11–20 of 145 posts
But I also find the term anarcho-communism to be an oxymoron.
I find it completely ironic that anarchism itself cannot even escape the left-right paradigm. Going down lower Manhattan on a weekdays, you can find heated arguments between an anarcho-communist vs another anarcho-capitalist. But I also find the term anarcho-communism to be an oxymoron.
I find it completely ironic that anarchism itself cannot even escape the left-right paradigm. Going down lower Manhattan on a weekdays, you can find heated arguments between an anarcho-communist vs another anarcho-capitalist. But I also find the term anarcho-communism to be an oxymoron.
anarcho-capitalism isn't anarchism.
If you treat the word anarchism as "anarcho-communism", then you are right.
Even from historical perspective, individual anarchism is almost as old, as communitarian.
I find it completely ironic that anarchism itself cannot even escape the left-right paradigm. Going down lower Manhattan on a weekdays, you can find heated arguments between an anarcho-communist vs another anarcho-capitalist. But I also find the term anarcho-communism to be an oxymoron.
Much better than ignoring the up and down completely like neo-liberal and neo-conservative politics. From the mainstream, we see plenty of disheartening policies that both left and right anarchists would agree on.
That said, the problem I think about it what you've mentioned. How do we convince collectivist thinkers that taxes are the use of force? How do we convince individualists that some services need to be established by the collective itself and not an offshoot (syndicate/business)? Our problems are what you've mentioned. Too much left-right and not enough up and down talk. This opens us all up to authoritarian centrists who believe that title to be impossible because of the golden mean...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
anarcho-capitalism isn't anarchism.
If you treat the word anarchism as "stateless society", then anarcho-capitalism is anarchism. If you treat the word anarchism as "anarcho-communism", then you are right. Even from historical perspective, individual anarchism is almost as old, as communitarian.
Anarchism is pure nonsense. There is literally no such thing as "no government." In a "state of nature," every government is size 1---you. You are responsible for retaliatory and initiatory force, and every interaction is foreign diplomacy with a gun behind it. From there, things can (and will) evolve so that there are larger governments, but you cannot get "no government."
That is a most accurate observation, but what does it add to the discussion? You have some implicit assumptions about anarchy there... why would there be guns? We aren't all americans you know... Also, I don't understand the negativity, did you notice the sprawl of civilisation around you? That came from anarchy... its proven to work in some sense.
Meet Noam Chomsky - Academic Gatekeeper: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EEDf7OkRCxk&list=PLN6xa7kD9dZ...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
anarcho-capitalism isn't anarchism.
If you treat the word anarchism as "stateless society", then anarcho-capitalism is anarchism. If you treat the word anarchism as "anarcho-communism", then you are right. Even from historical perspective, individual anarchism is almost as old, as communitarian.
Anarchism is pure nonsense. There is literally no such thing as "no government." In a "state of nature," every government is size 1---you. You are responsible for retaliatory and initiatory force, and every interaction is foreign diplomacy with a gun behind it. From there, things can (and will) evolve so that there are larger governments, but you cannot get "no government."
Your profile looks like you're an objectivist. But as others pointed out, you can't just dismiss anarchism off-hand. As an objectivist, you're against coercion, but in favour of centralized power? Is that correct? If so, don't you think it's a contradictory idea?
The book in discussion: "On Anarchism provides the reasoning behind Noam Chomsky's fearless lifelong questioning of the legitimacy of entrenched power. In these essays, Chomsky redeems one of the most maligned ideologies, anarchism, and places it at the foundation of his political thinking. Chomsky's anarchism is distinctly optimistic and egalitarian. Moreover, it is a living, evolving tradition that is situated in a…
In democracy (imperfect as it may be) we get to elect people who choose laws and thus authorize violence only in mandated situations.
Without rules - including law - is all violence permitted?
Edit: from the book review: "Chomsky's anarchism emphasizes the power of collective, rather than individualist, action."
So people come together as collectives, which represent them? Would these collectives presumably agree on some standards? And enforce them? Isn't that democracy?