Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

wild_liger wrote

I don't like "anarchy" because it describes a state of existence, something that's utopian, something that's solved, something that's stagnant. It implies that there's an end point, that at some point there will be no more work to do. That things will ever be good enough, that it's somehow a self-sustaining kind of existence once it's achieved.

"Anarchism", on the other hand, is a process of betterment, it's actions, it's a working towards something, and I think that's a much better description of what it should mean to be an anarchist. If you ever think you're done, that's just you giving up, or compromising, or not looking hard enough.

Having some idealized end goal makes it possible to do shitty things with the expectation that the ends will eventually justify the means. But the means are actually the only thing that matters, the lessening of oppression in the moment, nothing but moments upon moments upon moments of anarching.


ziq OP wrote (edited )

I don't see anarchy as my end goal or even believe there can be an end goal. Anarchy doesn't purport to be a constructed utopian society like socialism. Anarchy is praxis. Anarchy is autonomy from authority. Anarchy is struggle. Anarchy is life.


rot wrote

I still see Anarchism as an ideology of non-hierarchical society. It's the continuous struggle to that end yeah, but there is the goal of overthrowing power structures