Anarchists unite

#41

What are you going to do? You can tell people who refuse to listen that anarchist theory is much deeper than a webster’s dictionary definition, and if they refuse to listen, you can’t force them to do so.

5 Likes
#42

I can tell other people they are wrong though.

Maybe I should use the Encyclopaedia Britannica section on anarchism which was written by Peter Kropotkin, who is apparently not an anarchist anymore.

6 Likes
#43

And you most certainly should continue. Because even if they don’t listen, others might. I think of almost anyone here, you have a stronger grasp of the various underlying theories of anarchism as a political and theoretical view. Most people just know what they were told about anarchism. You’ve read a good deal of this stuff!

I did not know that about Kropotkin…

4 Likes
#44

It is pretty heavy. I’d suggest however, choosing the thickest volume if you’re trying to beat sense into people. Content doesn’t matter as much as weight in that situation.

4 Likes
#45

I have no idea what this is, but I love the future it portends.

#46

Um. Welcome to boing boing(!?!)

Usually that’s meant as a glib response to trolls who just jump into a conversation because they caught a link, but yeah, keep coming with thoughtful, persuasive dialogue like that, please.

#47

I misread that as “fully insured” and my first reaction was “well, it may be Luxury Queer Space Anarchism, but it’s clearly very sensible and prudent”.

2 Likes
#48

I could use the Complete Work of Karl Marx, but I’m not a Marxist.

1 Like
#49

I agree that what you say is true about pure individualist anarchism, but that was never the only anarchism. What interests me is social anarchism, in particular Communalism, the theory that Murray Bookchin came up with with after becoming disillusioned with Marxism and the increasing individualism in American anarchism. Communalism has been adapted by the Kurdish left and is being used in the Democratic Federation of Northern Syria.

Then it is a good thing that anarchism is a system without rulers, not a system without rules (how many times must I repeat this?). To claim otherwise is to ignore 200 years of anarchist theory starting with Proudhon, who based his ideas on the proto-anarchists that came before him.

2 Likes
#50

What’s your point? At no time have I ever associated ‘rulers’ with anarchism, EXCEPT for those who must set and enforce the Rules of Responsibility. And yes, no anarchism system (and it IS a system) works without Rules of Responsibility and their enforcement. As you can imagine, without ‘rulers’ as you point out, that means EVERYONE is a ‘ruler’ with regard to setting and enforcing Rules of Responsibility. Otherwise it is indeed NOT an anarchism system and would of course result in what I call Negative Anarchy.

And how did Karl Marx get into the conversation? Entirely off topic and irrelevant relative to Anarchism. Let’s go elsewhere to analyze that mess.

#51

Are you aware of the Hague Congress?

If we are talking about someone who became an anarchist after becoming disillusioned with Marxism then it is entirely on topic. The people who think that it is off topic are usually Ayn-Caps or people who think that Ayn-Caps are the only kind of anarchist. Even individualist anarchists usually recognise the historic links between anarchism and Marxism.

6 Likes
#52

I see that as a feature, not a bug.

I call myself a Christian libertarian socialist on my political answers on Quora. It rarely fails to blow someone’s mind.

5 Likes
#53

But considering teachings of Christ, as presented in New Testament, it is perfectly reasonable.

4 Likes
closed #55

This topic was automatically closed 30 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.