- This topic has 19 replies, 6 voices, and was last updated 3 years, 4 months ago by
.
-
Why do I need to “read” about anarchism when I see with my own eyes groups of people breaking into the US Capitol looking for senators with a noose, and cop ties, shouting the election has been stolen and trying to overturn the results-in the name of overthrowing the existing authority. If that isn’t anarchy then who cares.
Because Anarchy is actually a theory, one that disapproves of concentrated power.
Concentrated power responded to that philosophical threat to its existence by deliberately portraying Anarchy as chaos.
Now people think anarchy and chaos are synonyms. But they aren’t. So that’s why.
As for “how to bridge” the divide, as I said earlier, I would ask questions. What makes them say Biden is a socialist? I would expect they would answer that he wants to raise taxes, but it’s pretty obvious that isn’t socialist. Juxtapose Biden’s policies with socialist policies. That’s if you really want to just defend Biden from the charge of socialism. But if your larger goal isn’t really that, but to achieve some kind of recognition that Biden’s policies are decent and humane, well… I rarely take on the kind of Sisyphean task.
Why do I need to “read” about anarchism when I see with my own eyes groups of people breaking into the US Capitol looking for senators with a noose, and cop ties, shouting the election has been stolen and trying to overturn the results-in the name of overthrowing the existing authority. If that isn’t anarchy then who cares.
Because Anarchy is actually a theory, one that disapproves of concentrated power.
Concentrated power responded to that philosophical threat to its existence by deliberately portraying Anarchy as chaos.
Now people think anarchy and chaos are synonyms. But they aren’t. So that’s why.
.Yeah, W, there’s 2 versions of the word.
Just putting things in black and white.
Philosophical anarchism is a 19th and 20th century political vision which argues that hierarchical social structures corrupt humanity. Here’s an example of that tradition and its way of thinking from Chomsky: “power that isn’t really justified by the will of the governed should be dismantled.” ― Noam Chomsky, On Anarchism
In the popular everyday use of the word is, as you say Z, it just means chaos.
In a leftist context, W, since we’re aware of philosophical anarchism we tend not to use the word in the popular, everyday sense.
Why do I need to “read” about anarchism when I see with my own eyes groups of people breaking into the US Capitol looking for senators with a noose, and cop ties, shouting the election has been stolen and trying to overturn the results-in the name of overthrowing the existing authority. If that isn’t anarchy then who cares.
Because Anarchy is actually a theory, one that disapproves of concentrated power.
Concentrated power responded to that philosophical threat to its existence by deliberately portraying Anarchy as chaos.
Now people think anarchy and chaos are synonyms. But they aren’t. So that’s why.
.Yeah, W, there’s 2 versions of the word.
Just putting things in black and white.
Philosophical anarchism is a 19th and 20th century political vision which argues that hierarchical social structures corrupt humanity. Here’s an example of that tradition and its way of thinking from Chomsky: “power that isn’t really justified by the will of the governed should be dismantled.” ― Noam Chomsky, On Anarchism
In the popular everyday use of the word is, as you say Z, it just means chaos.
In a leftist context, W, since we’re aware of philosophical anarchism we tend not to use the word in the popular, everyday sense.
So if there are two versions one of which is the “popular everyday use of the word” why is the everyday sense of the word less correct than the one defining it as a political theory ? Much like the use of the word “Nigga” means something to a white supremist that is different than what the word means to a rap singer. Wiki in part says that the meaning of anarchy as a political theory is what is given to it by anarchists. So who are they to say that the use of the word by the everyday guy in his backyard cooking steaks is wrong ? That is what in philosophy is called “absolutism”. Besides, the word “anarchy” actually comes from the medieval latin word “anarchia” and the Greek word “anarchos” meaning without ruler or rules. It’s not a huge bridge to cross to understand that no rules means chaos. So to me “anarchy” can equally mean 1)a political philosophy and 2)a volitional movement (chaos) as a means to accomplish a society free from authority. Those idiots breaking into the Capitol most certainly do not understand the political theory of anarchism but they certainly wanted to tear down the existing hierarchy, leaving our society-as we know it-without rules.
At bottom here is that words (anarchy) have meanings depending on various classificatory purposes. There is no absolutism when it comes to using words-anarchists don’t get to tell people what anarchy is other than to themselves.
Biden a socialist? I have conservative friends tell me that. And a few are not dumb. I watch interviews of these anarchists in D.C. and its like ” we won’t let Biden turn this country into “socialism”. Then I come here and its like Biden is no different than a free market capitalist.
It is no wonder to me that, from a political standpoint, we are so far apart in our views. You guys here must laugh when you hear Trump supporters yell about Biden and his band of socialists.
I just can’t figure this stuff out anymore.
A couple things about the Republican nonsense about socialism and Biden pop into my head.
1. I wonder if that was the GOP plan for attacking the Dems after watching the Democratic debates and the first couple of primaries. Many Dems were / are proposing a massive increase in the size of government–free college, Medicare For All, pay off student loans, etc.
Yes, that’s still not socialism, but that is a massive increase in the role of government. Maybe the GOP just got stuck in that rut of attacking the Dems after watching the beginning of the Democratic nomination process.
It would have been interesting to see how Bernie or Warren instead of Biden would have done against Trump.
2. The socialism nonsense is still kind of effective. It wasn’t a good national strategy against Biden, but it seems like it may have worked in South Florida with the anti-Castro and anti-Chavez immigrants.
And the election was still pretty close. Georgia, Arizona, Wisconsin, and PA were still pretty close. If not for the black turnout (Thank you Kamala?) would Biden have won this election?
3. Democrats suck at countering the Republican message about socialism. I don’t watch much mainstream news, but I am pretty sure that the Democrats don’t do this.
Dems should be constantly telling middle class voters in my age range (40s and 30s)something like this:
“Republicans will NOT protect the thousands and thousands of dollars that your generation has put into social security. Social Security is socialism to Republicans and Trump and your money will be gone in 20 years if they continue to help lead our country.”
I don’t think Democrats ever say anything like that because they suck.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
