Isn't the very idea of an Anarchy 101 self-defeating for the anti-ideological anarchist in its question + answer format?

Question

eh? ;)

Answer 1

No.

It would be so if the people answering the questions offered up their word as law, ala AFAQ, but my own experience at this site is that it allows a space in which anarchists of various tendencies can offer up their perspectives and can be challenged (most often ARE challenged) by other anarchists who are either of a differing perspective or are playing devil's advocate.

This is an important distinction to make over other anarchist sites. AFAQ, which I already mentioned, attempts an encyclopedic and authoritatively methodological definition of all things anarchist, and in doing so, misses part of the point of being an anarchist.

There has seemingly been a kerfluffle over some posts from anarcho-capitalist/libertarian posters on this site, and I am not involved, so I can't speak to it, but the site has been pretty explicit from the get-go about not being a forum for such tendencies.

There is nothing wrong with offering our pespectives and analysis, the trouble comes when we suggest it is the only perspective or analysis.

Answer 2

Yes.
You have rules and an enforcer.  You have a person who is the sole judge of what is acceptable and what is not according to their rules.  You have authoritarian censorship.

But you only have to go into your Jeopardy mode to be able to communicate with others.  The rules also safeguard against spam and other distractive and annoying practices.  

But I have no problems with the website, and am enjoying it very much and it is very helpful in learning and understanding more about anarchy.

Yet to find a self appointed censor and authoratarian rules seems wrong and the acceptance of those conditioner by anarchists also seems very wrong.  It is as if the rules can be changed by anyone if they are to an overall advantage.  Such are the thoughts of all governing concepts and the subjects who allow governments to enforce that control.

Solutions might be to add blogs or discussion forums.  Yet again must likely this will not happen because this sight is under the control of the owner who is allowed to dictate what is and what is acceptable and not.  However, in that persons mind justitfies their rules, control and authority, which only makes me think of over controlling forms that feel the exact same thing.

Yet it is a good site for anarachy with good intentaions yet....

Comments

i appreciate that your answer is attempting to be nuanced and address the contradictions (which definitely exist). but you throw around these terms as if they're obvious and not worth explaining, or defending, or examining--like "authoritarian", "censorship", "dictate", "over-controlling", even "self-appointed"(?)...
and to compare monitoring of a site to government control seems to miss something crucial about scale and context.

---

I really do like this site.  After I wrote the comment i later noticed this site is design to be strictly Q and A site.  A discussion forum could have allowed boarder forms of communication thus less control issues.  

As to the comment: It would appear one or a few people are in charge of this site and that they possess control over the site, and that there are rules that must be heeded otherwise they will be "removed".  

This presents a certain dilemma.  How is order and flow maintained without rules/laws and consequencial actions of exclusion, disciplne, or punishment.  Are not the one who break the rules wishing to contribute to anarchy (self rule).  Is public conduct an issue that falls out of the boundaries of anarchy if order is a desired aspect within an environment?

Also if one is to be a moderator ("Forum moderators, a person given special powers to enforce the rules on an Internet forum, newsgroup or blog"; wikipedia) should that task be given to one who does not particate within that media if only for the sake of appearance, conscience, and objectivity?  Or could there be a bending of rules where content and free thought are allowed and seen as more important than form?

The points that I made are merely a possible observation. I believe words used could be applied by definition.    Not saying that the intent or motives are not desirable, but the results are still similiar and within the boundaries of each definiton.   And there is nothing on the website that would indicate otherwise that the controllers of this site are self-appointed.

And still at what scale or degree are such things acceptable?  Certainly everyone here including myself would agree there are.  The question is does that make it right?  If it does, do we then determine to what degree they become unacceptable and in doing so what determines the acceptability within the conditions of anarchy.  Is it as long as it is to our advantage, or the advantage of the majority?  You see this is not far from any rules placed over people when we begin to justify the degrees by which we find acceptable.  Scale does not change what a thing is, it the exactness one thing to another.  

Would I change this site or do I protest here?  No.  To me it is acceptable because of the end results.  lol  But I do not think we should turn a blind eye to what it is we have here.  More options would allow for more liberties. So still maybe a discussion forum could be connected to the Q and A to allow more means of expression.  Maybe an answer could be the placement of questions and comments of type which then becomes more a matter of intrepatation than of possible censorship which falls within the parameters of anarchy.

---

uh, yea, i can tell that you like this site.
i completely agree (it's almost not even worth saying, it's so obvious) that this site is not an example of anarchist process. i do not think that a website in this world (or any?) could possible *be* an example of an anarchist process. the structure prohibits it in the best case scenario, and we do not have the best case scenario.
if you believe that all things anarchist must be the same, and must act like we already live in a world of our own creation, then this site will be a disappointment (probably the smallest and least relevant disappointment in your life, however).
have you read the "about us" page yet?

edited mostly for typos.
also to add, i wish i knew why i suggested reading the about us page. (maybe i should go back and read it myself.)

---

I really do beleive in the concepts of anarchy.  I am somewhat of a positive person so my approach may err on that side.  But diversity is essential just as much as you disagree with much of my thoughts at the same time you probably see the necessity as I do of and value yours.  You challenge me or better put you challenge my thoughts and ideas so that I can press further in those thoughts.  If I did not value this I believe that I would not only be an optimist but a very foolish one.  

My dream may be foolish, but it is a dream, but I feel my dream should never override the dreams of others.  That is why I try to focus on functions not controls.  A world where we can find answers together that do not cross over the parameters on anarchy.    

Yes I have read the "about us"  I try to comply except I dont do good with the tags.  In time I hope to do better.