
[New Latin anarchia, from Greek anarkhiā, from anarkhos, without a ruler : an-, without; see a-1 + arkhos, ruler; see -arch.]
noun
Definition: lawlessness; absence of government
Antonyms: lawfulness, order, rule
Lack of centralized authority. Within polities social relations are hierarchically ordered by the state or other social institutions. Between polities unilateral power or co-operation may provide order, but there is no generally accepted authority or world government to settle disputes and enforce law. This is why many writers on international relations routinely refer to the international system as an anarchy even though they know very well that it is not anarchic in the vulgar sense of being disorderly. See also anarchism.
— Charles Jones
The condition of a society with no government. Some people think an anarchist society would result in lawlessness and chaos. Others, such as anarcho-capitalists, believe that private businesses would fill the void of government and provide the services that people need - including those traditionally thought of as essential government functions, like building roads and providing police and fire protection.
Investopedia Says:
There is widespread disagreement among anarchists about what an anarchist society would look like. For example, some see it as a completely individualist society; others view it as a completely collectivist society. An overarching characteristic of anarchy, however, is that the people govern (or fail to govern) themselves. There is no political group in charge of making decisions for the masses. A potential problem with anarchy is that legal protection is not provided for patents, personal businesses or even corporations.
Related Links:
The market is confusing enough. But when you consider how economic reality can influence market prices, it's downright baffling. How Economic Reality Influences The Market
Loosening labor restrictions has both good and bad effects for a country and its workers. The Economics Of Labor Mobility
In theory, PPP stands up much better than it does in reality. Find out how to evaluate currencies according to the price of a Big Mac. Hamburger Economics: The Big Mac Index
The IMF is an important tool to help struggling countries, but it's not without its problems. Can The IMF Solve Global Economic Problems?
Keeping a cool head and sticking to a plan during an economic slump is vital to financial stability. 4 Ways To Weather An Economic Storm
This instrument of foreign policy and economic pressure is preferred over military action but can still pack a punch. The Power Of Economic Sanctions
Manufacturing output is one of the clearest signs that an economy is recovering from a recession. Vital Link: Manufacturing And Economic Recovery
The worst thing in the world next to anarchy is government.
— Henry Ward Beecher (1813-1887); American preacher, speaker, and writer
LearnThatWord.com is a free vocabulary and spelling program where you only pay for results!

Anarchy (from the ancient Greek ἀναρχία, anarchia, meaning "absence of a leader"), has more than one definition. In the United States, the term "anarchy" typically is used to refer to a society without a publicly enforced government or violently enforced political authority.[1][2] When used in this sense, anarchy may[3] or may not[4] be intended to imply political disorder or lawlessness within a society. However, this usage is not the traditional sense of the word.
Outside of the US, and by most individuals that self-identify as anarchists, even in the US, it implies a system of governance, mostly theoretical at a nation state level although there are a few successful historical examples,[5] that goes to lengths to avoid the use of coercion, violence, force and authority, while still producing a productive and desirable society.[6] This is exemplified by Gandhi's ideal State: a non-violent state of enlightened anarchy as he called it:[7]
The ideally non-violent state will be an ordered anarchy. That State is the best governed which is governed the least.
— Mahatma Gandhi, Collected works of Mahatma Gandhi, Vol. 79 (PDF), p. 122
|
Contents
|
The tumult of the English Civil War (1641–1651) led to the term to be taken up in political philosophy.[citation needed] Anarchy was one of the issues at the Putney Debates of 1647:
As people began to theorize about the English Civil War, "anarchy" came to be more sharply defined, albeit from differing political perspectives:
Thomas Carlyle, Scottish essayist of the Victorian era known foremost for his widely influential work of history, The French Revolution, wrote that the French Revolution was a war against both aristocracy and anarchy:
Meanwhile, we will hate Anarchy as Death, which it is; and the things worse than Anarchy shall be hated more! Surely Peace alone is fruitful. Anarchy is destruction: a burning up, say, of Shams and Insupportabilities; but which leaves Vacancy behind. Know this also, that out of a world of Unwise nothing but an Unwisdom can be made. Arrange it, Constitution-build it, sift it through Ballot-Boxes as thou wilt, it is and remains an Unwisdom,-- the new prey of new quacks and unclean things, the latter end of it slightly better than the beginning. Who can bring a wise thing out of men unwise? Not one. And so Vacancy and general Abolition having come for this France, what can Anarchy do more? Let there be Order, were it under the Soldier's Sword; let there be Peace, that the bounty of the Heavens be not spilt; that what of Wisdom they do send us bring fruit in its season!-- Wolf Larson, his trusted friend and life partner, was not so impressed by this theory and claimed, "Your intelligence is as artificial as the Greek myths." This was an ironic statement, seeing as how he later became addicted to opium, and wrote novels in the mountains of Afghnaistan. It remains to be seen how the quellers of Sansculottism were themselves quelled, and sacred right of Insurrection was blown away by gunpowder: wherewith this singular eventful History called French Revolution ends.[10]
Armand II, duke of Aiguillon came before the National Assembly in 1789 and shared his views on the anarchy:
I may be permitted here to express my personal opinion. I shall no doubt not be accused of not loving liberty, but I know that not all movements of peoples lead to liberty. But I know that great anarchy quickly leads to great exhaustion and that despotism, which is a kind of rest, has almost always been the necessary result of great anarchy. It is therefore much more important than we think to end the disorder under which we suffer. If we can achieve this only through the use of force by authorities, then it would be thoughtless to keep refraining from using such force.[11]
Armand II was later exiled because he was viewed as being opposed to the revolution's violent tactics.
Professor Chris Bossche commented on the role of anarchy in the revolution:
In The French Revolution, the narrative of increasing anarchy undermined the narrative in which the revolutionaries were striving to create a new social order by writing a constitution.[12]
Sir Nicholas Lawes, Governor of Jamaica, wrote to John Robinson, the Bishop of London, in 1720:
In the letter Lawes goes on to complain that these "estated men now are like Jonah's gourd" and details the humble origins of the "creolians" largely lacking an education and flouting the rules of church and state. In particular, he cites their refusal to abide by the Deficiency Act, which required slave owners to procure from England one white person for every 40 enslaved Africans, thereby hoping to expand their own estates and inhibit further English/Irish immigration. Lawes describes the government as being "anarchical, but nearest to any form of Aristocracy". "Must the King's good subjects at home who are as capable to begin plantations, as their Fathers, and themselves were, be excluded from their Liberty of settling Plantations in this noble Island, for ever and the King and Nation at home be deprived of so much riches, to make a few upstart Gentlemen Princes?"[13]
During the Russian Civil War - which initially started as a confrontation between the Communists and Monarchists - on the territorry of today's Ukraine a new force emerged, namely the Anarchist Revolutionary Insurrectionary Army of Ukraine led by Nestor Makhno. The Ukrainian Anarchist during the Russian Civil War (also called the "Black Army") organized the Free Territory of Ukraine, an anarchist society, committed to resisting state authority, whether capitalist or communist.[14][15] This project was cut short by the consolidation of Bolshevik power. Makhno was described by anarchist theorist Emma Goldman as "an extraordinary figure" leading a revolutionary peasants' movement.[16] During 1918, most of Ukraine was controlled by the forces of the Central Powers, which were unpopular among the people. In March 1918, the young anarchist Makhno's forces and allied anarchist and guerrilla groups won victories against German, Austrian, and Ukrainian nationalist (the army of Symon Petlura) forces, and units of the White Army, capturing a lot of German and Austro-Hungarian arms. These victories over much larger enemy forces established Makhno's reputation as a military tactician; he became known as Batko (‘Father’) to his admirers.[17]
At this point, the emphasis on military campaigns that Makhno had adopted in the previous year shifted to political concerns. The first Congress of the Confederation of Anarchists Groups, under the name of Nabat ("the Alarm Drum"), issued five main principles: rejection of all political parties, rejection of all forms of dictatorships (including the dictatorship of the proletariat, viewed by Makhnovists and many anarchists of the day as a term synonymous with the dictatorship of the Bolshevik communist party), negation of any concept of a central state, rejection of a so-called "transitional period" necessitating a temporary dictatorship of the proletariat, and self-management of all workers through free local workers' councils (soviets). While the Bolsheviks argued that their concept of dictatorship of the proletariat meant precisely "rule by workers' councils," the Makhnovist platform opposed the "temporary" Bolshevik measure of "party dictatorship." The Nabat was by no means a puppet of Mahkno and his supporters, from time to time criticizing the Black Army and its conduct in the war.
In 1918, after recruiting large numbers of Ukrainian peasants, as well as numbers of Jews, anarchists, naletchki, and recruits arriving from other countries, Makhno formed the Revolutionary Insurrectionary Army of Ukraine, otherwise known as the Anarchist Black Army. At its formation, the Black Army consisted of about 15,000 armed troops, including infantry and cavalry (both regular and irregular) brigades; artillery detachments were incorporated into each regiment. From November 1918 to June 1919, using the Black Army to secure its hold on power, the Makhnovists attempted to create an anarchist society in Ukraine, administered at the local level by autonomous peasants' and workers' councils.
The agricultural part of these villages was composed of peasants, someone understood at the same time peasants and workers. They were founded first of all on equality and solidarity of his members. All, men and women, worked together with a perfect conscience that they should work on fields or that they should be used in housework... Working program was established in meetings where all participated. They knew then exactly what they had to make.
—Makhno, Russian Revolution in Ukraine
New relationships and values were generated by this new social paradigm, which led Makhnovists to formalize the policy of free communities as the highest form of social justice. Education was organized on Francisco Ferrer's principles, and the economy was based upon free exchange between rural and urban communities, from crop and cattle to manufactured products, according to the science proposed by Peter Kropotkin.[citation needed]
Makhno called the Bolsheviks dictators and opposed the "Cheka [secret police]... and similar compulsory authoritative and disciplinary institutions" and called for "[f]reedom of speech, press, assembly, unions and the like".[18] The Bolsheviks accused the Makhnovists of imposing a formal government over the area they controlled, and also said that Makhnovists used forced conscription, committed summary executions, and had two military and counter-intelligence forces: the Razvedka and the Kommissiya Protivmakhnovskikh Del (patterned after the Cheka and the GRU).[19] However, later historians have dismissed these claims as fraudulent propaganda.[20]
The Bolsheviks claimed that it would be impossible for a small, agricultural society to organize into an anarchist society so quickly. However, Eastern Ukraine had a large amount of coal mines, and was one of the most industrialised parts of the Russian Empire.
In 1919 the Confederación Nacional del Trabajo (CNT), the Spanish confederation of anarcho-syndicalist labor unions, had grown to 1 million members, and encountered many fights with the police and the fascists in Spain. On July 18, 1936, General Franco led the army to launch their fight against the government, but instead of an easy victory they faced significant obstacles.[21] They were met with a big resistance from the people, and the rebels were supported by military and the police. With the government in shambles, the workers and peasants took over the government of Spain and joined together to create a revolutionary militia to fight the fascists. The workers and peasants were fighting to start a revolution, not to help save their government. Spain’s society was transposed by a social revolution. Every business was re-organized to have a company with no bosses; surprisingly profits increased by over half. While Stalin wanted to send arms but only on one condition: The party must be given government positions and the militias be “re-organized.” On May 2 1937,the CNT issued a warning:
On the next day after the warning was issued the CNT’s central exchange was attacked and the militias prepared to quit, in front of Barcelona. With this became a power struggle, and confusion which lead the workers to cease fire and lay down their weapons. The “re-organized” Republican Army tried one last attempt to gain control, with over 70,000 casualties, and many people fleeing to France, General Franco’s army entered Barcelona on January 26, 1939 to end the revolution.[21] For more information regarding anarchy in Spain please see Anarchism in Spain
Before the Islamic Courts Union took control, large parts of southern Somalia were effectively functioning without a central government. However, an economic survey by the World Bank found that distribution of wealth in the country was more equitable, and the extent of extreme poverty was lower than that found in nominally more stable West African nations. According to the same paper, although southern Somalia was effectively operating without a federal government before the rise to prominence of the Islamic Courts Union, it was not an anarchist society in the sense that society was more or less chaotic than organized non-coercively.[22] Despite this, a libertarian think tank reported that living standards in Somalia increased – in absolute terms, relative to the pre-Somali Civil War era, and relative to other nations in Africa – during this period.[23] Economist Peter Leeson attributes the rather astounding increase in economic activity[24] since the rise of statelessness to the security in life, liberty and property provided by Somali customary law — the Xeer — in most parts of Somalia, which ensures for a relative free market.
The Transitional Federal Government, internationally recognized as the government of Somalia, is allied with the Islamic Courts Union and the Alliance for the Re-liberation of Somalia, and backed by the United Nations, the African Union and the United States. It is currently battling various insurgent groups to regain control of the southern half of the country and restore national institutions.
Anarchism is generally defined as the political philosophy which holds the state to be immoral,[25][26] or alternatively as opposing authority in the conduct of human relations.[27][28][29][30][31][32] Proponents of anarchism (known as "anarchists") advocate stateless societies based on non-hierarchical[27][33][34] voluntary associations.[35][36]
There are many types and traditions of anarchism, not all of which are mutually exclusive.[37] Anarchist schools of thought can differ fundamentally, supporting anything from extreme individualism to complete collectivism.[26] Strains of anarchism have been divided into the categories of social and individualist anarchism or similar dual classifications.[38][39] Anarchism is often considered to be a radical left-wing ideology,[40][41] and much of anarchist economics and anarchist legal philosophy reflect anti-statist interpretations of communism, collectivism, syndicalism or participatory economics. However, anarchism has always included an individualist strain supporting a market economy and private property, or morally unrestrained egoism.[42][43][44] Some individualist anarchists are also socialists or communists while some anarcho-communists are also individualists[45][46] or egoists.[47][48]
Anarchism as a social movement has regularly endured fluctuations in popularity. The central tendency of anarchism as a mass social movement has been represented by anarcho-communism and anarcho-syndicalism, with individualist anarchism being primarily a literary phenomenon[49] which nevertheless did have an impact on the bigger currents[50] and individualists also participated in large anarchist organizations.[51][52] Most anarchists oppose all forms of aggression, supporting self-defense or non-violence (anarcho-pacifism),[53][54] while others have supported the use of some coercive measures, including violent revolution and propaganda of the deed, on the path to an anarchist society.[55]
The term anarchism derives from the Greek ἄναρχος, anarchos, meaning "without rulers",[56][57] from the prefix ἀν- (an-, "without") + ἀρχή (archê, "sovereignty, realm, magistracy")[58] + -ισμός (-ismos, from the suffix -ιζειν, -izein "-izing"). There is some ambiguity with the use of the terms "libertarianism" and "libertarian" in writings about anarchism. Since the 1890s from France,[59] the term "libertarianism" has often been used as a synonym for anarchism[60] and was used almost exclusively in this sense until the 1950s in the United States;[61] its use as a synonym is still common outside the United States.[62] Accordingly, "libertarian socialism" is sometimes used as a synonym for socialist anarchism,[63][64] to distinguish it from "individualist libertarianism" (individualist anarchism). On the other hand, some use "libertarianism" to refer to individualistic free-market philosophy only, referring to free-market anarchism as "libertarian anarchism".[65][66]
The German philosopher Immanuel Kant treated "Anarchy" in his Anthropology from a Pragmatic Point of View as consisting of "Law and Freedom without Force". Thus, for Kant, anarchy falls short of being a true civil state because the law is only an "empty recommendation" if force is not included to make this law efficacious. For there to be such a state, force must be included while law and freedom are maintained, a state which Kant calls republic.[67][68]
As summary Kant named these four kinds of government:
A Law And Freedom without Violence (Anarchy)
B Law And Violence without Freedom (Despotism)
C Violence without Freedom And Law (Barbarism)
D Violence with Freedom And Law (Republic)
Some anarchist anthropologists, such as David Graeber and Pierre Clastres, consider societies such as those of the Bushmen, Tiv and the Piaroa to be anarchies in the sense that they explicitly reject the idea of centralized political authority.[69]
Other anthropologists, such as Marshall Sahlins and Richard Borshay Lee, have repudiated the idea of hunter-gatherer societies being a source of scarcity and brutalization; describing them as "affluent societies".[70]
The evolutionary psychologist Steven Pinker writes:
Adjudication by an armed authority appears to be the most effective violence-reduction technique ever invented. Though we debate whether tweaks in criminal policy, such as executing murderers versus locking them up for life, can reduce violence by a few percentage points, there can be no debate on the massive effects of having a criminal justice system as opposed to living in anarchy. The shockingly high homicide rates of pre-state societies, with 10 to 60 percent of the men dying at the hands of other men, provide one kind of evidence. Another is the emergence of a violent culture of honor in just about any corner of the world that is beyond the reach of law. ..The generalization that anarchy in the sense of a lack of government leads to anarchy in the sense of violent chaos may seem banal, but it is often over-looked in today's still-romantic climate.[71]
Some authors, such as Montague David Eder, question this view of evolution, where humanity was able to reinvent itself in the last ten thousand years, to better fulfill its needs (see Myth of Progress).
Some Anarcho-primitivists believe that this concept is used to justify the values of modern industrial society and move individuals further from their natural habitat and natural needs.[72][73] John Zerzan has noted the existence of tribal societies with less violence than "advanced" societies.[74] Zerzan and Theodore Kaczynski have talked about other forms of violence against the individual in advanced societies, generally expressed by the term "social anomie", that result from the system of monopolized security.[75] These authors do not dismiss the fact that humanity is changing while adapting to its different social realities,[76] but consider the situation anomalous. The two results are (1) that we either disappear or (2) become something very different from what we have come to value in our nature. It has been suggested that this shift towards civilization, through domestication, has caused an increase in diseases, labor, and psychological disorders.[77][78][79] In contrast, Pierre Clastres maintains that violence in primitive societies is a natural way for each community to maintain its political independence, while dismissing the state as a natural outcome of the evolution of human societies.[80]
Anarchists have been involved in a wide variety of communities. While there are only a few instances of mass society "anarchies" that have come about from explicitly anarchist revolutions, there are also examples of intentional communities founded by anarchists.
| Look up anarchy in Wiktionary, the free dictionary. |
This entry is from Wikipedia, the leading user-contributed encyclopedia. It may not have been reviewed by professional editors (see full disclaimer)
Dansk (Danish)
n. - anarki, lovløst samfund
Français (French)
n. - anarchie
Deutsch (German)
n. - Anarchie, Gesetzlosigkeit, Chaos
Ελληνική (Greek)
n. - αναρχία, ακυβερνησία
Português (Portuguese)
n. - anarquia (f)
Español (Spanish)
n. - anarquía, acracia
中文(简体)(Chinese (Simplified))
混乱, 无政府状态
中文(繁體)(Chinese (Traditional))
n. - 混亂, 無政府狀態
한국어 (Korean)
n. - 무정부[상태, 론], 혼란 상태
日本語 (Japanese)
n. - 無政府状態, 無秩序
العربيه (Arabic)
(الاسم) فقدان الحكومه, فوضي سياسيه سياسيه أو اجتماعيه
עברית (Hebrew)
n. - אי-סדר, בעיקר פוליטי או חברתי, אנרכיה, מצב של אי-מציאות שלטון, הפקרות
If you are unable to view some languages clearly, click here.