2 ms·
Ah yes, it reminds of the form of government I created - "goodocracy". We're against bad things but for good things. It doesn't make much sense to say things l
by ALittleLight 5y ago
Ah yes, it reminds of the form of government I created - "goodocracy". We're against bad things but for good things.
It doesn't make much sense to say things like "we demand there are adaquate reasons for the existence of power structures" because there's nobody on the opposite side asking for unreasonable power structures. Everyone wants good/reasonable things and doesn't want the unreasonable. Problem is, people disagree about what is what.
A group definition is meaningless if it doesn't specify a group. As is, every major political ideology would be anarchist by this definition.
- atq2119 5y agoThis strongly depends on your definition of "adequate", "reasonable", etc. When Noam Chomsky wrote this, I'm fairly certain his definition of "adequate" included things like "the power structure does not exist to serve itself or the people in it, but to serve the larger society around it". And there are definitely people asking for power structures whose purpose is to be self-serving and/or enrich those in it. Obviously they don't come right out and say that, but come on...
- Jensson 5y agoSounds like Noam Chomsky argued that anarchy meant ideal democracy. In that case we are working towards an anarchy everywhere in the west, some corrupt elements hinders those efforts but still we try to get there and there is no reason to try to change course other than fight corruption.