unripenedboyparts t1_j0zu6cd wrote
Reply to comment by ValyrianJedi in Anarchism at the End of the World: A defence of the instinct that won’t go away by Sventipluk
>Also, the opening line of "Anarchism is the only way of life that has ever worked or ever can" is beyond a stretch, and is likely a great way to lose 90% of your readers before the first paragraph is over.
I dunno, I might have lost interest if it weren't for that insufferably contrarian take. I'm tempted to think it's bait and I fell for it.
The only way I can redeem that claim is by arguing that anarchism has never truly been instituted, and therefore has a lower failure rate than other systems. Sort of like communism as Marx envisioned it.
Fluggernuffin t1_j11334v wrote
It's been said already that anarchism is not an end, rather a process by which we make what we have better.
Anarchy as a system will never be a thing institutionally, as that is contrary to the very nature of anarchy. The author points this out, that anarchy isn't organized in the traditional sense, but rather organically. I think he actually illustrates this well by using examples of friendship. People don't generally take well to a forced friendship; they would rather happen upon it organically--if it happens, it happens. Anarchy supposes this as a universal good. If life can thrive organically without a dominant, that life is better for it.
I don't think anyone could successfully argue that anarchy in its purest form, without any dominant, is possible. Rather, how can we remove the most pervasive dominants that we no longer require to thrive?
unripenedboyparts t1_j13g322 wrote
Oh, I'm not saying there's no redeeming qualities to the piece, just that some of its assertions are ludicrous. Especially the ones made in the beginning. Sort of reminds me of the Motte and Bailey thing where someone pushes their luck and then backtracks to a more reasonable claim.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments