4 ms·
Point being that this would require a superficial interpretation that disregards the history of anarchism as a branch of socialism.
by jahaja 13y ago
Point being that this would require a superficial interpretation that disregards the history of anarchism as a branch of socialism.
- javert 13y agoIt's not a superficial interpretation. It's not an intepretation at all. It's using the word for what its roots mean. A great many people are genuinely confused about the history of anarchism for the same reason that people would be confused by me if I took a fervently pro-gun stance that I called "pacivism," and I think genuine confusion is also what motivates the re-purposing of the word. Libertarian anarchists genuinely don't understand that "anarchism" is like my "pacivism" example. I didn't even understand that until recently, and I am pretty well-educated. I was genuinely confused. "How does Noam Chomsky's position ultimately equate to not having government or power?", I kept asking myself. I couldn't follow his logic. Then I realized, oh, he's not making that argument, and none of them are. Some of them pretend or actually think they are (due to their own confusion), which adds to the confusion. Someday we will probably have the same problem with "progressivism."
- jahaja 13y agoGoing by a literal dictionary interpretation of the word anarchism/anarchist would be what I see as a superficial interpretation.
- aclevernickname 13y agoNaming my cat "dog" does not make it a dog. Nor does naming anarcho-socialism "anarchism" make it such.