I was first properly introduced to the concept of anarchy through this site a couple of years ago. I say properly because I had of course heard of it prior, but I was not properly prepared to hear the message behind the word.
What Do You Mean By Prepared?
This is what typically came to mind hearing the word, and with that as a conceptual definition of the word... I wasn't really open to any arguments that were pro. It got filtered through an already formed idea of what it meant, as a result I wasn't really open to the concept. I wonder how many people there are today like I was? People who can't get past the concept of what they think a thing is... even when it is being laid out differently before them.
While looking for a picture I found this article and I want to quote one part:
1. Yes, I was stereotyping a little bit. It was all in good fun. Just because you support and promote an impractical political philosophy that’s commonly associated with hate, bigotry and racism, doesn’t necessarily mean that you are filled with or support hate, bigotry and racism. There’s a slight chance you could be normal.
# So, it’s “Ask an Anarchist Week” at OU…
It seems to me that if the people you are trying to reach feel this way, your not going to reach them. How could you?
Voluntaryism
Far less heard, and as such when I first heard this term used I didn't have the same resistance to what followed. I didn't try to put it through a filter to twist what I was reading into something that fits any of my preconceived notions.
I don't want to go on and make this about the ideologies, I admit to being ignorant as to any defining differences. What I did notice though is that I was introduced to a lot of similar concepts anarchists hold without knowing at first. When I came to realize they're not conflicting ideologies... I approached anarchy ideologies differently.
I guess I am just ultimately curious as to why anarchist would continue to be used and held onto if it created such an obstacle to adoption? I know there are people that want to see the world burn, and some of those people embrace the word anarchy, but the majority of what I have read from anarchists after my eye opener is not remotely similar. So why give yourself such a hurdle to more widespread adoption of the philosophy?
Just curious, and love to hear from people.
Great observation, and interesting to hear your experience with this.
I agree, that 'anarchist' is a really polarizing and often misleading term. I way prefer "voluntaryist", if I had to pick a label.
It's less of a loaded and confusing term, and I also like that it's "ground up", it's a positive of what you do want rather than an opposition to something else -- while I don't like labeling or trying to define myself by one term, if I had to, I'd prefer it to describe what I believe, not what I oppose.
As far as why the term is used, good question. Of course, there's no one who gets to "decide" these things, so if you hear other people using it, you'll use it too in those circles. But your question is a good reminder to be more conscious of the words we use and if they're really the best way to describe what we're talking about.
The even worse term that I can't stand is "Anarcho-Capitalist" lol. You have anarchy and also the loaded term "capitalism" rolled into one.
It's like, if I had to put a tin foil hat on, it seems maybe not accidental, that the opposition to state power would be labeled the most bizarre and confusing thing possible.
I try to not be attached to these terms, like sometimes there's a tendency to want to explain what "anarchy" or "capitalism" really means -- like "no man, this isn't real capitalism tho". But, to your point here, I think it's better to just give up on the terms and have no attachment to them, and use whatever words best gets the point across.
I very much like how you phrased it.... "I'd prefer it to describe what I believe, not what I oppose."... strongly resonated with that statement
Any word we use will eventually be twisted and contaminated with misleading connotations, but we can't keep running and abandoning even our own language forever. At some point we have to stand and defend the ability to communicate.
I agree... but do see communication as an understanding of the other person as well. I can communicate with someone who doesn't speak the same language.. on some level. Through points and gestures I can be understood, even if on a small limited scale.
If I insist the know and understand the words I use and what they mean to me.... I see it more as language than communication I guess.
Anarchists are consistent. If you see inconsistency, the person is not an anarchist. The ultimate goal is maximizing individual liberty. Is the person's actions working towards that objective or not? Are they consistent or not?
I wasn’t saying they were not. I was looking more at resistance to what people THINK it is versus what it actually is.
Kind of a mental excercise.... I just know my own personal expectation of what anarchism was didn’t line up with what it is.