Re:Social Anarchism or Lifestyle Anarchism (1995)
by mandelbrotwurst on Wednesday June 08, 2022 @08:06PM
(#31676092)
Dictionaries are neither objectively descriptive nor apolitical - their definitions reflect the biases of their authors and the systems they exist within which allowed them to obtain positions of relative authority.
Re:Social Anarchism or Lifestyle Anarchism (1995)
by AndyNemmity on Wednesday June 08, 2022 @07:35PM
(#31675859)
It meant "without ruler" when it was chosen. It was demonized after the fact.
Re:Social Anarchism or Lifestyle Anarchism (1995)
by lynnk on Wednesday June 08, 2022 @08:11PM
(#31676122)
It's the other way around. Historically "anarchy" almost always had negative connotations. Then Proudhon co-opted the term to use it in a positive sense.
Re:Social Anarchism or Lifestyle Anarchism (1995)
by whatshisface on Wednesday June 08, 2022 @08:08PM
(#31676103)
The idea that the absence of a ruler meant total chaos goes back at least to Hobbes.
Re:Social Anarchism or Lifestyle Anarchism (1995)
by yellowapple on Wednesday June 08, 2022 @08:56PM
(#31676411)
If I was Calvin's pet tiger I'd probably come to a similar conclusion.
> anarchy - a state in which there is widespread wrongdoing and disregard for rules and authority
If the political ideology doesn't want to be conflated with this it needs a new name.
It sucks but language is descriptive not prescriptive, and meanings change over time.