if 'reached by' means 'forced upon', we're in total agreement. but that's not what i've ever taken 'reached' to mean.
if 'reached' means 'achieved' or 'put into actual practice', wtf? in the chase of anarchism* - what's so unacceptably extreme about individuals holding themselves, by extension each other, accountable within a community/society?
we've seen the damage fascism can do, yes. at least there we have the benefit of more prolific documentation (e.g. of axis italy) - as opposed to anarchism (the spanish civil war being a slight exception, thanks in part to george orwell), which has major bogeyman residuals (and attendant fact-clouding) attached to it by centuries+ of various stati (stata?) quo.
like all political philosophies that have ever been conceived, regardless of their relative/comparative 'success' or 'shelf life': if not everybody in the great big petri dish agrees to it, it's doomed to 'exhibit flaws'. i hope i won't be forced to trot out the truism that 'true democracy' is Mob Rule...
to carry that argument to capitalism for just a moment {forgive the OTness}: the market is not free. the keel was never even - in recorded/historical memory. and so on. all forms of politics and economics have ideals that have never been actualized on a nationwide scale.
*bonus points for using the term of political philosophy, not 'anarchy'. i was hoping for more such precision to be established much earlier in the discussion - not that Joe was the first to do so, of course; i have indeed read all extant posts on the thread. but this is what i would've piped in about first and foremost 'had i been there at the time'.
eek.
Pronunciation: 'a-n&r-kE, -"när-
Function: noun
Etymology: Medieval Latin anarchia, from Greek, from anarchos having no ruler, from an- + archos ruler -- more at ARCH-
1 a : absence of government b : a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority c : a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government
2 a : absence or denial of any authority or established order b : absence of order : DISORDER <not manicured plots but a wild anarchy of nature -- Israel Shenker>
3 : ANARCHISM
(emphasis theirs)
actually, i find it very dubious (not to mention minor-league conspiracy-theory fodder
) that b and c are subsets of 1. i would expect that kind of substantial difference (i.e. utopian society vs. state of disorder?) to warrant another digit instead of tacking on a 'c'. it is also the only form that would routinely justify [structurally] the phrase "an anarchy". idle shorthand for "anarchist utopia", i suppose. (i'm sure it's logically justified by dint of their both being 'societal states', but that won't stop my eyebrow from a-raisin')
not to mention that their inclusion of {3} is horribly lazy: hello?! wasn't the point of developing the word 'anarchism' to distinguish it from its root in the first place? not that i ever held the merriam-webster conglomerate in high esteem, mind you.
wow, it gets worse!
:
Main Entry: an·ar·chist
Pronunciation: 'a-n&r-kist, -"när-
Function: noun
1 : one who rebels against any authority, established order, or ruling power
2 : one who believes in, advocates, or promotes anarchism or anarchy;
especially : one who uses violent means to overthrow the established order
(emphasis theirs)
funny, i never knew gandhi was an anarchist.
at least he wasn't an
especial one.
i hope we all remember this next time i discount someone's citation of a dictionary definition as though it's what 'we' have to go by.
(but we must have structure! order! it has to start somewhere!)
(talk to the manus nigrum.
)
where is c-squirt, anyway?