3 ms·

Anarchism is explicitly not about everyone for themselves Pierre Prudhon, who was basically the first anarchist wrote about all of our social obligations in al

Anarchism is explicitly not about everyone for themselves Pierre Prudhon, who was basically the first anarchist wrote about all of our social obligations in all of his works - read chapter 4 of “what is property” to see what this looks like applied to interrelaional labor exchange Further, Adam Smith, who you could also argue was also an early anarchist wrote in the theory of moral sentiments about the same thing similarly for Emma Goldman similarly for Kropotkin etc.. So there is a fundamental lack of understanding about what anarchist philosophy actually is, it would seem, that prevents an actual discussion about it

dingnuts 2y ago
> there is a fundamental lack of understanding about what anarchist philosophy actually is this problem is ever-present among ideologues, and may be one of the ways you can identify a from-first-principles totalizing ideology and differentiate it from legitimate schools of philosophy Many political -isms suffer from this problem, and the "true believers" all inevitably hold in their head what they believe to be the correct definition, about which they will always correct non-believers and bicker about with comrades. Regardless, it's all a waste of time, because if you can't even define your ideology you will never see it manifested.