarchists -- is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.
George Orwell

 

Anarchy is an ideology that subscribes to the belief that man should live without coercive power structures and this certainly applies to the state. Now, people can voluntary subscribe to a state under anarchy, as long as it is no coerced.

However, just because there is an absence of the state, does not mean that there is an absence of coercion and unfair power structures.

These are great examples, but even then, they were not completely anarchist since an individual had to belong to a ruling law body. However, they had a great deal of freedom and one could easily exchange one governorship for another. Essentially, the law was privatized and allowed for competition and freedom to switch allegiances, in which today's society does not.

In today's world, you are born into a set of laws and cannot freely and easily exchange. The state owns you and there is no market for legality, which results in our current statist/corporatist paradigm. This is why Jefferson thought the Constitution should be written every 19 years since the dead should not rule living.

People should have the freedom to make their own laws and others should have the freedom to abide by them or not.

 

Can you explain why it is that you believe that society and government are synonymous?

 

Anarchy would seem to be more at home in a place like say Britain where there is an oppressive Monarchy (State) and not in the U.S. were The People rule themselves through representation.

In Britain the final arbiter is "The Crown"...In the U.S. it is "The People."

 

Anarchists also believe that the concept of property is effectively theft. Property rights are even more imbedded in the U.S. than they are in Britain. In fact, the two crucial ways Anarchists differ from Libertarians is over property rights (including the recognition of corporations) and over communal action (self-directed, not externally imposed or controlled). What Anarchism and Libertarianism share is a desire to avoid government (even little government, much less Big Government) and any other large interest which serves to take away the freedoms of the individual.

The Anarchists are the Left to the Libertarians Right, just as Communists are the Left to Corporate Capitalism's Right.

 

Anarchists are simply people who do not fit in to society, so they have to create this need to distance themselves from others and create their own made up definitions of who they are. Most likely you own a trench coat and wear a lot of black.

You don't see many normal people around the country claiming to be anarchists or talking about how the Govt is trying to control their lives. Only serious nut jobs have this incessant fear of Governance.

It's simply their attempt to create their own little society of creepers amongst the rest of society.

 

I consider all anarchists to either be creepers who favor sexual relations with children or people who approve of other people having sexual relations with children. This may not be true but in my experience most admitted anarchists have talked favorably about this subject and it just makes me want to lock them up and throw away the key....

 

I never said they were. However, to advance beyond a hunter-gatherer society some sort of hierarchal system will be required. Whether you consider that government or not is an opinion but there will have to be some sort of leadership and rules to govern the group.

 

People are by and large untrustworthy. I learned this at 5. It rings true until today. I don't even trust myself any times. Rule of law is needed.

 

You are an amusing fellow who is filled with ignorance.

However, since you have ejaculated yourself into a superior position on anarchy in this thread, I would love to hear your opinion on the difference between the egoists and natural rights schools of anarchy.

 

anarchy is not liberalism or libertarian because they are law less and disbanded with no structure

liberalism uses government to institute its proper and just authority, libertarian is anarchy capitalists

 

That is what the OP was getting at. Modern day liberals have polluted the word liberalism and used linguistic gymnastics to make "their ideology prettier"..

Anarchy is an extension of liberalism, but modern day liberalism is anything but. Liberalism was never meant to be a statist philosophy.

 

I consider government to be any organization with a legal monopoly on the use of force. I reject your assertion that such an organization is required to get "beyond a hunter-gather er society." It's an unsupported and probably unprovable assertion, though I invite you to try.

Anarchy does not mean without rules. It also does not mean without leaders. It's basic meaning is "without rulers" and, in modern terms, means without publicly enforced government. There are other means of operating government without legal monopolies. The libertarian form of anarchy is now more commonly referred to as voluntaryism, in order to separate the movement from the violent, anti-liberty "anarchy"/socalist movements.