Some questions and points regarding anarchy vs. anarchism

Question

1. Do the following associations (down) work or make sense of "anarchy" vs. anarchism  in your opinion based on what has been sources that have shown such examples.

2. What does the only one side of the A coming out of the O stand for?

3. What organizations have only stood for anarchy (chaos) without anarchism? or chaos strongly supported with some egoist-nihilist version of anarchism

4. What are current groups, organizations that support this? In the past Punks (not anarcho groups), Dadaists and Hackers strongly advocated some form of this “anarchy’ in print- manifestos, fuckshit up hacker BBS textfiles, zine ramblings and lifestyle ethics.

Comments

The original root Greek meaning of Anarchy is “without leader/authority”

The term anarchist first entered the English language in 1642 (Before Anarchism existed) during the English Civil War as a term of abuse used by Royalists to damn those who were fomenting disorder. It quickly changed later to have more positive associations with regard to away from disorder, in the context of anarchism.


The original root Greek meaning is “without leader/authority” which predated the movement and in English the association with disorder referred to the anarchist could have possibly added to the later use of anarchy meaning as chaos and lawlessness or a absence of government with a platform structure that is inherently composed or inevitably may result in it (chaos), due to real nature of suddenly being without government or any kind of pre-planned system .

This by contrast shares little in common with anarchism, maybe only aspects of individualism and egoism but little in common with the principals or movement, which contrary seem to have a common element of wanting to sustain an organized political system based on unwritten laws of equality and collective self-autonomy, from any kind of literal leadership. It sides with extreme leftist political action and/or lifestylism.

 Anarchy as a can be an unadulterated state which chaos or amoral free will are directly in contrast with order without any government or planned anything holding it together. Without government  (or alternative planned order like anarchism) means there are no imposed system rules and while a bulk of human population will hold on to morals/ and or good will the other bulk or a significant population will not and so and the diversity of personality, class, and nature of human being inevitability results in an ongoing series of raw conflicts, more immediate and random, than within normal government structure or otherwise with direct repercussions as opposed to those naturally controlled or regulated by a government or collective order

 In practical existence it would imply: A lawless country containing people who have to fight, to survive against all odds of opposing violence, poverty, force, random threats, or destruction caused by a lack of an underlying force (government or not) that could have the potential  to fairly sustain and regulate an economy to give people their basic dues . The chaos could stem  anger and vengeance related to class issues. This would be based on the destruction of a pre-existing government for major corruption. Ex. Half of the Middle East in the last 2 years. Anarchy can have different motives and can be explained in a 1000 different ways.

A more cartoon idealized version of it, where “anarchy” hedonist egoist amoral anarchists are ruling would be:


(a lawless unorganized state in which a series of random instinctual and rational behaviors driven by hedonism, pleasure, theft, amoral behavior, and free will at the expense of anything (pre-existing rules, morals, laws) are highly valued to saught to be maintained it  opposing behaviors that imply control, force, submission, any form of order towards the opposing force.  This also could have an influence from states that may or may not be leftover from a previous forcibly ordered existence. This state of anarchy is sustaining a moment in time that may result in a series of unrestricted benefits or losses within a given situation based on laws of the jungle, circumstance, prior existence, power of opposing forces etc... greater than a governmental or self-ordered state. It’s up to the people to maintain this anarchy not to self-destruct. I wouldn’t call the core people fighting for chaos anarchists in the anarchism sense of the word) It does contain its fair share of violence, greed, horrid crimes and constant fighting to maintain who can survive it along enough to enjoy its wealth of unrestricted pleasures. Anarchist could have good intentions alongside bad ones. Not necessarily evil or humane either. Some form of social Darwinism would exist. Hierchary is only based on how you fight for yourself or group and who you’re with and how strong they are, and how well you can maintain your own anarchy for survival, pleasure and free will) (sounds like an old RPG games)

 It could also be used to describe how the world really is (chaos theory) for some it’s trying to embrace this chaos, which is could be the natural order of things, or trying to sustain and maintain an even more lawless existence within the society. Hackers could be considered anarchists anything deemed morally right or wrong. For others its simple “break stuff” kind of behavior driven by stunt action, rioting, hooliganism, barbarians,  protest, vandalism, thrill seekers, teenage rebellion, war crimes or accessive fighting, takeover of a government etc…

This is completely contrary or unrelated to notion of humanist morality or the anarchism social contract held by "the group” for extreme equality and stateless communal self-order which is  a common underlying principal in anarchism) The definition of anarchy can either take form as literally existing form, or instinct, state of mind, situation, lifestyle, feeling, or philosophy that is not related to the bulk majority of the anarchism movements.  Although no written material describes "anarchy" in this sense alone either a movement or philosophy so it has directly manifested its form and definition directly into movements, subcultures, and approaches.  It can be mainly supported by anarchism that leans to egoism, and illegalism, and possibly individualism and post-left .  But it would have to encompass other things possibly such as nihilism, discordianism and chaos theory in order to elaborate on its own definition if it were to be taken as a philosophy by anyone. It supports concepts such as free experimentation, chaos theory, and reckless lifestyles, certain realms of occultism and magick, and amoral self-interests. The notion of anarchy is an accumulation of many ideas within a common theme of chaos and free will in some tangible form

Art and literary movements movements; dada, surrealistic, situationists, post modernism and beatnik, subversive subcultures; Punks, Beats, Bikers, Decadents
People involved in crime: Infamous Thieves, Certain Gangs, Hackers

What extent do you agree?

How you see the difference between anarchy and anarchism and the relation to chaos?

---

There is a great deal I find agreeable.  However, it must be considered that there is a lot here that comes from a misinterpretation of anarchism during the long period of the 20th century when anarchists were extremely marginal and virtually non-existent.  Main stream media and other sources looking to create a villain, largely developed this type of anarchist, which was then embraced and expanded on by various rebel movements and milieus.  With the return of anarchists, the black hat anarchist has become more of a hidden bogeyman that never really became a true movement.  The chaos anarchist seems to be an ideal form of what these rebels wanted to be influenced by.  "If those in power say anarchy is chaos, then I want chaos!" perhaps being the reasoning these rebels took on the anarchist influence.

---

Cool, I’m just trying to make sense of these terms as I’ve always tried to.

No prob. Okay what exactly is.? Here’s my take on it:  This did not take away the validity or existence of the people who held true beliefs similar to that of the media stereotype of the black hat anarchist.
It largely developed on something that existed. Nihilists, Egoist-anarchists and illegalists had written works, portrayed themselves in such a manner and committed violent acts that gave birth to such stereotype or an interpretation that the media exaggerated to an extent, unfair to majority of anarchist maybe so but it was rooted in a large amount of truth for the niche ones and related that I just mentioned. I think on some points there is an influence from stereotype media of an anarchist but at the same time i don' think that’s always wrong or unfounded on many topics or judgments. While a cartoon stereotype did/does exist, I find it hard to believe that someone genuinely into such beliefs would be gullible toward a trend or an unfounded stereotype for sake of it.  Just like every movement subversive or otherwise things have followed the same fate being consumed and marketed by the media as a product to sell or stereotype scapegoat to banish.

 But that does not mean the interpretations and roots of these stereotypes were non-existent or completely exaggerated or completely from an untrue direction of the source. To an extent they were  but again I don't think it ever shook the foundation of what could be put together or explained as “chaos anarchy” neither did it solely isolate it as parody or a false term created by the " sensationalist media" or the conservatives who used certain terms.

Rebel teenagers viewing stunts and crime-like chaos alone as mediated through television, does enough to create that desire. (I’m getting your views more and more on chaos anarchy but I’m just trying to make sense of this term according to what was stated previously).  Associating it with anarchy is almost irrelevant and at the same time inherently possible even if you just believe and regard anarchy as without rulers, it entails both a potential of violence and chaos overriding anything, because even if you were an anarchism anarchist, sudden pre-planned lack of leadership without any “intent of anarch(ism) or social order of any form” results in chaos (not necessarily evil or destructive) in this earthly existence.

Chaos associated with anarchy is part or core of its nature and it’s no surprise that as a definition of chaos is mentioned in the dictionary as anarchy, while anarchism at least to my knowledge is much less been described as “radicals who seek to create chaos for the sake of it” or anything related to chaos rather a true belief system is briefly explained. Much less mention the chaos definition with anarchism but rather “anarchy” and “anarchist” with disorder and chaos. In dozens of dictionaries old and new that I’ve read. A lot of times two separate definitions are given. You would have thought one would override the other but it doesn’t.

Answer 1

1. This question has been answered before and your question is asking if your answer is correct.  It might be better searching for the differences between anarchy vs. anarchism to get an answer.

2. I don't know what symbol you are referring to.

3/4. I am a discordian and for Eris in some ways.  So I am in favor of chaos, though anarchy is not a synonym for chaos as anarchists tend to use the word, even those for-anarchy and not anarchism.  Much of the post-left anarchist tendencies favor anarchy and not anarchism.  This would include groups like Crimethinc, Anarchy: Journal Of Desire Armed (AJODA), Green Anarchy, Curious George Brigade, Wildroots Collective, etc.

For me, I usually say "anarchy" and not "anarchism", though I sometimes use anarchism to describe the practices for anarchy.  My theories may come fairly close to advocating "chaos" anarchy (the anarchy of comic-villains) and I am a loud proponent of the "break window - write communique" approach.  I haven't written many things that are explicitly in favor of this methodology officially, though I honestly don't know of anyone that has.  It is a favorite tactic of many anarchists and part of the many techniques for anarchist street propaganda.  

I wish there was more of a spreading of anarchist cookbooks with correct and original formulas (not like the original Anarchist Cookbook, which has many errors and impractical advice).  I don't think anarchists need to have the most militant tactics, bordering what some might consider extremist, but I, like other nihilist anarchists, don't seek to limit an individual's desire for great deeds.

An anarchist momentum can be created with various deeds of vandalism and I am in favor of anarchists as vandals with analysis.  It should be pointed out this is might not go further than anarchist advertising, but chaos anarchy is a contribution to the momentum.

Groups or organizations that are in favor of this approach could be the Red and Anarchist Action Network and the Informal Anarchist Federation.  The Informal Anarchist Federation seems to of moved into larger actions as they've grown more experienced with this style of anarchist practice while RAAN only occasionally engages in some lower level types of vandalism with some voices in RAAN wanting the Network to move away from vandalism.

There was a group in Olympia calling itself the Nihilist Assault Group...but a rock band of the same name made their creativity confusing.  I recommend learning more about the "Conspiracy of Cells of Fire" (a member of the Informal Anarchist Federation).  Fun names that correspond with your level of activity is also recommended.

Comments

It seems like most of these nihilist or chaos anarchy groups haven't been well documented on the internet. Geocities are dead. I think they more traces of those beliefs/idea there have been found there or UseNet - bbs boards in the past a lot more.

1. I had earlier looked at the answers but was elaborating on anarchy.
I was just trying to get some feedback. For decades people have used and taken anarchy seriously as synonymous with chaos in their work, art, beliefs. There is an overriding element of conflict and free will in anarchy held together by chaos (not necessarily the destructive kind.) At the end of the days all words including isms are socially constructed and related to semantics. What do you make of this link (it also discusses this same topic): http://www.spunk.org/texts/misc/sp001890.html

2. The Anarchy with one side of the either stem of the A being longer has shown in graffiti and non anarchism punk groups such as this one: http://punkygibbon.co.uk/images/c/chaosuk/photo_band1982.jpeg


3. There are similar book to anarchist cookbook, just find them on Amazon under similar titles. The kind of anarchy I was referring to is here, what do you make of these?

http://textfiles.com/anarchy/MISCHIEF/

http://textfiles.com/anarchy/


4. Again thanks for the names. lbc books seem interesting. Nihilist assault group can't be found do you have a link. Half of them seem heard to find. Links would be helpful

I’m more interested in groups who adhere to pure chaos anarchy perhaps more nihilism or post-modern angle centered as opposed to the acts of chaos or destructions for the justification of protest, workers rights, and green/animal rights issues anarchism values etc... Nothing wrong with that just interested in this topic.

---

if someone says they stand for anarchy but not anarchism, it's a safe bet they have no idea what theyre talking about.
the greek term anarkhos means (according to most etymological resources ive found) "without ruler," it has nothing to do with "chaos," other than the fact that six billion people each governing themselves (as it is now, always has been, always will be) is inherently "chaotic." anarchism is the philosophy of the anarchist, which is essentially an individual who is opposed to institutionalized coercion ("the state/government"), and advocates voluntary association (no rulers, no one claiming to have the right to rule others, to impose 'contracts' on people, to try to use the threat of violence to attempt to force others to bend to their will, as the state/govt does) and organization as opposed to the system of state coercion.

---

Taken from : http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Anarchist_FAQ/What_is_Anarchism%3F/1.1
A.1.1 What does "anarchy" mean?
The word "anarchy" is from the Greek, prefix an (or a), meaning "not," "the want of," "the absence of," or "the lack of", plus archos, meaning "a ruler," "director", "chief," "person in charge," or "authority." Or, as Peter Kropotkin put it, Anarchy comes from the Greek words meaning "contrary to authority." [1]
The use of the term anarchy in English and perhaps other languages goes may go back farther than the 11th century at least prior to “the anarchy” civil war between England and Normandy which was characterized by a breakdown in law and order.  It anarchy and the link to chaos could go farther back didn’t research enough.


“The term anarchist first entered the English language in 1642 (Before Anarchism existed) during the English Civil War as a term of abuse used by Royalists to damn those who were fomenting disorder. Just a play on the original word incorporated into the English (perhaps other languages) that were collectively agreed to without a bias of a certain class or political groups any sort as synonymous with chaos and disorder. For a number of good reasons

Before any movement took places for 100’s of years anarchy has meant without authority. Meaning anarchism or any communal leaderless organization without any authority or ruler is NOT mentioned. It can hold anarchism (which didn’t exist at this time) and other forms of similar organizations but does not define, elaborate or support them in any way.

But there is a set of rules to followed with anarchism in a social contract. i'm sorry if you agree to it than there are repercussions if you don't abide by the rules.

Secondly “leaderless” communal groups or Anarchism groups shift authority and ruler ship from the state elite and place it into the contract or non-hierarchal group power that is held  in a contract ( set of rules) of extreme equality, self-sacrifice, strict contribution and self order in various fields of conduct, work and reliance (or whatever core set anarchist ethics and principals you believe in ) for each member to uphold to maintain it, acting out as the authority  or ruler under a different non-threatening guise without similar repercussions of the prior system. Maybe this is 100 % fine and workable, and I know anarchism obviously advocates a rule system, but still has AUTHORITY and the contract acts a RULER (to kick you out, deprive you of your role, register your bad actions, collectively punish you accordingly and fairly) but please realize this is not only not mentioned but contradicts the pure nature  in the original definition of (without authority or rulers)  and anarchism as you know it  is an invention 100’s year’s later that came around in an era where political theories were being formed. It seems that anarchism took the word to make it workable or defined into a political theory which inevitably works to sustain a system.  It still maintains authority and rule out those who fall back into capitalistic desires or things that coincide with what anarchism is and is not.

Without ruler or authority in a state, system, tribe implies chaos (authority = government, ruler = set of rules) meaning thriving disorder in a given piece of land or prior country which runs on  who ever can manage to survive or a maintain a positive hedonistic existence in the laws of the jungle under risk, changing circumstance, extreme danger and violence, clashing power among individuals and groups which maintain themselves under the intention of ability to achieve greater unrestrained freedom, than with any system, if they are able to maintain themselves and their anarchy. Morals are an option not a must. As harmony is not want it necessary needed. So a lot of elements of crimecore, illegalism, egoism ( both elaborated within sects of  of older anarchism) and other things that could or would sustain chaos alongside an economic system and safeguarding of certain individuals or gorups would allow it to thrive.

This is just a theortical proposition of the base idea of collective chaos anarchy . But chaos is also explaination for the way things are by some as well.

Its causes: economic or natural major disasters, revolutionaries taking down governments or dictatorships, countries or lands that lack any government, certain ancient or prehistoric history before governments or larger tribal orders.

Anarchism is implying rules and a system with consequence and principals which is where it differs.

Did I ever deny what basic anarch(ism) is here or not mention briefly what it is? Or say is it chaos when is obviously is NOT?

"Which contrary seem to have a common element of wanting to sustain an organized political system based on unwritten laws of equality and collective self-autonomy, from any kind of literal leadership. It sides with extreme leftist political action and/or lifestylism."

If someone stands for anarchism and fails to understand that is and always after the creation of anarchism  a double meaning (second to the anarchy as related to anarchism) as a word and definition which has evolved from its ancient roots and or been implied as chaos. That has been used a descriptive term, officially recognized by the dictionary, in literary works, films, speech etc... for over 200 years Not only are you in denial of this word and definition only but you are denying that is an active word for such a term which exists in the real world. This seems to be a shared and under studied ignorance and pathology by many well-educated anarchists today.
 
Also you fail to recognize that chaos (not necessarily destructive) is the overriding order of anarchy without any intent or practice of any pre-planned system (capitalism, anarchism, communism, etc...)

Chaotic tendancies not only show up in self-governance but in a lot of things.

general systems of governance, as not perfect do show signs of chaotic behavior NOT CHAOS  which unrelated to imposed force or violence.

Just as a system of anarchism contains a fair of loose bolts (chaotic behavior as a result of the peer pressure associated with the power of the people or central unions akin to state power, but much less in literal rules and fear tactics, to that of current state power NOT CHAOS) as a by-product it will appear from those that fall out, want to change or can't live up to the the balance of self-order and communal peace and anarchist ethics.