this post was submitted on 09 Feb 2024
1169 points (100.0% liked)

196

16224 readers
3935 users here now

Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.

Rule: You must post before you leave.

^other^ ^rules^

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 60 points 7 months ago (1 children)

ancaps are not anarchists was my whole point bud. and no, the point of anarchy is not 'do whatever you want even capitalism lol'. anarchy is recognizing that power over others breeds corruption and endeavouring to flatten hierarchies as much as feasibly possible to limit it. anarchy is 'no ruler' not 'no rules lol wheeee'.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 7 months ago (4 children)

And your point is bs because its against a literal definition. You might mean something else, what you mean is rather Plutocracy than ancaps but you don't seem to understand that.

[–] [email protected] 30 points 7 months ago (1 children)

ok so you're an ancap trolling. fuck off.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 7 months ago (1 children)

No im not wtf im a social Democrat you just throw around words and don't even know what they mean.

[–] [email protected] 35 points 7 months ago (1 children)

everyone here is disagreeing with you about this. maybe you're just wrong. i am an anarchist. ancaps are not accepted by any other faction of anarchists and are recognized as fascists in hiding. just like libertarians are just fash who want to smoke weed, ancaps are fash who want no regulation in the way of their riches, both hide behind minimal lip service and labels. just like fascist states nk and russia hide behind their democracy label.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Nah you are just idiots because its not a thing you can disagree with, its facts.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 7 months ago

def an ancap troll.

[–] [email protected] 18 points 7 months ago

According to classical anarchist political theory anarcho-capitalism is a contradiction in terms. Private property (as in a select few owning the means to production, not as in personal possessions) will lead to hierarchy and oppression.

Of course self-proclaimed anarcho-capitalists disagree with this point. They believe a free (unregulated) market would be empowering for everybody.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

Anarchy is a form of society without rulers.

An- (Greek: "without") + arkhos (Greek: "ruler")

  • Oxford Languages

The literal definition in the political sense and the literal etymology are "without rulers".

[–] [email protected] 2 points 7 months ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 9 points 7 months ago

It's why ancap is a contradiction

No rulers, except the ones with wealth is what ancap boils down to

[–] [email protected] 5 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

And your point is bs because its against a literal definition.

Maybe a dictionary definition because dictionaries capture common understanding, which in the case of anarchism is abysmal. Good dictionaries will also list the actual meaning. But, as you said, a literal definition? That's exactly "The absence of rulers". Not the absence of order, the absence of norms, "lawlessness", that's called anomie.

And even if we here were wrong and you were right that still wouldn't matter as by your own admission we can do as we please, including using terms in ways which seem disagreeable to you. But we don't because we actually care about theory and the general intellectual integrity of things (in a material sense (in the actual meaning of material)) as without theory there's no praxis, only actionism.