• GBU_28@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    Are you asking me? Or being hypothetical?I’m none of those things, nor an anarchist, I’m just capable of reading the definition .

    If that was directed at me, Kinda shitty you assumed that about me as i made a complete abstract statement, without showing my favor.

    1. a state of disorder due to absence or nonrecognition of authority or other controlling systems.

    the organization of society on the basis of voluntary cooperation, without political institutions or hierarchical government; anarchism.

    My previous comment aligns, especially with the second definition.

    Many, many on the right want far less government and less of anyone telling them how to organize their communities. they absolutely want a new version of the world with small and increasingly absent governance. The fact that they are shitty doesn’t discount their desire for anarchist changes in macro governance.

    Frankly, your descriptions of what you believe “true” anarchism proves my point. A right aligned person could come in and confidently describe their key points as they believe just as well.

    MY core point was that it’s the transition to micro governance, free of external systemic pressure is not isolated to leftist ideals, edit though, it could be! In your post collapse world.

    • LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      Chill, it’s just a rhetorical you, directed at any who identify with it. If you don’t, then that’s fine. I know nothing about your ideology.

      Anarchism is unique to the left though. I’ve never met someone in the right who doesn’t subscribe to some kind of hierarchical domination of other people, usually one or multiple of the examples I gave. If they don’t, then in my view they are confused about their own ideological position.

      If you destroy some hierarchies and not others, the systems newly freed from competition for dominance in society will rapidly expand and replace them. Anarchism has always been about opposition to capitalism as much as to the state. You can’t just abandon one of the core tenets and still claim to belong—although the first ancaps were never anarchists. They were capitalists who discovered a clever and dishonest way to advocate for their own dominance over society.

      • GBU_28@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 months ago

        Just saying it was pretty leading, when I worked hard to keep my comment neutral. Clarifying if I’m being put in a box is not being triggered or whatever.

        The point is after the dissolving of macro scale government, all bets are off on what’s next. Neither the left or right has ownership of the idea of “absence”

        • LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          5 months ago

          Sorry, I didn’t mean it that way.

          But I think you are confused about what is meant by anarchism. We’re talking about a specific political movement, not a mere absence of government.

          • GBU_28@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            5 months ago

            It’s no worries we cleared that up, we are just chatting about an interesting but potentially loaded topic.

            I understand anarchism as it is known in leftist groups has a well defined ethos and criteria.

            My point is that that the core motivation isn’t unique, others have their own interpretation. The desire to reduce macro scale government is certainly not unique to leftist groups. And those.other groups have their own well defined ideation around the ideal post transition society.

            • LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              5 months ago

              That’s all true, I just think it’s very annoying that they chose to graft themselves onto an existing political movement by taking their name when they share very little of the core ethics. It makes communication more difficult and implies an affinity that I don’t believe exists.

              • GBU_28@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                5 months ago

                I mean , libertarian sourced small to zero government is NOT new

                • LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  5 months ago

                  It is relatively new actually. I mean the ideas, maybe not since Jefferson had similar ideas hundreds of years ago but the cooption of the words anarchism and libertarianism, both of which were historically leftist movements, was popularized by Murray Rothbard in the 1970s. He was also pro-segregation, just to demonstrate what kind of people we’re discussing here.

                  Rothbard agreed privately that his movement was fundamentally not anarchism but for whatever reason in his public writings, he claimed otherwise. I suspect it was just to troll leftists but who knows.

                  • GBU_28@lemm.ee
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    0
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    5 months ago

                    Dude that’s 50 years ago.

                    Edit also the ideation is not tied in a person or specific movement, just saying the notions of situation and isolation, especially idealized with the collapse of the federal government go back before the 70s