Welcome to Gaia! ::

I don't think a new word will help us any more.
The word would have to represent what we're against.
And people think we need leaders, so once they find out we're against leaders, they'll think it's probably just as dumb..


On a different note...
Wouldn't a cool orginization name be "Libero Orbis Terrarum" [Latin for "To Liberate The World".]
I like it.

Hmm, you see, my logic is, that by making a new term for the existing idea that's free of the connotations, it may be possible that we could literally undo (or correct) what's been said in the past.

Teaching the truth has always been a large part of it, though it may sound simple and superficial, words themselves hold a lot of power, as many notorious dictators have always known. Because of that, it's always their method for keeping us down to secure their seats of power.

For example, To see the impact the use of a symbol (such as a word, like Anarchism), take into consideration the swastika, before put into use by Hitler and Nazi Germany. Before it was forever connected with hatred and racism from use by the Third Reich, it was once religious symbology, meant to represent peace.

So how could a symbol for world peace so quickly be twisted into a symbol for war, hatred, and racism? It was how it was used. Now Whenever you see it, you don't think "Oh hey, peace for all of mankind.", you think of racism, hatred and genocide.

Now, for the word Anarchy and all other forms of the term, it's pretty much the same case, that a word that means a society (I use the term loosely) free of government and capital gain, and in a sense, at it's very core, thinking for yourself and being who you choose to be as a person. Since it's riginal use, it's been flipped to mean exactly what politicians and business executives try to make you believe it is: constant disorder and catastrophe.

With a new word, my ambition is that we, as the people who *we* really are, could take a stand, and make a name, a new name for ourselves in the world. Though the word used may change, the words behind it will remain the same. That's my idea.

Well, I've also heard anarchism called libertarian socialism. It's on anarchyfaq.org. But that only works for the elitist types that think far left anarchism is the only "true" type. As for myself, primitivist works just fine. Of course, that brings a whole slew of new problems, from close-minded people.

I think Nebekim raises a good point. It only takes a slight "shift in the wind" so to speak to gain the attention of those in power. Once the anarchist movement dies down and the formers start talking about another movement, it would take all of a few days for the new movement to be distorted and demonized.

My personal opinion is that, forgive this, we actually need anarchists to run for and be elected into the very government we seek to take down. The effects may not be immediate, and they can't run as anarchists, but the independant party is a good starting stage, but they can help get legislation passed to limit the government's influence on the people and provide a starting point for major changes.

This is a pretty good essay.

History repeats itself time amd time again, and yet so few ever learn from it.

When you hear the mainstream media speak about anarchists, what kind of imagery do they use. Typically it is depictions of anarchists at black blocs, causing disturbances to the status quo. Watch the television carefully; are the opinions of the protesters ever given? Or do you just hear terse sound bytes about "amid the protest there has been confusion, riot police have had to use tear gas", and other such smoke screens that ignore any deeper issues? The name is hardly the problem. How many times did we see the shattered Starbuck's window in relation to the Seattle protests? Why are groups of protesters always described as "a mob"? Is our name giving us a bad image, or is it something else entirely?