I had hoped that the irony would be identified by the final comment
but...
No they are not the same.
Lawlessness has a pejorative sense and is not the same as 'without
laws'. Anarchists certainly do not consider a lawless society, but
rather one that is governed on the basis of small 'beta' units rather
than centralised government. They existed (and still do to some
extent) in the Spanish communes during the civil war and it was the
Communists that destroyed them, being committed to centralised
socialism. Communities that made up their own minds on the basis of
free and local votes were seen as a serious threat by both sides.
The best recent examples are anarcho-syndicalist organisations,
companies where the workers have engineered a buy-out and taken over,
running the corporation themselves on a communal basis and hiring a
management. The credit union that I belong to (and own a share in) is
an example of a bank run in this way.
Of course there were some anarchists who felt that this form of
organisation could be best brought about by striking at the heart of
centralised power - the assassination of Arch-Duke Ferdinand is a
good example. It took Gramsci to point out that in times of civil
disorder and anomie, it is the fascists who succeed. They, after all,
don't have to wait for a vote and can offer security by 'discovering'
scapegoats.
In our terms, the more the photography market becomes unsettled, the
more likely Canon is to win.
Andrew Fildes
afildes@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
On 22/07/2007, at 7:14 PM, Moose wrote:
>> I agree. Politicians and vernacular usage tend to define "anarchy" as
>> "lawlessness." But it also means "freedom from government."
>>
> Taking no position pro or con on anarchism here. Aren't those two
> definitions tautologically identical, but approached from different
> viewpoints?
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|