Apr 21, 2023·edited Apr 21, 2023Liked by The Living Philosophy
"....an Anarchist paradise where each would give according to their ability and receive according to their need."
Anarchy is not a system. Anarchy just means 'without rulers'. An anarchic society is one where ruling other people is regarded as immoral. There is no 'system' per se. Any system is perfectly acceptable as long as nobody imposes their system onto others by force. So you could have a commune (communism for those who wish to live that way), but not communism (imposed onto everyone by force).
Anarchy is not a paradise. It does not mean that everyone will adhere to the principle of not ruling others. It just means that such behaviour is not regarded as legitimate (ie moral) behaviour, which is to say, it would be against the law.
For an anarchist, anyone who thinks ruling others is a legitimate way to behave is a radical, regardless of whether they are radical statists or moderate statists.
For an anarchist the entire 'political spectrum' is just different flavours of statism (ruling others) and so it's not a true spectrum. For an anarchist the spectrum is more of a binary with people who think ruling others is legitimate on one end and people who don't on the other. Everything else outside of this distinction is of little consequence and is merely a distraction from the central issue of legitimising rulers or not.
Please find a truth-telling website which describes the motivations and applied politics of the deeply psychotic right-wing religionists who are hell-bent on creating a theocratic state.
This was a really interesting and insightful read. Thank you
"....an Anarchist paradise where each would give according to their ability and receive according to their need."
Anarchy is not a system. Anarchy just means 'without rulers'. An anarchic society is one where ruling other people is regarded as immoral. There is no 'system' per se. Any system is perfectly acceptable as long as nobody imposes their system onto others by force. So you could have a commune (communism for those who wish to live that way), but not communism (imposed onto everyone by force).
Anarchy is not a paradise. It does not mean that everyone will adhere to the principle of not ruling others. It just means that such behaviour is not regarded as legitimate (ie moral) behaviour, which is to say, it would be against the law.
For an anarchist, anyone who thinks ruling others is a legitimate way to behave is a radical, regardless of whether they are radical statists or moderate statists.
For an anarchist the entire 'political spectrum' is just different flavours of statism (ruling others) and so it's not a true spectrum. For an anarchist the spectrum is more of a binary with people who think ruling others is legitimate on one end and people who don't on the other. Everything else outside of this distinction is of little consequence and is merely a distraction from the central issue of legitimising rulers or not.
Please find a truth-telling website which describes the motivations and applied politics of the deeply psychotic right-wing religionists who are hell-bent on creating a theocratic state.
http://religiondispatches.org
At least those on the left of the culture wars divide are not in any sense psychotic.