Very needed, to illuminate definitions and of course all the negative ones are published by the elite classes as usual; that is the elephant in the room.
Too many of us have very “negative” conception of “anarchism” which is also known as “left libertarianism”. If you see the shared identity between “anarchy” (a rejection of external control) and “libertarianism” (a commitment to promoting liberty) then you see it is about freedom. And the best definition of “freedom” is “self control” which presents us with all kinds of philosophical (and visceral) challenges. Timothy Snyder has a new book “ON Freedom” built upon (but transcending) the “opposition” between “negative freedom” (absence of restraints) and “positive freedom” (the ability to do stuff: “power”)
Snyder dissects (explodes) the concept (and value) of freedom into 5 elements-or akin values (sovereignty, mobility, unpredictability, factuality, and solidarity).
But negative freedom (absence of restraints/ an anemic form of “sovereignty”) is NOT the opposite of positive freedom, but is a subset (or conditional requirement) for positive freedom (power). And power without responsibility is deadly to everyone
thanks for the comment. I very much agree. Self-control and self-expression are key facets of anarchism - very much positive attributes and not just the absence of authority, tho of course true autonomy can only be practiced without coercive control. I will read your substack, for which thanks.
Thanks for your work on this. The traditions of anarchy (self government) are important part of populist traditions and have always been an animating force in the development and sustainment of all kinds of workers’ cooperatives. King Arthur Flour in Vt is only one example.
The real definition (#5 - no rulers) is declared "obsolete". Too bad for the rulers it's coming back into vogue.
A common argument against our correction of anarchy's dictionary definition is that "languages change over time". Yes, they do, but they don't do a 180 and come to mean their own opposite. They take on or shed nuance. They come to be used in more specific or less specific contexts. They can even become slurs. They do not completely flip onto their hands and walk around.
When a word is seen to become its own opposite, we know rulers are informing the major dictionaries. Typical Tower of Babel operations.
A very “negative” conception of “anarchism” which is also known as “left libertarianism”. If you see the shared identity between “anarchy” (a rejection of external control) and “libertarianism” (a commitment to promoting liberty) then you see it is about freedom. And the best definition of “freedom” is “self control” which presents us with all kinds of philosophical (and visceral) challenges. Timothy Snyder has a new book “ON Freedom” built upon (but transcending) the “opposition” between “negative freedom” (absence of restraints) and “positive freedom” (the ability to do stuff: “power”)
He actually dissects (explodes) the concept (and value) of freedom into 5 elements-or akin values (sovereignty, mobility, unpredictability, factuality, and solidarity).
But negative freedom (absence of restraints/ an anemic form of “sovereignty”) is NOT the opposite of positive freedom, but is a subset (or conditional requirement) for positive freedom (power). And power without responsibility is deadly to everyone
Very needed, to illuminate definitions and of course all the negative ones are published by the elite classes as usual; that is the elephant in the room.
Thanks Robin
Too many of us have very “negative” conception of “anarchism” which is also known as “left libertarianism”. If you see the shared identity between “anarchy” (a rejection of external control) and “libertarianism” (a commitment to promoting liberty) then you see it is about freedom. And the best definition of “freedom” is “self control” which presents us with all kinds of philosophical (and visceral) challenges. Timothy Snyder has a new book “ON Freedom” built upon (but transcending) the “opposition” between “negative freedom” (absence of restraints) and “positive freedom” (the ability to do stuff: “power”)
Snyder dissects (explodes) the concept (and value) of freedom into 5 elements-or akin values (sovereignty, mobility, unpredictability, factuality, and solidarity).
But negative freedom (absence of restraints/ an anemic form of “sovereignty”) is NOT the opposite of positive freedom, but is a subset (or conditional requirement) for positive freedom (power). And power without responsibility is deadly to everyone
https://open.substack.com/pub/joepanzica/p/freedom-and-the-world-of-values?r=f79z7&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=true
thanks for the comment. I very much agree. Self-control and self-expression are key facets of anarchism - very much positive attributes and not just the absence of authority, tho of course true autonomy can only be practiced without coercive control. I will read your substack, for which thanks.
Thanks for your work on this. The traditions of anarchy (self government) are important part of populist traditions and have always been an animating force in the development and sustainment of all kinds of workers’ cooperatives. King Arthur Flour in Vt is only one example.
So your writing a book 🤔
Oh yes. It's with the publisher now.
The real definition (#5 - no rulers) is declared "obsolete". Too bad for the rulers it's coming back into vogue.
A common argument against our correction of anarchy's dictionary definition is that "languages change over time". Yes, they do, but they don't do a 180 and come to mean their own opposite. They take on or shed nuance. They come to be used in more specific or less specific contexts. They can even become slurs. They do not completely flip onto their hands and walk around.
When a word is seen to become its own opposite, we know rulers are informing the major dictionaries. Typical Tower of Babel operations.
Great topic.
A very “negative” conception of “anarchism” which is also known as “left libertarianism”. If you see the shared identity between “anarchy” (a rejection of external control) and “libertarianism” (a commitment to promoting liberty) then you see it is about freedom. And the best definition of “freedom” is “self control” which presents us with all kinds of philosophical (and visceral) challenges. Timothy Snyder has a new book “ON Freedom” built upon (but transcending) the “opposition” between “negative freedom” (absence of restraints) and “positive freedom” (the ability to do stuff: “power”)
He actually dissects (explodes) the concept (and value) of freedom into 5 elements-or akin values (sovereignty, mobility, unpredictability, factuality, and solidarity).
But negative freedom (absence of restraints/ an anemic form of “sovereignty”) is NOT the opposite of positive freedom, but is a subset (or conditional requirement) for positive freedom (power). And power without responsibility is deadly to everyone
https://open.substack.com/pub/joepanzica/p/freedom-and-the-world-of-values?r=f79z7&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=true