Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

CoolCatPD t1_j17sf6f wrote

Reply to comment by svoodie2 in Anarchism at the End of the World: A defence of the instinct that won’t go away by Sventipluk

I guess I'm just playing devils advocate. I appreciate lots of viewpoints, even ones I don't necessarily agree or identify with, like Chomsky's. I still find his insights useful as a way to view something like anarchy from a lense I wouldn't normally approach on my own. Chomsky's views are as useful to me as Hitler's; sometimes enlightened, sometimes cautionary ways NOT to think lol

1

svoodie2 t1_j17wm9g wrote

You've barely made mention of the central question of contention: weather Chomsky's definition of Anarchism is coherent or not. Calling that playing devil's advocate is charitable to the extreme. As it stands you haven't made any real point

I do wonder why on earth you would consider Hitler enlightened in any way.

1

CoolCatPD t1_j17ydwj wrote

I don't see how it's incoherent at all. As far as I'm aware he simply states that anarchism is personal freedom (or liberalism) brought to an extreme, or "natural" end, which, if I'm interpreting correctly, seems pretty coherent, even if I don't agree.

Also I wasn't saying I find Hitler enlightened lol he was my example of a perspective worth knowing and understanding so that we don't fall into pitfalls like xenophobia and nationalism. He's a teacher of what would be harmful to society and our fellow man. This perspective is important so its not repeated.

1

svoodie2 t1_j17zmfi wrote

"As far as I'm aware he simply states that anarchism is personal freedom (or liberalism) brought to an extreme"

You are simply not engaging with the discussion at hand. This is the description Chomsky uses, which is the actual topic of discussion:

""Primarily, [anarchism] is a tendency that is suspicious and skeptical
of domination, authority, and hierarchy. It seeks structures of
hierarchy and domination in human life over the whole range, extending
from, say, patriarchal families to, say, imperial systems, and it asks
whether those systems are justified. Their authority is not
self-justifying. They have to give a reason for it, a justification."

The justification of whatever power relation, and the criticism of other sets of power relations, is fundamental to all bodies of political theory of which I am aware. Anarchists of course disagree that "God wills it" is a good enough justification, but that simply means that there is some other set of criteria by which anarchists evaluate the justification of any given power relation.

Ergo: merely questioning weather a power relationship is justified is not a defining feature of anarchism. Everyone already does that. This presupposition leads to idiotic conclusions. A Nazi screaming "The Authority of the Zionist Occupation Government is unjustified and should be dismantled" suddenly becomes a piece of anarchist political theory.

1

CoolCatPD t1_j183079 wrote

I feel like you're just wanting to talk AT me at this point, but I'll respond one last time here. I don't see how questioning whether a power relationship is justified or not ISN'T a defining feature of anarchism, but yes everyone sort of does that, but anarchism is still a reaction to that question, making it an essential component. You HAVE to ask that to get there. Sure maybe Chomsky's too broad here, but I don't see how its nonsensical. Anarchists would be the reactionaries to an authority they deem unjustified, and I think it's honestly as simple as that.

1

svoodie2 t1_j18axik wrote

You feel that way because this is the first comment you have made that is actually engaging with the topic of discussion.

"I don't see how questioning whether a power relationship is justified or not ISN'T a defining feature of anarchism"

It is. Along with every other political theory. The real thing you have to explain is how under Chomsky's definition theocracy or fascism isn't anarchist because it questions the justification of liberal democratic authority, and seek to dismantle it because they view it as unjustified.

You are merely stating that you disagree without giving me a real reason why my extrapolation of the consequences of that definition do not follow.

Something other than what Chomsky proposes is pretty obviously what separates anarchism from other political theories.

1

CoolCatPD t1_j19lqeb wrote

Yeah no I think I've engaged this entire time I just haven't given you a precise definition that you're happy with. It makes sense to me, and plenty of other people. I would say that yes, any group that momentarily overthrows the current authority to be somewhat anarchic. That's just how it seems to me. You don't have to agree, that's fine. Everyone has a different definition of seeking personal liberty, even if it's on their way to oppression or fascism or democracy. Dismantling an authority is being an anarchist.

1

svoodie2 t1_j1ahr7n wrote

At least your engaging. Finally. I do however find myself thoroughly unconvinced by your, and Chomsky's, claim by extension that Franco was 'doing an Anarchy' so to speak when he overthrew the Spanish Republic.

1