3 ms·

It may not be anarchism as professed by anarchists (which is itself a broad and fractious array of philosophies generally having to do with abolishing involunta

by kibwen 2y ago

It may not be anarchism as professed by anarchists (which is itself a broad and fractious array of philosophies generally having to do with abolishing involuntary hierarchies, related to classical libertarianism), but it is a form of anarchy, at least as it is popularly understood. Terminology fails here; at this point any serious anarchists need to come to grips with the fact that this sort of "chaotic anarchy" is what people think of when they hear "anarchy", and that trying to reclaim the word is pointless.

urduntupu 2y ago
[dead]
NewJazz 2y ago
On the contrary, the article's use of the word is what is pointless. At no point, besides the title, does the article make mention of anarchy or chaos. Rather, the article pretty clearly states that the famine is a result of a civil war between the government and a paramilitary group that was previously given weapons by the government. Liberal politicians (and less commonly journalists) like to latch onto the words anarchy and chaos to fear monger and dramatize, but often the so-called anarchy and chaos they call out is a direct result of their own ruthless attempts to keep order.
- Jensson 2y ago
  Civil wars tend to create anarchy, it is the anarchy that causes the famine wars themselves doesn't inherently do it. For example the American civil war didn't create anarchy, the states continued to function on both sides so there were no mass starvation events.
  - NewJazz 2y ago
    Anarchy is when two factions try to govern instead of one? It is an interesting take. I can't say it makes sense.
    - Jensson 2y ago
      Yes, if nobody currently governs then it is an anarchy. That some people try to establish order doesn't change that currently there is none.
      - NewJazz 2y ago
        Neither the article author, nor you, have shown that the situation here is caused by a lack of government. In fact the article explicitly states that an important agricultural region is governed by one of the warring factions.
        sofixa 2y ago
        That's because you're misunderstanding what "governed" means here. In the context of the article, it basically means that there are armed men there exercising control over the area, and that's it. There is no actual governance of the land, agricultural exploitation or oversight, basic services, or anything else. Just armed men plundering, which is not any actual government control, hence the anarchy there and all around the country. There is a power structure in some places, but only insofar as military control and plunder; everything else is left to its own devices, hence chaotic anarchy.
        NewJazz 2y ago
        Bad government is still government.
        NewJazz 2y ago
        Just armed men plundering, which is not any actual government control, hence the anarchy there and all around the country Also... You may perceive this as anarchy, but many anarchists perceive most governments as exactly that... Just armed men plundering.
    - xboxnolifes 2y ago
      Anarchy is when two factions fail to govern. Thus, lack of government.
igorkraw 2y ago
1. I agree that anarchists probably need to grapple with the fact that people think of this as a first association... 2. ...but terminology does not at all fail here, there is a separate term https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anomie https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anomie which describes a breakdown in order and social function. Notably, anarchists would probably claim that the fact that there's a civil war of various warlord factions and wannabe-states going on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudanese_civil_war_(2023%E2%80%93present) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudanese_civil_war_(2023%E2%80... is a good example why anomie and anarchy probably _should_ be distinct concepts, as there's probably plenty of hierarchy, localized state power and centralized decision making going on in Sudan, while e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zapatista_Army_of_National_Liberation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zapatista_Army_of_National_Lib... appear to have done absolutely fine keeping and improving a social fabric for the last 30 yeras (until recently, gangs arrived and brought the anomie that comes with organized crime). Again, I don't think it's a winning strategy for political anarchists to try and convince people that "acshually it's anomie, not anarchy", but I think on this page, peoples professed self-identity makes sharing out this separation of concept worth it

by kibwen 2y ago

urduntupu 2y ago

[dead]

NewJazz 2y ago

On the contrary, the article's use of the word is what is pointless. At no point, besides the title, does the article make mention of anarchy or chaos. Rather, the article pretty clearly states that the famine is a result of a civil war between the government and a paramilitary group that was previously given weapons by the government. Liberal politicians (and less commonly journalists) like to latch onto the words anarchy and chaos to fear monger and dramatize, but often the so-called anarchy and chaos they call out is a direct result of their own ruthless attempts to keep order.

Jensson 2y ago
Civil wars tend to create anarchy, it is the anarchy that causes the famine wars themselves doesn't inherently do it. For example the American civil war didn't create anarchy, the states continued to function on both sides so there were no mass starvation events.
- NewJazz 2y ago
  Anarchy is when two factions try to govern instead of one? It is an interesting take. I can't say it makes sense.
  - Jensson 2y ago
    Yes, if nobody currently governs then it is an anarchy. That some people try to establish order doesn't change that currently there is none.
    - NewJazz 2y ago
      Neither the article author, nor you, have shown that the situation here is caused by a lack of government. In fact the article explicitly states that an important agricultural region is governed by one of the warring factions.
      - sofixa 2y ago
        That's because you're misunderstanding what "governed" means here. In the context of the article, it basically means that there are armed men there exercising control over the area, and that's it. There is no actual governance of the land, agricultural exploitation or oversight, basic services, or anything else. Just armed men plundering, which is not any actual government control, hence the anarchy there and all around the country. There is a power structure in some places, but only insofar as military control and plunder; everything else is left to its own devices, hence chaotic anarchy.
        NewJazz 2y ago
        Bad government is still government.
        NewJazz 2y ago
        Just armed men plundering, which is not any actual government control, hence the anarchy there and all around the country Also... You may perceive this as anarchy, but many anarchists perceive most governments as exactly that... Just armed men plundering.
  - xboxnolifes 2y ago
    Anarchy is when two factions fail to govern. Thus, lack of government.

igorkraw 2y ago

1. I agree that anarchists probably need to grapple with the fact that people think of this as a first association... 2. ...but terminology does not at all fail here, there is a separate term https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anomie https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anomie which describes a breakdown in order and social function. Notably, anarchists would probably claim that the fact that there's a civil war of various warlord factions and wannabe-states going on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudanese_civil_war_(2023%E2%80%93present) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudanese_civil_war_(2023%E2%80... is a good example why anomie and anarchy probably _should_ be distinct concepts, as there's probably plenty of hierarchy, localized state power and centralized decision making going on in Sudan, while e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zapatista_Army_of_National_Liberation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zapatista_Army_of_National_Lib... appear to have done absolutely fine keeping and improving a social fabric for the last 30 yeras (until recently, gangs arrived and brought the anomie that comes with organized crime). Again, I don't think it's a winning strategy for political anarchists to try and convince people that "acshually it's anomie, not anarchy", but I think on this page, peoples professed self-identity makes sharing out this separation of concept worth it