whilst modern anarchism certainly has a lot of good points to make, anarchism in general also covers some pretty horrendous ways of structuring society…
anarchism is, at its core, is just absense of government and rulers
The word “anarchy” was first defined by Ancient Greek philosophy, which understood it to be a corrupted form of direct democracy, where a majority of people exclusively pursue their own interests
that original definition pretty well covers “everyone for themselves anarchy”
you can argue “yes but no serious anarchist”, but the word at its core doesn’t just mean the serious and thought out structures
it is what it is: anarchy can mean chaos, it’s just that when discussing with people who are discussing the implementation of anarchy, it’s widely agreed that chaos is not the goal and thus other systems are put in place
it is frustrating that the modern version of the word has become synonymous with only the kind of anarchism that’s generally agreed is not the way any of this should be implemented… but anarchism still covers those shit takes
That’s certainly… true enough from a prescriptivist perspective. However the layman likely doesn’t care about all that, and frankly neither do I. Anarcho-capitalism (US libertarianism, read: feudalism) is about as true to “modern anarchism” as Nazism (fascism) is to socialism.
Anyway, I find your “contribution” kinda unhelpful and kinda masturbatory, so… goodbye
It is extremely frustrating that anarchism had been deliberately stigmatized and demonized through all forms of media for decades. Like someone in a movie describing a riot as “total anarchy.”
Yeah, the unending propaganda is just awful. And necessary to perpetuate any system that can’t stand on its own merits. “Tyranny requires constant effort.”
No, but the alternative is not some no-tax, every-person-for-themselves anarchy.
Please do yourself and others a favor and don’t conflate libertarians with actual anarchism.
whilst modern anarchism certainly has a lot of good points to make, anarchism in general also covers some pretty horrendous ways of structuring society…
anarchism is, at its core, is just absense of government and rulers
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchy
that original definition pretty well covers “everyone for themselves anarchy”
you can argue “yes but no serious anarchist”, but the word at its core doesn’t just mean the serious and thought out structures
it is what it is: anarchy can mean chaos, it’s just that when discussing with people who are discussing the implementation of anarchy, it’s widely agreed that chaos is not the goal and thus other systems are put in place
it is frustrating that the modern version of the word has become synonymous with only the kind of anarchism that’s generally agreed is not the way any of this should be implemented… but anarchism still covers those shit takes
That’s certainly… true enough from a prescriptivist perspective. However the layman likely doesn’t care about all that, and frankly neither do I. Anarcho-capitalism (US libertarianism, read: feudalism) is about as true to “modern anarchism” as Nazism (fascism) is to socialism.
Anyway, I find your “contribution” kinda unhelpful and kinda masturbatory, so… goodbye
deleted by creator
It is extremely frustrating that anarchism had been deliberately stigmatized and demonized through all forms of media for decades. Like someone in a movie describing a riot as “total anarchy.”
Yeah, the unending propaganda is just awful. And necessary to perpetuate any system that can’t stand on its own merits. “Tyranny requires constant effort.”