this post was submitted on 10 May 2024
321 points (92.6% liked)
Anarchist Memes
1188 readers
1 users here now
This forum is for anarchists to circlejerk and share zesty memes
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Those aren't anarchists, they're synarchists.
The things they do like pooling resources require governing over. Governing.
Just do a simple fucking web search before you comment, this is embarassing.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism
I skimmed the article and it does seem to agree with the comment you responded to, no? Genuinely asking, I don't know anything about this.
Anarchism is against hierarchy and for horizontal organization. Not disorder. In the comic these are anarchists (they are punk rock representations of 1800s anarchist philosophers Bakunin, Kropotkin and Proudhon) and they are acting according to the principles of anarchism, as anarchists do irl.
"Governing over something" is not the core of the issue that anarchism is against. It's hierarchy. You can have a horizontally, democratically organized collective "govern over", or in other words manage something. They will just do it through collective decision making with no rulers or subordinates.
OP here is trying to invent a new word for what they see in the comic because they don't understand what anarchism means.
You people really should read up on the ideologies you think you support.
From the link that the earlier user politely provided.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism
All forms of authority.
Synarchism generally means "joint rule" or "harmonious rule".
Ah, so for every single decision, everyone has to gather up and vote? Okay, then you can't have a society as big as in the comic, because everyone would waste the time required to actually produce shit to sit voting on things that don't matter. And what if they disagree? Who solves it? Who enforces the will of the majority when people disagree on these futile votes?
Nah, for a society larger than a family, there's going to be persons responsible for dealing with that. Ie appointed people who will govern a matter. Hmm I wonder what a person like that could be called....
Read even basic philosophy, Rousseau, Hobbes, anything. Just churlish suppositions you make, imo.
fucking hobbes and rousseau lol nah fam been there done that it was part of my school curiculum the problem with the definition of anarchist lies in the fact that anarchy as an idea was always horizontal government structure built on decentralised syndicates and communes but the propaganda term and non political term of lack of order is now commonly accepted as the new definition i suggest you read up on some history and look at the beginning phases of the industrial era
ZzzZZZzzzZzzZzzzz
Your ancient Greek sucks, bruv.
https://www.etymonline.com/word/anarchy#etymonline_v_13397
Bro still can't grasp that words can have more than one meaning
So you admit that the definitions I've used are right, thanks.
Language evolves, yes. Words can have several colloquial meanings. But prescriptive meanings don't change.
Prescriptively, the type of "anarchism" you support is minarchic synarchism, and not anarchism, per se
real mature there bruv
You’re doing the equivalent of saying the satanic temple worships the devil
Not really, no.
More like arguing that Satan is a central figure for LaVeyan satanism, ie The Church of Satan (Satanic Temple is the more... rational one of the two, although both value reason.)
And while neither believe in an actual Satan in the Christian sense, they do value him as a symbolic adversary.
So it definitely wouldn't be wrong to say that the Church of Satan has people who "worship" Satan.
Nice try but no dice. Also, theology is far less objective than "what is the prescriptive meaning of anarchy" which isn't s terribly hard question to answer.
A philosophical movement is defined by its philosophy and followers not by the word it calls itself.
So let's go back to what the most basic information on this we have: the Wiki article. Which begins:
So where exactly doesn't it mean these things...?
Yeah, it really is.
Let's use your link, if that's the level of discussion you're on.
Literally the first sentence.
These people demonstrate a community so large that pooling the resources will surely be written down. That or it won't work like in the comic. Thus they'll end up making the very same institutions they claim to abolish.
These are a minimally governed commune. Minarchy, synarchy, but not anarchy.
Quite embarrassing indeed.
that depends on which definition you go off of tho idk about their link but in the begginnings of the industrial age anarchism was redefined for propaganda use and didnt actually mean the complete eradication of government but instead the creation of syndicates and communes
The actual prescriptive definition, not some vague colloquial use that goes against the prescriptive meaning of the word.
Oh syndicates you say? Huh. That word has the same beginning as the word "synarchy", doesn't it? Followed by "-archy", denoting "rule of". Huh. I wonder why I chose the word "synarchy". It's a mystery, it seems.
yea well words tend to have multiple definitions and arent just latin afterall we are writing english not latin right?
"Anarchy" is pretty directly from Greek through Latin.
Yes English has a lot of loanwords and they don't always use the prescriptive meaning, and sometimes evolve. Like "English". The language of the people of Angle-Land. Englaland (old English for England), if you will.
I think this is still fairly known despite having few to none practical applications.
That is still a proper noun though.
We're talking about Greek and Latin words we use precisely because of their prescriptive meaning.
"Democracy" is still the rule of the people, despite "Democrat" being a party alignment in the US, and thus obviously having more meanings than the basic prescriptive meaning, but I think we can still agree that the word indeed means "the [common] people's rule".
So do other words we picked up exactly because of their prescriptive meaning keep their meanings as well.
Like synarchy, minarchy and anarchy.
Colloquially anarchists have switched to supporting minarchy, because it's very evident to anyone that even a small society will need governing in some form, to function. So it wouldn't be wrong to say that modern anarchism isn't actually anarchy, but minarchic synarchism, just like I described.
bro homophobia isnt fear or aversion just because it ends on phobia (phóbos) tho chief
It's literally exactly that.
If you had written just "fear", I would have to agree. But the added "or aversion" makes it so I can't. It is quite literally, aversion. It is also used to describe acts of discrimination or hatred which stem from fear or aversion.
https://www.etymonline.com/word/phobia
https://www.etymonline.com/word/homophobic
let me correct my statement homophobia isn't just that homophia is a word like any other that goes beyond its wikipedia definition because of the context its used in
You can use pretty much any word in any context, and the context you previously used "homophobia" in was you saying: "homophobia isnt fear or aversion just because it ends on phobia".
That's exactly the reason that homophobia does mean "fear or aversion". It is used in other contexts as well, and mostly when it's used it's used to describe prejudice that is implied to stem from fear or aversion to homosexuality.
I get your point that colloquial use isn't always the same as the strict prescriptive meaning of the word, but do you get that just because someone doesn't know the prescriptive meaning of the word doesn't mean the meaning doesn't exist?
It's the same as the use of the word "literally." Colloquially, you can use "literally" as emphasis, but there is an actual prescriptive meaning, and that meaning is the reason that the word is used in that context to begin with. It was always used as emphasis, but the "correct" way to use it as emphasis is in a context which "literally" can actually be applied to without it sounding weird.
And the use of "literally" as unconnected emphasis is accepted by major linguistic institutions, so it's not wrong per se, but...
latin and dictionaries arent rules tho they are teching, guiding language to allow for a common consensus and tge consensus has been for a while that anarchy can both be lawlessness and the existence of a horizontal government struckture built of syndicates and communes
The prescriptive meanings from latin are pretty much the sole reason we still name things in Latin; because people can understand instantly the prescriptive meaning of the word.
You know "neo" is "new", you know "anti" is "against", "pro" is for, etc. Dictionaries are also pretty much exactly for the rules of the language.
That doesn't preclude meanings which aren't in the dictionary though.
You'll notice I haven't argued against this vague added definition of yours. I've just said it's not the main meaning, just like pure emphasis isn't for "literally", "literally" actually meaning "literally" as opposed to "figuratively".