NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/alt/society/anarchy/960

Text File | 1992-12-29 | 3.7 KB | 69 lines

Newsgroups: alt.society.anarchy
Path: sparky!uunet!spool.mu.edu!wupost!emory!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!destroyer!wsu-cs!vela!argo.acs.oakland.edu!W2LEE
From: [e-mail] (Walter Lee)
Subject: Controversy over definitions of terms
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (USENET News System)
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Oakland University, Rochester, MI
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 04:32:17 GMT
Lines: 57


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Perry E. Metzger) writes:

>>>Anarchism is best defined as the belief that it would be best if
>>>society were structured without a large organization claiming a
>>>monopoly on the legitimate use of force ("The Government").

>[e-mail] (Tristan Riley) writes:
(and I essentially agree)

>>this is a definition which few contemporary self-defined anarchists
>>i know, have read, etc. would agree with--it's perhaps more accurate
>>when applied to 'classical' (i.e., 19th century) folks like
>>Kropotkin, et. al., but in the wake of thorough critiques of other
>>oppressive institutions (work, school, the family, etc.) which could
>>and likely would go on relatively untouched by a mere dismantling of
>>'political' authority, many now speak of anarchism as a challenge of
>>all oppressive and illegitimate hierarchy and authority (you perhaps
>>remember that little catch phrase: 'the personal is political') and
>>envision its goal as replacing such institutions and relations with
>>voluntary, non-oppressive ones.

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Perry E. Metzger) writes:

>Anarchy means, plain and simple, society without government. SOME
>anarchists also include into their political belief systems some of
>the things you mention, others do not. Claiming your views to be
>definitive is to deny that others who also oppose governments are
>anarchists.

OK, Perry and I are using different definitions.  He says anarchy means, plain
and simple, society without government.  I'm curious as to what his definition
of government is.  Most anarchists of his stripe seem (to me) to define
government as "deadly force, plain and simple".  I can go along with that.  I
also have a problem with what you might call "non-deadly force" which I
perceive mainly in the form of "leverage".  To me, the employer-employee
relationship, the landlord-tenant relationship and the creditor-debtor
relationship are essentially the same as the government-citizen relationship;
in that the dominant party offers some sort of "protection" from physical or
marketplace realities that the dominated party finds intimidating.  This is
especially true of the employer-employee relationship.  Actually, the other two
relationships I mentioned indicate (as far as I can tell) very real
inequalities of opportunity:  what enables one to even begin to pursue status
as a creditor or landlord (in the short run) is posession of assets, period.
Marketists point to the fact that leveraged dominance relationships are
voluntarily contracted, while coerced ones (states) are not.  While I concede
that point, I concede it to the extent of saying that private sector
hierarchies are a "lesser evil" than public-sector ones.

While either Perry or I could be accurately described as anarchists, it is hard
to imagine us working toward a common goal.  To put it rhetorically, if I start
calling Perry an anarchist, what should I start calling myself?
Anarchy/anarchism, like most words denoting a political world-view, has
attracted a wide enough variety of people to make the term ambiguous, if not
meaningless.  Observe the endless debates over the "authentic" meaning of words
like "liberal" and "conservative".