anarchists do have rules, they just don’t have hierarchies. the idea that anarchism is a free-for-all, do whatever you want ideology is capitalist propaganda. in a society built on the liberation of all people, you obviously need rules to protect the people from threats that would subjugate or harm them. in real world anarchist collectives, those rules are usually collectively arranged by the people, and in cases where people break those rules, they are adjudicated by groups of people elected or randomly chosen to work out who is in the wrong, and what punishment is suitable for them. yes, anarchists do have what most liberals would call a system of law and order.
for a good example of how anarchism works in practice, read up on the Zapatista. while they don’t refer to themselves as anarchist, their day-to-day praxis is pretty anarcho-communist.
anarchists do have rules, they just don’t have hierarchies. the idea that anarchism is a free-for-all, do whatever you want ideology is capitalist propaganda.
there are many “anarchisms” and some actually refuse rules.
some are clearly antisocial and nihilistic. That doesn’t make it less anarchist.
Sure, people like ancaps exist. And there’s naturally no authority on what anarchism is. But you won’t find many leftists, anarchists or otherwise, who will associate themselves with people like that.
You can scream to the heavens that you’re an anarchist all you want, but you can’t make people accept that or humor you by also calling you one.
You can scream to the heavens that you’re an anarchist all you want, but you can’t make people accept that or humor you by also calling you one.
that’s a strange occupation, to care about people calling you anarchist or not.
i know that nowadays people are more interested in what they’re called, appropriated identities, labels and what not, but you really think that those unfrequentables will care about what you call them?
I don’t recall saying I thought they would. You’re the one who brought it up, so if you have questions about your own position, perhaps you should address them to a mirror.
anarchists do have rules, they just don’t have hierarchies. the idea that anarchism is a free-for-all, do whatever you want ideology is capitalist propaganda. in a society built on the liberation of all people, you obviously need rules to protect the people from threats that would subjugate or harm them. in real world anarchist collectives, those rules are usually collectively arranged by the people, and in cases where people break those rules, they are adjudicated by groups of people elected or randomly chosen to work out who is in the wrong, and what punishment is suitable for them. yes, anarchists do have what most liberals would call a system of law and order.
for a good example of how anarchism works in practice, read up on the Zapatista. while they don’t refer to themselves as anarchist, their day-to-day praxis is pretty anarcho-communist.
there are many “anarchisms” and some actually refuse rules.
some are clearly antisocial and nihilistic. That doesn’t make it less anarchist.
Sure, people like ancaps exist. And there’s naturally no authority on what anarchism is. But you won’t find many leftists, anarchists or otherwise, who will associate themselves with people like that.
You can scream to the heavens that you’re an anarchist all you want, but you can’t make people accept that or humor you by also calling you one.
that’s a strange occupation, to care about people calling you anarchist or not.
i know that nowadays people are more interested in what they’re called, appropriated identities, labels and what not, but you really think that those unfrequentables will care about what you call them?
I don’t recall saying I thought they would. You’re the one who brought it up, so if you have questions about your own position, perhaps you should address them to a mirror.
mirror mirror on the wall,
who will have the last word on this stupid brawl?