Have you ever read a philosopher on democracy? If not, how can you have such strong opinions without doing your research?
Yes, I have, I wouldn’t if I didn’t, and I certainly wouldn’t have strong opinions if I was unread on the topic. It is hilarious to me that you thought this was a gotcha, this is just embarrassing on your part tbh.
It’s not like Anarchy is some very complex concept, Fundamental political ideologies are not that hard to understand, like theocracy, dictatorship, communism, democracy. It’s all pretty simple, and so is anarchy.
The notion that you think they’re simple is my proof that you are completely unread on them. Explain mutualism to me, I doubt you can. Political philosophy is one of the most complex fields on the planet, the idea that these things are simple and easy to understand is actually hilarious, and could only come from someone who knows very little about the topic.
And of all of the above, democracy is the best we have, but in that context, it’s important to notice that USA is NOT an actual democracy!!! It’s a flawed democracy, and the flaws are very fundamental.
I agree, democracy is by far the greatest system ever created, that’s why I maximize it, I want democracy in the workplace, democracy for every single law, I want democracy everywhere. The flaw is that we don’t actually have a democracy, our democracy lets us elect representatives, but not choose laws that actually benefit us. Democracy is entirely core to anarchism, such that they cannot be separated, in fact, anarchism may be the very most democratic system… but you seem to believe democracy is a separate idea from anarchism, communism, capitalism, etc, it’s not, you can have a democratic anarchist society (in fact, i don’t think there’s such a thing as a non-democratic one), communist, capitalist, these are economic systems that have no bearing on whether or not they’re a democracy. You don’t even seem to know what democracy means, this is why i’m saying you shouldn’t have strong opinions if you’re unread.
PS: Descartes was strongly in favor of anarchy, but even he ended up admitting that it cannot work. That was about 400 years ago, when philosophers were very busy trying to rethink models for how society can work. But the fundamental idea of Anarchy hasn’t really changed since then. If it had, it would be called something other than anarchy.
The notion that descartes couldn’t figure it out and therefore it must be fundamentally flawed is actually legitimately hilarious. that was before even PROUDHON. 90% of anarchist thought hadn’t even happened at that point, descartes was not some god that could figure out every detail of everything. Furthermore he was highly influenced by the church and there’s a ton of evidence that he was forced to give up on research that hurt the church orthodoxy. They did y’know, burn people alive for heresy back then.
I reestablish that none of these are good critiques, they all reek of being uneducated on the topic. Learn to be humble and learn humility, you don’t know what you’re talking about, you shouldn’t have strong opinions. You certainly shouldn’t be insulting things you haven’t even done preliminary research on.
There are tons of actually valid ways to criticize anarchism, but you don’t know enough to do any of them. Research comes before strong opinions.
I never claimed that, just that I didn’t read any philosophers, there’s a huge difference between philosophers and real scientists. We were taught about political systems in 7th grade, so it’s quite stretch for you to claim people need to read philosophers to understand them.
But i actually have read philosophers, but it wasn’t very big reads and it was long ago, doesn’t take much to recognize when you are confronted with bullshit.
I agree, democracy is by far the greatest system ever created, that’s why I maximize it, I want democracy in the workplace, democracy for every single law,
OK that’s not anarchy. maybe someone calls it so, but that has NOTHING to do with what anarchy actually means.
We were taught about political systems in 7th grade, so it’s quite stretch for you to claim people need to read philosophers to understand them.
If you don’t read primary sources then you don’t know what they actually say, this is how you end up being propagandized into believing the absolute nonsense you believe about what anarchists believe.
Here’s an example:
Buffalox firmly believed that all races other than whites are inferior and hates democracy because he hates democratic systems except fascism.
See how I can just say you said anything? That’s what a secondary source does for you. That’s why they aren’t used in any serious academic analysis.
But i actually have read philosophers, but it wasn’t very big reads and it was long ago, doesn’t take much to recognize when you are confronted with bullshit.
which ones?
OK that’s not anarchy. maybe someone calls it so, but that has NOTHING to do with what anarchy actually means.
Bakunin, proudhon, literally every single founder of anarchist thought would COMPLETELY disagree with you, can you point to a single one that agrees with you? You can’t, because you have no idea what anarchism is, just some nonsense your teacher told you in 7th grade. Orwell would also completely disagree with you, I literally can’t even name one anarchist thinker who would agree with your definition.
I’m sorry but are you really claiming that the FOUNDERS of anarchism don’t know what anarchism is and what they’re doing has nothing to do with anarchism? Is that really what you’re going to go with here?
Maybe your definition is just not what any anarchist thinkers actually believe, again, simply name one and you will prove me wrong. Don’t you think it’s more possible that you’ve simply been lied to about what anarchists believe?
just as an example, why do you think bakunin did this:
“By organizing and heading Czech and German secret societies to instigate a revolttionary movement in Bohemia, he made extraordinary efforts to help German democracy which, at that time, was preparing for the struggles of 1849.”
literally every single founder of anarchist thought
You cant be serious?! Those people are hundreds of years to late to be founders of anarchism, from when the idea was reexamined 400 years ago. And the actual founder of the Idea was 2000 years ago.
It would be easier to believe you, if you didn’t spew such bullshit. Also those were not new ideas when I was in 7th grade, I may be old, but i’m not THAT old.
And also Mikhail Bakunin was a Russian Anarchist, so how exactly were his ideas suppressed by capitalism as you claim?
When the people are being beaten with a stick, they are not much happier if it is called “the People’s Stick”.
This is a nice quote though.
just as an example, why do you think bakunin did this:
Because he was anti Marxism/communism, as per the quote above.
please just read the first paragraph aloud and try again
And also Mikhail Bakunin was a Russian Anarchist, so how exactly were his ideas suppressed by capitalism?
I said by the people in power, not necessarily by capitalism… capitalists are just currently the people with power, anarchist is a very anti-people in power ideology… duh.
again, which anarchist philosophers agree with you, name them. Name just one and you will prove me wrong.
also, you linked statism and anarchy and fundamentally don’t understand that the state is separate from the government in anarchy, because you again, have no formal education on the topic but a lot of opinions.
Yes, I have, I wouldn’t if I didn’t, and I certainly wouldn’t have strong opinions if I was unread on the topic. It is hilarious to me that you thought this was a gotcha, this is just embarrassing on your part tbh.
The notion that you think they’re simple is my proof that you are completely unread on them. Explain mutualism to me, I doubt you can. Political philosophy is one of the most complex fields on the planet, the idea that these things are simple and easy to understand is actually hilarious, and could only come from someone who knows very little about the topic.
I agree, democracy is by far the greatest system ever created, that’s why I maximize it, I want democracy in the workplace, democracy for every single law, I want democracy everywhere. The flaw is that we don’t actually have a democracy, our democracy lets us elect representatives, but not choose laws that actually benefit us. Democracy is entirely core to anarchism, such that they cannot be separated, in fact, anarchism may be the very most democratic system… but you seem to believe democracy is a separate idea from anarchism, communism, capitalism, etc, it’s not, you can have a democratic anarchist society (in fact, i don’t think there’s such a thing as a non-democratic one), communist, capitalist, these are economic systems that have no bearing on whether or not they’re a democracy. You don’t even seem to know what democracy means, this is why i’m saying you shouldn’t have strong opinions if you’re unread.
The notion that descartes couldn’t figure it out and therefore it must be fundamentally flawed is actually legitimately hilarious. that was before even PROUDHON. 90% of anarchist thought hadn’t even happened at that point, descartes was not some god that could figure out every detail of everything. Furthermore he was highly influenced by the church and there’s a ton of evidence that he was forced to give up on research that hurt the church orthodoxy. They did y’know, burn people alive for heresy back then.
I reestablish that none of these are good critiques, they all reek of being uneducated on the topic. Learn to be humble and learn humility, you don’t know what you’re talking about, you shouldn’t have strong opinions. You certainly shouldn’t be insulting things you haven’t even done preliminary research on.
There are tons of actually valid ways to criticize anarchism, but you don’t know enough to do any of them. Research comes before strong opinions.
I never claimed that, just that I didn’t read any philosophers, there’s a huge difference between philosophers and real scientists. We were taught about political systems in 7th grade, so it’s quite stretch for you to claim people need to read philosophers to understand them.
But i actually have read philosophers, but it wasn’t very big reads and it was long ago, doesn’t take much to recognize when you are confronted with bullshit.
OK that’s not anarchy. maybe someone calls it so, but that has NOTHING to do with what anarchy actually means.
If you don’t read primary sources then you don’t know what they actually say, this is how you end up being propagandized into believing the absolute nonsense you believe about what anarchists believe.
Here’s an example:
Buffalox firmly believed that all races other than whites are inferior and hates democracy because he hates democratic systems except fascism.
See how I can just say you said anything? That’s what a secondary source does for you. That’s why they aren’t used in any serious academic analysis.
which ones?
Bakunin, proudhon, literally every single founder of anarchist thought would COMPLETELY disagree with you, can you point to a single one that agrees with you? You can’t, because you have no idea what anarchism is, just some nonsense your teacher told you in 7th grade. Orwell would also completely disagree with you, I literally can’t even name one anarchist thinker who would agree with your definition.
I’m sorry but are you really claiming that the FOUNDERS of anarchism don’t know what anarchism is and what they’re doing has nothing to do with anarchism? Is that really what you’re going to go with here?
Maybe your definition is just not what any anarchist thinkers actually believe, again, simply name one and you will prove me wrong. Don’t you think it’s more possible that you’ve simply been lied to about what anarchists believe?
just as an example, why do you think bakunin did this:
“By organizing and heading Czech and German secret societies to instigate a revolttionary movement in Bohemia, he made extraordinary efforts to help German democracy which, at that time, was preparing for the struggles of 1849.”
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/maximoff-the-political-philosophy-of-bakunin
I’m sorry but you don’t know anything about anarchism and are confidently asserting you do. Read ANY anarchist philosophers and then get back to me.
You cant be serious?! Those people are hundreds of years to late to be founders of anarchism, from when the idea was reexamined 400 years ago. And the actual founder of the Idea was 2000 years ago.
It would be easier to believe you, if you didn’t spew such bullshit. Also those were not new ideas when I was in 7th grade, I may be old, but i’m not THAT old.
And also Mikhail Bakunin was a Russian Anarchist, so how exactly were his ideas suppressed by capitalism as you claim?
This is a nice quote though.
Because he was anti Marxism/communism, as per the quote above.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statism_and_Anarchy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_anarchism
please just read the first paragraph aloud and try again
I said by the people in power, not necessarily by capitalism… capitalists are just currently the people with power, anarchist is a very anti-people in power ideology… duh.
again, which anarchist philosophers agree with you, name them. Name just one and you will prove me wrong.
also, you linked statism and anarchy and fundamentally don’t understand that the state is separate from the government in anarchy, because you again, have no formal education on the topic but a lot of opinions.