Ever since the anarchy bang episode on music, in which the word anarchist was thrown around like a frisbee for a caffeinated border collie, I've been pondering (and harassing my friends with the question of) how one determines whether something is anarchist or not. In the podcast episode, it was a. if the artist called themself an anarchist, b. if the content was about anarchist topics (?), c. if the content reflected anarchist values, d. if the listener felt anarchisty (?!?!?) when listening to it, e. if the musician felt anarchisty while making it, and f. all creativity is anarchist. I might have missed a few. All of these are fine, though many raise more questions than they resolve. What are your thoughts on this? Do you call something anarchist and then think it's good, or do you think it's good and then call it anarchist (my personal favorite)? What are the ramifications for you of calling something anarchist?
There is no need for a centralized definition, and I would be bored personally with a conversation in which people were trying to convince each other, but what is your personal criteria, or do you not think about it this way?
Remember, no animals were hurt in the making of this totw, no one is signing on the dotted line, these are thought exercises for fun and pleasure.