posted ago by bluewhiteandred ago by bluewhiteandred +1 / -0

The word "anarchy" is synonymous with "chaos". "Anarchists" are thought to be "bomb throwing criminals". It seems like unwise branding to continue to use these terms. It's the reason companies rename themselves because their name may hurt their business.

"Woke" musicians like the former "Dixie Chicks" renamed themselves to "The Chicks" because they thought their name had connotations their fans didn't like. I think it's the same kind of thing here.

It immediately puts people on the defensive when they talk about this issue, they'll say, "I'm an anarchist but not the bomb throwing sort". The bad reputation of the name is already acknowledged.

It's the difference between tyranny and "good" monarchy. For the anarchist, maybe they think there is no "good" monarchy. For most people, they'll recognize there can be some "decent" kings and some bad ones. "Anarchy" just sounds like the "tyranny" version of monarchy. Instead some other term would put a more positive spin on things and be more accurate.

For me, "anarchy" isn't even accurate. Some of the anarchists say they are for "no gods, no masters". There is quite a difference between anarcho-communism and anarcho-capitalism. Let the leftist anarchists continue using the term "anarchy" and for people to associate them with criminality. I am ok with some kinds of "anarchy" (like "anarcho-capitalism"?), but it's a lot more like what we already have than anarcho-communism.

I believe "anarchists" can believe in God and follow hierarchical leadership in private institutions that compete in a market. There may be more freedom to do different things, but we would still end up with a lot of what we see now with policing and enforcement of laws with courts. Taxes may go away, but they would still exist in the form of "fees", they would just hopefully cost less and be "voluntary" (although a lot of things are pretty much needed in life, so they seem less "voluntary" in a way - it may be "voluntary" for you to choose not to have a subscription to police help, but then you're kind of exposed to criminals more).

I don't know what exactly might be good to replace the term "anarchism" with though, maybe that's up for people to debate about.

Do you think the terms "anarchy", "anarchist", or "anarchism" are hurtful or inaccurate or do you think they should be "reclaimed" because "people will just continue to make them in to bad terms so it's pointless to keep renaming things"?

Comments (3)
sorted by:
1
Hogbutcher 1 point ago +1 / -0

The word is irrelevant. The concept is unworkable.

1
bluewhiteandred [S] 1 point ago +1 / -0

The concept is unworkable

if you'd like, explain how you think it works

it would be like saying "monarchy can't work, it would just be tyranny" and yet the UK has a monarchy

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0