• Pup Biru@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    3 hours ago

    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

    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

    • 2hundredpancakes@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      52 minutes ago

      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