Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

7

ziq wrote (edited )

I much prefer 'anarchy' and sometimes wish this forum were named that way.

Anything ending in -ism sounds ideological to me. Anarchy is really not an ideology so much as it's a state of being.

It only becomes an ideology when you attach other things to it: anarcho-communism, anarcho-transhumanism, anarcho-primitivism. But anarchy on its own is a living and breathing praxis that we incorporate into our everyday lives. A personal stance against authority that informs all our decisions and thus shapes the trajectory of our existence.

'Anarchism' to me brings to mind a set of economic and philosophical theories and historical attempts at building societies centered around these principles. It makes me think of a faraway plan or a blueprint more than a deliberate and decisive practice to oppose, avoid and bypass hierarchies.

2

throwaway wrote (edited )

I've always been of the impression that anarchy simply meant absence of laws and rules, without the concepts that make such a state a good thing: solidarity, mutual aid et cetera, while anarchism is the theory and action of libertarian socialism. I much prefer anarchism.

2

ziq wrote (edited )

Libertarian socialism is closely related to anarcho-communism, which is a form of social anarchism. Social anarchism and anarchism / anarchy are different things.

/w/Anarchy101

4

Anarcropolis wrote

I can't really define Anarchy as separate from Anarchism without using the dictionary definition of Anarchy = chaos. I think of Anarchism as more of the ideology it's self while Anarchy is a state or condition.

3

transhumancom wrote

I've been using/understanding them interchangeably. Very interested now to see what anyone else says

3

noordinaryspider wrote

I see Anarchy as something that is easy to spread without having to think about it and Anarchism as more like an -ism that requires footnotes and authorities and sources if somebody like me would reasonably expect to be taken seriously.

I hate this analogy, but I can spread anarchy just like whipped margarine and still have enough brainpower to think about what else I'm going to eat/feed my family. Anarchism is more like chilled organic stick butter from Whole Foods when the refrigerator isn't working perfectly: I can still spread it, but I have to plan ahead, think carefully, be aware of how much pressure I'm using, and a zillion other factors that could make me accidentally tear the bread.

If someone is just looking for a clown to laugh at and/or flame, it's usually better in the long run to just grab the margarine unless someone or another REALLY notices the difference and cares enough for it to be worth the extra effort of using the organic butter from whole foods.

Since I don't even eat dairy products or shop at whole foods, I really hate this analogy but i can't think of another right now.

2

Pop wrote

Since anarchy seen as our goal but also anarchists come to anarchy through prefiguration, i.e we have our means make up our ends, then we have anarchy as a means to anarchy, and so anarchy and anarchism are kinda the same things

And there are those of us who are not ends-oriented at all and treat living anarchy as a complete state, but I'm fine with calling that anarchism also

I don't care much about whether people are using the ism or not and I'm not sure it's more than just a semantic preference; for me it's more just about how well they do these things that destroy hierarchy

3

noordinaryspider wrote

I see an Anarchist as someone who practices Anarchy in the same sense that a guitarist is someone who practices guitar.

Jimi Hendrix is a guitarist. I am also a guitarist. I could learn a lot from Jimi Hendrix because he is a better guitarist than me, but I am still a guitarist no matter how ridiculous Jimi Hendrix may think my guitar playing is.

I just don't get to practice guitar as much as Jimi Hendrix did so of course I'm not as good as he was. That doesn't make me a bad person and it doesn't mean I'm unfit to enjoy my guitar.

1

wild_liger wrote

I don't like "anarchy" because it describes a state of existence, something that's utopian, something that's solved, something that's stagnant. It implies that there's an end point, that at some point there will be no more work to do. That things will ever be good enough, that it's somehow a self-sustaining kind of existence once it's achieved.

"Anarchism", on the other hand, is a process of betterment, it's actions, it's a working towards something, and I think that's a much better description of what it should mean to be an anarchist. If you ever think you're done, that's just you giving up, or compromising, or not looking hard enough.

Having some idealized end goal makes it possible to do shitty things with the expectation that the ends will eventually justify the means. But the means are actually the only thing that matters, the lessening of oppression in the moment, nothing but moments upon moments upon moments of anarching.

2

ziq wrote (edited )

I don't see anarchy as my end goal or even believe there can be an end goal. Anarchy doesn't purport to be a constructed utopian society like socialism. Anarchy is praxis. Anarchy is autonomy from authority. Anarchy is struggle. Anarchy is life.

2

Anarcropolis wrote

I still see Anarchism as an ideology of non-hierarchical society. It's the continuous struggle to that end yeah, but there is the goal of overthrowing power structures