5 ms·
Certainly. If you have ideas about how to oppose systems of domination and subordination without creating systems to replace them, I'm always interested to hear
by maxbond 3y ago
Certainly. If you have ideas about how to oppose systems of domination and subordination without creating systems to replace them, I'm always interested to hear about it.
I'm confused why you don't want to define it. You seem passionate about advocating for it. If you won't define it, how can you respond to a challenge like in the GGP comment? Why should anyone be convinced by your argumentation if you won't tell them what you're arguing for?
Keep in mind, you don't have to provide a complete definition, only a definition for what you mean by it and what you are advocating for. You can make it clear that others might disagree.
- TotalCrackpot 3y agoI would say my approach is fairly economical, if GGP doesn't want to justify their opinion on anarchism being the rule of the strongest with private property then I just wasted my time. I wouldn't be surprised if he considered anarchism as only anti-statist ideology, if he wrote that then indeed I would probably write something more about ideas that usually correspond to this ideology. On one hand I try to engage him, on the other indeed I do that confrontationally. I think this has advantages to writing a monologue abut what Anarchism means, or at least what it means to me.
- maxbond 3y agoI guess I just don't understand what your goal are and what you're trying to economize. If you don't want people to think it's merely antistatism, snapping at them will seem, in their minds, to confirm their preconceptions. I certainly am not suggesting you write a monologue, but snapping at them isn't a dialogue either.