Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

willow wrote

you are really confused about what anarchism is and what anarchists want.

5

hirao OP wrote

I think the goals of all anarchists are very well defined:

Radical democracy (various forms)

Anti-capitalist

Anti-imperialist

Anti-fascist

No unjustified hierarchies

Decentralised communes

Mutual aid

Moneyless

No borders

Rehabilitative justice

−1

OdiousOutlaw wrote

No unjustified hierarchies

Stop.

No ideology is for "unjustified hierarchy".

Every ideology to ever exist is against that which they see as "unjust".

No one is "correct" on matters of what is "justified" and "unjustified" because both are very much not objective.

6

hirao OP wrote

−2

OdiousOutlaw wrote (edited )

I'm not wasting my time watching a 30-minute video on Chomsky mangling the definition of anarchism.

Use your own words.

4

hirao OP wrote

"Anarchism is a tendency in human development that seeks to identify structures of hierarchy and domination, authority, and others that constrain human development - and then it seeks to subject them to a very reasonable challenge: Justify yourself. Demonstrate that you're legitimate - maybe in some special circumstances or conceivably in principal. And if you can't meet that challenge - which is the usual case - the structure should be dismantled. And as Nathan rightly adds, not just dismantled but reconstructed from below."

−1

OdiousOutlaw wrote

Nonsense.

You know what speaking truth to power does? Absolutely fuck all.

If I were to walk up to a cop/judge/president/king and demand that they justify their power over me, what the fuck do you think they'd do? Best case scenario, they'd laugh and tell me to piss off. Worst case, I'd be executed for daring to question the rule of law.

Telling power to justify itself amounts to nothing; people with power do their best to preserve a monopoly on violence through force or propaganda otherwise they lose their power.

Do you think a slavedriver would suddenly stop being a slavedriver because one or more of his slaves told him that he should justify his ownership of them over a spirited debate?

5

hirao OP wrote

You people really need to stop using the word "power" as a pejorative. What about the people's power? Power is only bad if it's utilised for badness.

If a person refuses to justify his authority then that proves his authority isn't justified and they are an oppressor.

−3

OdiousOutlaw wrote

A Chomskyist: "Hey, you, justify your authority!"

A ruler: "Okay." [Proceeds to use state-backed force to crush all dissenters, justifying their authority].

The ruler: "Anyone else think my authority is unjustified?"

The ruler's supporters: "No, sir."

The ruler: "Then by democratic rule, I'm a justified authority."

4

hirao OP wrote

That's isn't a justified authority.

−3

OdiousOutlaw wrote

According to the dead dissidents, sure.

According to the ruler and all of their supporters, the ruler is a "justified" authority.

6

[deleted] wrote

2

hirao OP wrote (edited )

I have a lot of respect for Noam since he was the first person who introduced me to anti-capitalist thought. After I read him, I read Kropotkin and then Marx/Engels, Parentis, Lenin, Bakunin and now I'm starting Proudhon but it isn't really gelling with me so far.

I haven't read Vaush yet, but I'll add it to my docker.

1

[deleted] wrote

2

hirao OP wrote

Should I read Vaush before Bookchin?

3

[deleted] wrote

1

hirao OP wrote

I see. I'd rather not have to listen to an audio book and honestly if it's out of print it probably isn't that good to begin with.

0