What do you think?
Rate this book
Anarchy as Order: The History and Future of Civic Humanity
This original and impressively researched book explores the concept of anarchy__unimposed order__as the most humane and stable form of order in a chaotic world. Mohammed A. Bamyeh traces the historical foundations of anarchy and convincingly presents it as an alternative to both tyranny and democracy. He shows how anarchy is the best manifestation of civic order, of a healthy civil society, and of humanity's noblest attributes. A cogent and compelling critique of the modern state, this provocative book clarifies how anarchy may be both a guide for rational social order and a science of humanity.
- GenresPolitics
251 pages, Kindle Edition
First published May 16, 2009
4 people are currently reading
84 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews
July 3, 2024
يُعتبر الكتاب شبه تنظيري للأناركية [أي اللاسلطوية، أو النظام بلا سلطة، كما يشير العنوان]، وليس تعريفيا بالأناركية! هو دعوة صريحة إليها، قائمة على تعداد محاسنها وتبيان سيئات أضدادها. وفي رأيي، فإن المؤلف قد وُفّق، إلى حد ما على الأقل، في نقد الدولة، وتبيان أوجه السوء ونقاط الضعف فيها، على الفرد، وعلى المجتمع المدني ككل.
أما ما فشل فيه المؤلف فشلا ذريعا، فهو إقناع القارئ بأن الأناركية خير من الدولة!! فرغم كل ذلك التنظير في الكتاب، وتعداد مساوئ الدولة، فإني ما أزال مقتنعا بأن الدولة، رغم كل مساوئها على الفرد وعلى المجتمع المدني، هي خير من اللادولة، خير من اللا سلطة!
تقوم فكرة الأناركية، كما يُفهم من هذا الكتاب الأناركي، على فهم مغال في الرومانسية والمثالية لطبيعة العلاقات الإنسانية ودينامياتها في المجتمع الإنساني. وربما لذلك، فإنه لم يمر على نظرية توماس هوبز حول "حالة الطبيعة" إلا مرور الكرام، ولم يتوقف عندها بشكل معمق كما كان يجب عليه فعل ذلك!
رأى هوبز بأن المجتمع قبل نشوء الدولة كان في "حالة الطبيعة"، التي هي "حالة حرب الجميع ضد الجميع"، حيث إن الجميع سوف يتحاربون على الموارد المحدودة، وسوف تصعب السيطرة على ذلك. فهم قائم على التشاؤم تجاه الطبيعة الإنسانية، ولكنه واقعي. وذلك على العكس من الأناركية، التي يتحدث عنها الكاتب، في أكثر من موضع، بصفتها نظاما سياسيا "متوافقا عليه، طوعيا غير مفروض"، يسود فيه التفاهم المجتمعي والتوافق على ألا تقوم سلطة كسلطة الدولة، ولا حتى سلطة شبيهة بسلطة الدولة! كيف يُفترض بنظام كهذا أن يكون ممكنا، بأي شكل من الأشكال؟ هذا ما لم يكن واضحا، بل كان ثمة الكثير من اللف والدوران، وإحسان الظن المفرط، بل وحتى الساذج، بأنه لن تقوم فئة ما في "الوسط الأناركي" بانتزاع السلطة!!
ربما تكمن القيمة الكبرى في هذا الكتاب، في تبيانه عيوب نظام الدولة بشكل مفصل، وهذا ما قد ينتفع به من يريد تحسين هذا النظام.
حسين كاظم
٣ يوليو ٢٠٢٤
أما ما فشل فيه المؤلف فشلا ذريعا، فهو إقناع القارئ بأن الأناركية خير من الدولة!! فرغم كل ذلك التنظير في الكتاب، وتعداد مساوئ الدولة، فإني ما أزال مقتنعا بأن الدولة، رغم كل مساوئها على الفرد وعلى المجتمع المدني، هي خير من اللادولة، خير من اللا سلطة!
تقوم فكرة الأناركية، كما يُفهم من هذا الكتاب الأناركي، على فهم مغال في الرومانسية والمثالية لطبيعة العلاقات الإنسانية ودينامياتها في المجتمع الإنساني. وربما لذلك، فإنه لم يمر على نظرية توماس هوبز حول "حالة الطبيعة" إلا مرور الكرام، ولم يتوقف عندها بشكل معمق كما كان يجب عليه فعل ذلك!
رأى هوبز بأن المجتمع قبل نشوء الدولة كان في "حالة الطبيعة"، التي هي "حالة حرب الجميع ضد الجميع"، حيث إن الجميع سوف يتحاربون على الموارد المحدودة، وسوف تصعب السيطرة على ذلك. فهم قائم على التشاؤم تجاه الطبيعة الإنسانية، ولكنه واقعي. وذلك على العكس من الأناركية، التي يتحدث عنها الكاتب، في أكثر من موضع، بصفتها نظاما سياسيا "متوافقا عليه، طوعيا غير مفروض"، يسود فيه التفاهم المجتمعي والتوافق على ألا تقوم سلطة كسلطة الدولة، ولا حتى سلطة شبيهة بسلطة الدولة! كيف يُفترض بنظام كهذا أن يكون ممكنا، بأي شكل من الأشكال؟ هذا ما لم يكن واضحا، بل كان ثمة الكثير من اللف والدوران، وإحسان الظن المفرط، بل وحتى الساذج، بأنه لن تقوم فئة ما في "الوسط الأناركي" بانتزاع السلطة!!
ربما تكمن القيمة الكبرى في هذا الكتاب، في تبيانه عيوب نظام الدولة بشكل مفصل، وهذا ما قد ينتفع به من يريد تحسين هذا النظام.
حسين كاظم
٣ يوليو ٢٠٢٤
November 25, 2022
Key Takeaways:
• Anarchy is unimposed order. Order that occurs that not through force but by persuasion. This order is not due to a centralized system of control, but a decentralized and therefore distributed power. Order could be enforced by systems such as community policing, if the inhabitants choose this. Within anarchist societies, systems and order can exist. The difference is how these systems are controlled.
• Anarchy presents a new way of living that has yet to be tested in totality. This doesn't dissuade anarchists. Anarchists seek to envision a world as it could be, not how it currently is. A way of life where every citizen has control over where there taxes go, and can participate in the government through a participatory government. The united states, at point was run similar to anarchist conception. Decisions where made by everyone, see the Mayflower compromise!
• An anarchist space is one that is constantly shifting through negotiated power. Power is dissuaded from accumlating within the hands of one person, but all people hold equal power. This space is free from state power and control, but may exist within the space. Since it's constantly shifting, there is no telling what anarchism would look like in practice. Akin to how slavery was abolished and slaves were free to toil, free to die, as Fredrick Douglass said, the exact roadmap to anarchy isn't figured out before hand, but is worked out within the people. It a journey and is constantly developed.
• Spaces claiming anarchy are free to move and sway much like the wind. As the associations that encompass these spaces are fluid, with people being able to claim exactly what the want with society and being free to associate with said society freely.
• Anarchy is constant struggle for the common good, however people of a society decides to conceptualize this common good. The state often dictates what is the common good, whether that's education, defense, or healthcare, and thus decides how our taxes are spent. Anarchy reverses this conception, we decide what the common good is. And what we decide to spend our taxes on notes what are common values are.
• Individuals are inherently different. Thus, the freedoms and the common good they represent are by association different. Individuals are subject to change are not seen is solid qualities unsuceptible to change. But rather, thinking anarchically informs one that individuals and their desires are subject to change, much as the ground one treads is subject to change via tectonic shifts.
• Anarchy as a thought cannot exist as a global project. Oftentimes people conceive of Anarchy as occurring on a State level, but that would be antithetical to an Anarchist approach. Anarchy must occur within spaces, from grass root organizations by people not coerced or forced, but persuaded by the freedom of expression that anarchy provides.
• Anarchy is different from liberalism in the starting point of anarchy is not the market, or utilitarian calcus of pros and cons, but rather humanity itself. Freedom of expression and not market freedom.
Favorite Quotes:
• Just like tectonic movement under the earth changes its surface—whether one millimeter a day or one earthquake at a time—so does the practical interplay of social values constantly alter the surface of the bonds holding us together, in whole or in part. (pg.39)
• As a political project, anarchy moves best by forming spaces for the practice of anarchy throughout society, free from state power, state impositions, and state claims upon social resources. (pg.33)
• Thus we understand that the role of natural science is to describe how the world is, while the role of social science is to describe how the world should be. (pg.11)
• Rather he [The Anarchist] is one whose calculations are motivated by the cause-seeking attitude that accompanies the expectation that he should, or at least could, determine the common good directly. (pg.170)
• An anarchist conception of humanity becoming more self-expressing with an expanded and deep idea of freedom transcends the current libertarian conception of humanity, which reduces its freedom to the calculus of utilitarian individualism and interests. (pg.210)
• Anarchy is unimposed order. Order that occurs that not through force but by persuasion. This order is not due to a centralized system of control, but a decentralized and therefore distributed power. Order could be enforced by systems such as community policing, if the inhabitants choose this. Within anarchist societies, systems and order can exist. The difference is how these systems are controlled.
• Anarchy presents a new way of living that has yet to be tested in totality. This doesn't dissuade anarchists. Anarchists seek to envision a world as it could be, not how it currently is. A way of life where every citizen has control over where there taxes go, and can participate in the government through a participatory government. The united states, at point was run similar to anarchist conception. Decisions where made by everyone, see the Mayflower compromise!
• An anarchist space is one that is constantly shifting through negotiated power. Power is dissuaded from accumlating within the hands of one person, but all people hold equal power. This space is free from state power and control, but may exist within the space. Since it's constantly shifting, there is no telling what anarchism would look like in practice. Akin to how slavery was abolished and slaves were free to toil, free to die, as Fredrick Douglass said, the exact roadmap to anarchy isn't figured out before hand, but is worked out within the people. It a journey and is constantly developed.
• Spaces claiming anarchy are free to move and sway much like the wind. As the associations that encompass these spaces are fluid, with people being able to claim exactly what the want with society and being free to associate with said society freely.
• Anarchy is constant struggle for the common good, however people of a society decides to conceptualize this common good. The state often dictates what is the common good, whether that's education, defense, or healthcare, and thus decides how our taxes are spent. Anarchy reverses this conception, we decide what the common good is. And what we decide to spend our taxes on notes what are common values are.
• Individuals are inherently different. Thus, the freedoms and the common good they represent are by association different. Individuals are subject to change are not seen is solid qualities unsuceptible to change. But rather, thinking anarchically informs one that individuals and their desires are subject to change, much as the ground one treads is subject to change via tectonic shifts.
• Anarchy as a thought cannot exist as a global project. Oftentimes people conceive of Anarchy as occurring on a State level, but that would be antithetical to an Anarchist approach. Anarchy must occur within spaces, from grass root organizations by people not coerced or forced, but persuaded by the freedom of expression that anarchy provides.
• Anarchy is different from liberalism in the starting point of anarchy is not the market, or utilitarian calcus of pros and cons, but rather humanity itself. Freedom of expression and not market freedom.
Favorite Quotes:
• Just like tectonic movement under the earth changes its surface—whether one millimeter a day or one earthquake at a time—so does the practical interplay of social values constantly alter the surface of the bonds holding us together, in whole or in part. (pg.39)
• As a political project, anarchy moves best by forming spaces for the practice of anarchy throughout society, free from state power, state impositions, and state claims upon social resources. (pg.33)
• Thus we understand that the role of natural science is to describe how the world is, while the role of social science is to describe how the world should be. (pg.11)
• Rather he [The Anarchist] is one whose calculations are motivated by the cause-seeking attitude that accompanies the expectation that he should, or at least could, determine the common good directly. (pg.170)
• An anarchist conception of humanity becoming more self-expressing with an expanded and deep idea of freedom transcends the current libertarian conception of humanity, which reduces its freedom to the calculus of utilitarian individualism and interests. (pg.210)
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews