• nublug@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    57
    ·
    10 months ago

    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’.

          • nublug@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            33
            ·
            10 months ago

            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.

      • kwedd@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        17
        ·
        10 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.

      • wander1236
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        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”.

      • barsoap@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        10 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.