I love the many layers of irony here.
3 Likes
I also appreciate the education @anon73430903 shares with us. I consider myself left-ish, but I’m relatively new to it and I’m woefully deficient in theory, to the point that I’m not sure exactly what -ism best fits my values. So getting knowledge from somebody who clearly knows her stuff helps a lot, and gives me a good starting point for further explorations.
There’s an inherent “fuzziness” in a lot of political philosophies, I think. Everyone comes to it from their own experiences so they tend to interpret the basics differently. It makes for some very interesting conversations, but it’s also harder for us newer to the game to get a clear picture of what different ideologies stand for. I don’t have an answer for it yet, and I’m not sure I ever will, but the search is fascinating on its own. 
8 Likes
I’m sorry and I guess the thing is I just don’t really get your point in telling some one (anyone really) not to explain what a word means because people misuse it. To me it just does come across that way (like telling people their effort is useless and they should just shut up if they try to explain something other people misunderstand) no matter how much you edit it. I’m not sure what other point to take from it.
But, I’ll just not reply to you further on the matter since it’s asking you about it is causing you to feel defensive. And obviously that’s not going to do either of us any good.
3 Likes
That’s my point better. It’s actually super confusing and talking about these things is how we define them socially.
I guess the reason I feel compelled to push back on it is that it seems everything these days (maybe always though I guess) has an easy weak-spot. Make the “brand” toxic with disinfo and misinfo.
Fuck… just the fact that everything these days is a “brand” is bad enough in terms of how we talk and think about ourselves and our philosophies.
If I’m totally honest, growing up as I did, I thought anarchy was just some kind of fashion from the 70s/80s associated vaguely with rock music from UK. It’s easy to manipulate information in a society that kind of erodes the context of things to sell them by default.
7 Likes
Your post was, to my mind, that I should shut up because you perceived my post as hurtful to the OP, to the point that they wouldn’t post here anymore. And that I should, not sure about what specifically, “only speak for myself”. I edited my original post yesterday to make it more general, and it no longer contains the text orenwolf quoted.
I’m interested in what Anarchists think of as their philosophy. But I also think that there is overlap with the groups the OP specifically rejects as being related to Anarchism. To a degree, I think there is some “No True Scotsman” going in terms of little “a” anarchism by declaring that those other groups are not related to Anarchy. And me having to be super careful about which one I capitalize I think exemplifies the problem of the overlapping and equivocal nature of the word “anarchism”
1 Like
This. We’re seeing it in real time with critical race theory; opponents have openly admitted they’re trying to define it on their terms to increase resistance to it. When I consider how long some of the political theories we’re discussing have existed-- centuries in some cases-- and how many voices have weighted in on them, getting down to “basics” becomes increasingly complicated, and confusing to relative n00bs like me.
But I agree that discussing it with each other and sharing what we’ve learned helps us get a better picture of these theories. I’d be lost without the input of others more knowledgeable than I am, and hopefully I’ll learn enough in time to turn around and help others. It’s an interesting journey we’re all on, and it’s better with friends along for the ride. 
9 Likes
I feel comfortable calling Rand Paul a nihilist.
1 Like
Oligarchy works here as well.
1 Like
Not to be confused with plutocracy, the construction of an ideal society baaed on the moral teachings of Lucius Mestrius Plutarchus.
And what levels of irony are there?
I think everyone would agree that Hitler and Kim Jong-Un are not anarchists, so there is a general agreement that there are limits to what anarchism is.
There are many forms of anarchism. I dont agree with them all, some I strongly disagree with (like anarcho-primitivism) but they are still anarchist philosophies.
However, “anarcho”-capitalism isn’t anarchism as it is a system of rule by the rich. National “anarchism” isnt anarchism as it is a hierarchy of races. “Anarcho”-monarchism isn’t anarchism because it is a monarchy. Hoppean libertarianism is just rebranded fascism. To claim that they are anarchism is to claim that words have no meaning.
Does that explain why this is not “no true Scotsman”?
8 Likes
The irony I was pointing to was with the specific wording Skeptic used - around anarchy and controlling the rules of anarchism so to speak. Sort of in a “freedom is the only way” vein.
“The problem with standards is that there are so many of them” - much like that there are many anarchist philosophies and like you some I agree with, and some I don’t.
2 Likes
“Scotsmen refers to people from Scotland or sometimes who have Scottish descent.”
“What about that Chinese guy who claims he’s Scottish?”
“…I’m pretty sure he’s not.”
“Gasp! A logical fallacy! 
”
1 Like
We define words so we can come up with common frames of reference. Otherwise, how are we meant to communicate. Some terms need greater explanation, because there is more history and meaning behind them. Depending on how one is deploying a word like anarchism (whether in reference to a complex set of political philosophies or to the state of anarchy), you often need a greater amount of context to understand what the speaker is intending to convey.
Not really ironic I’d argue.
Doesn’t that depend on whether or not that person is from Scotland? One can be of Chinese ethnicity, but have been born and raised in Scotland after all.
7 Likes
It would…for the analogy to work I was imagining someone from China, who say liked bagpipe music but otherwise had no connection to the country. Sometimes someone really isn’t a true Scotsman, no fallacy involved, is what I was getting at.
3 Likes
I think his point was that anarchists (per the_borderer’s many times posted bootmaker quote) tend to not trust other people’s opinions on subjects unless they are experts in that field, so someone defining (or very possibly redefining) anarchism and expecting people to fall in line or accept it because they say so is kinda funny?
This is a really good thread.
I would just add that libertarians only seem to care about their personal freedoms.
Historically, Anarchism cares about the freedom of society from authority.
This can only work when we replace the top down structures of society with grass roots mutual aid.
At least, that is my understanding.
Love and Rage, Comrades.
4 Likes
When someone is using a word in a particular way, do we reject their context, ignore their meaning, and substitute our own? Isn’t that putting words into someone’s mouth? If I say “anarchism” and mean in a particular way, and YOU say, well no, that’s not what YOU mean… that is very much putting words into someone else’s mouth and negating what THEY mean.
4 Likes
This next paragraph is a bit convoluted, but it explains where the layers of irony comment was coming from (at least to me).
It’s someone calling themself an “anarchist”, assuming a prori that people who reject authority (say governments) don’t recognize any authority(1), which is untrue, and leads them to mistakenly think they can redefine anarchy as they wish, cuz no authorities…
Your other point is valid, at the same time, words and names have a meaning, and certain people have invested the time to learn and understand (like the folks listed in point 1), or have skin in the game (why I keep my mouth shut when minorities say something is racist, for example) which do confer more authority than just your average opinion haver like me. There’s a balance there, I’m sure someone could write a PHD on finding it.
(1) like yourself in history, or the_border on anarchy at the very least, docsoc in pediatric medicine, and so forth
If I had used the word “anarcho” or “anarchic” instead of “anarchist”, would that have been acceptable?
