"People arguing for the stateless society, i.e. the abolishment of the state 
along with whatever coercive hierarchies in society, sometimes find themselves 
in a position where they hesitate to use the word best describing their 
position: anarchism. The reason, and this is often explicitly stated, is that 
anarchism often makes people think of violence, terror, and destruction. Hence, 
using the word makes it unnecessarily difficult to argue for the ideal. 

The general public has been taught the false idea of anarchism being chaos, 
that is true. This idea has been further strengthened by fascists causing 
violence and destruction "for fun," who falsely claim to be anarchists. But 
anarchism as an idea or ideal has nothing to do with violence. Contrarily, 
anarchism is a message of peace and harmony - an ideal of non-structure, 
non-system, non-hierarchy, and non-force. How could that translate into burning 
and destroying people's possessions and violently aggressing on whoever happens 
to be within reach? 

It can't. As most dictionaries assert, there are two distinctly different uses 
of the term anarchism. One of these is for the anarchism movement and the 
anarchism ideals, which is a definition completely devoid of violence or 
anything that could translate into violence. It includes direct action, but 
never destruction, violence, aggression, hierarchy, coercion, force, or power. 

The other, which is the definition most people are aware of (and the 
"definition" used by the aforementioned fascists) is the statist interpretation 
of any non-system - a conclusion of what a free society would be like based on 
a Hobbesian view of man. This use of the term anarchism is simply nothing but 
the utterly false idea that people necessarily lose any sense of morality if 
they are not forcefully subjected to a set of rules. According to this view, 
anarchism is and must be the Hobbesian state of nature - a never-ending "war of 
all against all." 

http://www.strike-the-root.com/72/bylund/bylund3.html


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Reply via email to