Still working to recover. Please don't edit quite yet.
Difference between revisions of "Template:boolnand"
m (Template:Boolnand moved to Template:boolnand) |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | + | [[Image:symbol.png|thumb|150px|The "A" is reported to stand for anarchy. So why is it capitalized?]] | |
| − | + | ||
| − | + | '''Anarchy''' is the state of having no government. It is distinguished in political science from [[anarchism]], the belief that anarchy, defined by them as the absence of major hierarchies such as [[social class|class]] and the state, with power flowing from the bottom up, is the best possible system for humanity to live under. This causes confusion when self-declared anarchists protest ''against'' government cuts in public spending. Surely, as believers in the absense of the state, they'd be campaigning ''for'' government cuts in public spending. Another ideology exists, called 'anarcho-capitalism', however, some more left-leaning anarchists would consider this an oxymoron. | |
| − | + | ||
| − | + | Many political philosophers consider anarchy the original "base state" of humanity. Some then go on to say that we are ''much'' better without it.<ref>For an example of this, see Hobbes's <i>Leviathan</i>.</ref> Others consider the natural state to be great but impossible to return to.<ref>For an example of this, see Rousseau's <i>Social Contract</i></ref> | |
| − | + | ||
| + | Anarchy is also the word used to describe a state of chaos, lawlessness and disorder, frequently seemingly brought about by the lack of government. However it is important, or at least useful, to decide at any particular time which definition is being used. Otherwise all discussion and dialogue will descend into . . . . . . . anarchy. Anarchists are generally careful to note that, "No rulers does not mean no rules," as 'no ruler' is the origin of the word 'anarchy', since many people believe that anarchy is just the removal of the current government, and absence of all law, which is the origin of this use of the word 'anarchy'. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==Real examples== | ||
| + | Real examples of this are Celtic Ireland up until Cromwell's invasion during the English [[civil war|Civil War]], Catalonia during the Spanish Civil War, and most hunter-gatherer societies. Some anarchists would refer to the Paris Commune as being anarchistic, at least until the Blanquists began to take over. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Many consider the [[failed state]] of Somalia to be a real life example of this, where the southern 2/3 have been in a civil war for the last decade. There is a technically recognized government; however, that government does not have any authority anywhere in the country. Some Somalis ended up supporting a totalitarian Islamic regime just to have a semblance of order. The [[United States]], with its ally Ethiopia, kicked out that regime and everything's falling back into its previous state. However, most anarchists would not accept this as being 'anarchy', as there were still rulers and major hierarchies, such as class and rule by warlords, and many would also argue that it was brought about by imperialist wars by 'First World' nations. As anarchism is a generally internationalist movement, they would also doubt the idea that since Somalia has more than one ruler within its borders, this somehow makes it anarchist, as the national borders, in their opinions, are artificial and meaningless. | ||
| + | |||
| + | However, Somalia does have a customary law system which some self-identified anarchists (particularly so-called "anarcho-capitalists) see as an example of how a stateless society can function. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==Contrast with mobocracy== | ||
| + | |||
| + | Anarchy should not be confused with [[mobocracy]], or <i>ochlocracy</i> as it's more technically termed. In mobocracy, there is at least some governing authority but the mob easily sways the government's decisions - effectively the weight of consensus or the assertions of strongly opinionated individuals can overrule any nominal leadership. In true anarchy, there is no governing authority whatsoever other than the people, though some forms of democracy (especially direct and decentralized) can be compatible with anarchy. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==Contrast with chaos== | ||
| + | Anarchy is compared to, or even described as equal to [[user:pink|chaos]] or ''anomie''. However, anarchy is defined by the lack of a ruler, and ''anomie'' by the lack of rules. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==Use of the term in international relations== | ||
| + | In [[international relations]], anarchy is a term of art that refers to the state of the international system, since there is no authority that controls how states interact. (The few attempts at decreasing international anarchy, such as the League of Nations and the [[United Nations]], have been spectacular failures due to certain nations having leaders that just don't care, and have an army to back themselves up - like the [[United States]] of Mid-North America.) The cornerstone of most neo-realist thought is that anarchy means that states will continue to war with each other forever. Constructivists, on the other hand, believe that anarchy is itself shaped by the norms that the states adopt.<ref>This is best expressed as "Anarchy is what you make of it," by Wendt.</ref> It should be noted that in this case, anarchy most definitely does not mean a lack of heirarchy; the international system is distinctly heirarchic, with the US as the unipole/hyperpower. Anarchists would probably argue because the state of international relations is not what they mean by anarchy, but competing hierarchies and much chaos. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==See also== | ||
| + | *[[Libertarianism]], a term originally used by anarchists, now used by laissez-faire capitalists. | ||
| + | * [[List of forms of government]] | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==Footnotes== | ||
| + | <references/> | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | [[Category:Forms of government]] | ||
| + | [[Category:Political terms]] | ||
Revision as of 18:11, 2 February 2012
Anarchy is the state of having no government. It is distinguished in political science from anarchism, the belief that anarchy, defined by them as the absence of major hierarchies such as class and the state, with power flowing from the bottom up, is the best possible system for humanity to live under. This causes confusion when self-declared anarchists protest against government cuts in public spending. Surely, as believers in the absense of the state, they'd be campaigning for government cuts in public spending. Another ideology exists, called 'anarcho-capitalism', however, some more left-leaning anarchists would consider this an oxymoron.
Many political philosophers consider anarchy the original "base state" of humanity. Some then go on to say that we are much better without it.[1] Others consider the natural state to be great but impossible to return to.[2]
Anarchy is also the word used to describe a state of chaos, lawlessness and disorder, frequently seemingly brought about by the lack of government. However it is important, or at least useful, to decide at any particular time which definition is being used. Otherwise all discussion and dialogue will descend into . . . . . . . anarchy. Anarchists are generally careful to note that, "No rulers does not mean no rules," as 'no ruler' is the origin of the word 'anarchy', since many people believe that anarchy is just the removal of the current government, and absence of all law, which is the origin of this use of the word 'anarchy'.
Contents
Real examples
Real examples of this are Celtic Ireland up until Cromwell's invasion during the English Civil War, Catalonia during the Spanish Civil War, and most hunter-gatherer societies. Some anarchists would refer to the Paris Commune as being anarchistic, at least until the Blanquists began to take over.
Many consider the failed state of Somalia to be a real life example of this, where the southern 2/3 have been in a civil war for the last decade. There is a technically recognized government; however, that government does not have any authority anywhere in the country. Some Somalis ended up supporting a totalitarian Islamic regime just to have a semblance of order. The United States, with its ally Ethiopia, kicked out that regime and everything's falling back into its previous state. However, most anarchists would not accept this as being 'anarchy', as there were still rulers and major hierarchies, such as class and rule by warlords, and many would also argue that it was brought about by imperialist wars by 'First World' nations. As anarchism is a generally internationalist movement, they would also doubt the idea that since Somalia has more than one ruler within its borders, this somehow makes it anarchist, as the national borders, in their opinions, are artificial and meaningless.
However, Somalia does have a customary law system which some self-identified anarchists (particularly so-called "anarcho-capitalists) see as an example of how a stateless society can function.
Contrast with mobocracy
Anarchy should not be confused with mobocracy, or ochlocracy as it's more technically termed. In mobocracy, there is at least some governing authority but the mob easily sways the government's decisions - effectively the weight of consensus or the assertions of strongly opinionated individuals can overrule any nominal leadership. In true anarchy, there is no governing authority whatsoever other than the people, though some forms of democracy (especially direct and decentralized) can be compatible with anarchy.
Contrast with chaos
Anarchy is compared to, or even described as equal to chaos or anomie. However, anarchy is defined by the lack of a ruler, and anomie by the lack of rules.
Use of the term in international relations
In international relations, anarchy is a term of art that refers to the state of the international system, since there is no authority that controls how states interact. (The few attempts at decreasing international anarchy, such as the League of Nations and the United Nations, have been spectacular failures due to certain nations having leaders that just don't care, and have an army to back themselves up - like the United States of Mid-North America.) The cornerstone of most neo-realist thought is that anarchy means that states will continue to war with each other forever. Constructivists, on the other hand, believe that anarchy is itself shaped by the norms that the states adopt.[3] It should be noted that in this case, anarchy most definitely does not mean a lack of heirarchy; the international system is distinctly heirarchic, with the US as the unipole/hyperpower. Anarchists would probably argue because the state of international relations is not what they mean by anarchy, but competing hierarchies and much chaos.
See also
- Libertarianism, a term originally used by anarchists, now used by laissez-faire capitalists.
- List of forms of government
