|
| quote: | Originally posted by Mike_B
how can an "Organization", as you say, not be organized, and still remaine anarchist. It just doesn't make sence. you're either organized, in which case you have some form of coordination between members. Or its an Anarchy, where by definition, its not organized. Just because your an anarchist aimed at a certain goal to knock down social structure, doesn't mean you're part of an organization. Once you are, your no longer participating in anarchy, but a movement with an organized nature.
Im not saying your definition of Anarchist and anarchism is wrong based on the articles you've read on them or dictionairy's you've check them in. Im saying they all don't make sence base on that fact that by definition, Anarchy is disorganition.
"that its organized with a form of authority." I don't recall saying that. the fact that its organized at all is enough for me. because anarchy should not be organized. a any form of social group. whether it be liberal radicals or square conservative the fact that they are a group causes them to have nothing to do with anarchy. |
Mike, honestly, this is the last post I make with regards to this topic. I can't believe this semantics debate has gone on for three pages, when I've made my point over half a dozen times in my previous posts, and yet you refuse to acknowledge it either purposefully because you're stubborn, or because you can't digest a seemingly simple point. Not only do you rehash what you've stated previously a thousand times over in the above post as if you hadn't even read my posts, but you proceed to contradict yourself. I'm going to make this really clear one last final time so that we can put this debate to rest:
We're talking about anarchist organizations (or groups). You claimed that expression is an oxymoron. An oxymoron implies that the two terms contradict each other in a fundamental way. If two terms contradict each other, then from their definitions, we should be able to spot that. So far, so good? Good.
Now let's take these definitions, which I am quoting from your own posts, so that I'm not accused of making stuff up. Let's start with the definition of anarchist:
| quote: | [QUOTE]Originally posted by Mike_B
lets start by googeling Anarchist
"one who rebels against any authority, established order, or ruling power" |
Now let's look at your definition of group (or organization):
| quote: | "1 : two or more figures forming a complete unit in a composition
2 a : a number of individuals assembled together or having some unifying relationship b : an assemblage of objects regarded as a unit" |
Now let's look at whether there exists a contradiction. A contradiction would imply that "one who rebels against any authority, established order, or ruling power" cannot be an individual amongst "a number of individuals assembled together or having some unifying relationship". Do you see any contradiction? I see none.
An anarchist group is one composed of individuals that are "unified" in an attempt to bring down coercive hierachical-like structures, in the form of government or state. For there to be a contradiction, or a paradox in the language as you claim, their own group must be organized in the exact same way as the hierarchical structures they're trying to abolish. Now, I ask you, why is it necessary that anarchist groups be organized in that fashion? Clearly, it's not necessary, and if it's not necessary, then no contradiction arises, and thus there is no oxymoron in the language.
I say clearly it's no necessary because not all groups need to be organized with a hierarchical structure, a governing power or what have you. For instance, and this is from my previous post, an Anarchist society is one that is:
| quote: | Originally posted by Epicurus
[...]organized according to freely constituted agreements between various groups. The key to Anarchism is not no organization, but no coercing agent in the form of an imposed hierarchy, such as a government, a state or what have you. |
In the case of Anarchist groups, the same logic applies. An Anarchist group is one that is "organized according to freely constituted agreements between various individuals within that group". So no hierarchical-like structure or governing power within the group is necessary. Thus, there is no paradox.
Finally, you keep on stating the same thing over and over again, without realizing that you're in left field. Personally, I laughed for a good 30 seconds after I read the following:
| quote: | Originally posted by Mike_B
Im not saying your definition of Anarchist and anarchism is wrong based on the articles you've read on them or dictionairy's you've check them in. Im saying they all don't make sence base on that fact that by definition, Anarchy is disorganition. |
So according to Encylopedia Britannica, the Wikipedia, Noam Chomsky, the founders of Anarchism themselves and every other person who remotely knows what they're talking about, they're wrong, because Mike_B on tranceaddict.com said so. Did you ever stop for a split second and ponder the following: perhaps, just perhaps, one particular use of the word "Anarchy" in our vernacular does not correspond to "Anarchism", the ideology, which is obviously what I was referring to when I said Anarchist organizations?
What you don't realize is that Anarchism, as an ideology, is NOT CHAOS, IT'S NOT DISORGANIZATION. If you've ever taken any political philosophy classes, or even read a book about it, you'll quickly note that Anarchism is an IDEOLOGY, not a state of being (which is what chaos is), and furthermore, wouldn't necessarily lead to chaos to begin with. So not only are you making a category mistake (confusing definition with consequence), but you've also got the consequence of this ideology wrong, or at least potentially wrong.
That is all.
Last edited by Epicurus on Apr-28-2005 at 13:27
|
toutes les dissertations de philo seraient dans ma poche 
