Two preconceptions: that an anarchist society would be a society "without laws", and that "law" necessarily means "you are going towards a republic".
Well despite your attempt to redefine the word, everyone knows (and you would if you looked it up) that Anarchy means :a state of society without government or law. (see any dictionary you like...)
In your own arrogant and dismissive opinion, and defined by your own narrow understanding of "anarchism" perhaps, but not to those who actually know what they're talking about.
Which considering the definition quoted above seems somewhat indicative of your struggle against reality.
That depends on the context in which you mention it.
This comment is pithy, snidey and has no substance. It just shows that your priority is to avoid engagement.
I refuse to discuss the clip because I'm on dial-up, and can't afford to waste five minutes or more waiting for a clip to download.
What a surprise! - Mr Know-it-all-can't-be-bothered-to-consider-anything-new strikes again.
Well I think freedom is a key issue for most people. .... Freedom itself is a messy business!
So accepting that freedom is important and then going on to justify authoritarianism as a means to an end. Stating that the Left Right labels are not wishy washy but not defining them to any degree.
I agree that the status quo needs to be changed and that many will fight this, but that doesn't mean that we have to turn into them. You are correct when you talk about the 'freedom to enslave another man'. There is a need for law or else there is no freedom. So it is the law courts which take on the difficult task of finding this balance. The clip also comments on this.
And again I must ask you to define what you mean by 'Right Wing' and why you consider it to be so important? No one has said anything which confronts the claim on the clip that people who use such terms refuse to define their terms. Ironically the refusal just reinforces the clips validity.
Anarchism is based around the idea that workers are able to organise themselves into a social movement that gives them possession of the means of production, as such laws are not required in the traditional sense simply because to exist within that society you have to work with it... there are some flaws in that imo, but lets not go into it. ...etc
Actually your definition of Anarchism sounds more like Socialism which is good in theory but not in practice.
Class eh? Another wishy washy term. What freedoms would people have in a Socialist world? If allocated a job would they be free to leave it? Would people be free to choose not to be socialist? Would there be freedom of speech? What about parties which wish to bring back Capitalism?
Marx might have some minor points to make, but it is still one set of people telling another set of people what to do. What is so scarey is that so many people like Elbow et al seem quite happy with the idea of such authoritarianism as a
means to an end. Leading to: Sod people's freedom, we have a vision of society which is correct and we will impose it on you whether you like it or not.
Much as idealism of this sort might be tempting, I would suggest that the means will turn into a nightmare and years of regret.
I would thus suggest that only through education, debate and democracy will change actually be successful. A boring conclusion maybe, but there you go.
I sadly note how reluctant everyone is to quote the text of the clip and comment. Shame! Still not surprising, it makes a good case, whereas the people on here seem more keen on avoiding such thought.
confused
