• @TimeNaan
    link
    6
    edit-2
    22 days ago

    Anarchism is against hierarchy and for horizontal organization. Not disorder. In the comic these are anarchists (they are punk rock representations of 1800s anarchist philosophers Bakunin, Kropotkin and Proudhon) and they are acting according to the principles of anarchism, as anarchists do irl.

    “Governing over something” is not the core of the issue that anarchism is against. It’s hierarchy. You can have a horizontally, democratically organized collective “govern over”, or in other words manage something. They will just do it through collective decision making with no rulers or subordinates.

    OP here is trying to invent a new word for what they see in the comic because they don’t understand what anarchism means.

    • @Dasus
      link
      122 days ago

      Anarchism is against hierarchy and for horizontal organization. Not disorder. In the comic these are anarchists (they are punk rock representations of 1800s anarchist philosophers Bakunin, Kropotkin and Proudhon) and they are acting according to the principles of anarchism, as anarchists do irl.

      You people really should read up on the ideologies you think you support.

      From the link that the earlier user politely provided.

      https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism

      Anarchism is a political philosophy and movement that is against all forms of authority and seeks to abolish the institutions

      All forms of authority.

      Synarchism generally means “joint rule” or “harmonious rule”.

      They will just do it through collective decision making with no rulers or subordinates.

      Ah, so for every single decision, everyone has to gather up and vote? Okay, then you can’t have a society as big as in the comic, because everyone would waste the time required to actually produce shit to sit voting on things that don’t matter. And what if they disagree? Who solves it? Who enforces the will of the majority when people disagree on these futile votes?

      Nah, for a society larger than a family, there’s going to be persons responsible for dealing with that. Ie appointed people who will govern a matter. Hmm I wonder what a person like that could be called…

      Read even basic philosophy, Rousseau, Hobbes, anything. Just churlish suppositions you make, imo.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        4
        edit-2
        22 days ago

        fucking hobbes and rousseau lol nah fam been there done that it was part of my school curiculum the problem with the definition of anarchist lies in the fact that anarchy as an idea was always horizontal government structure built on decentralised syndicates and communes but the propaganda term and non political term of lack of order is now commonly accepted as the new definition i suggest you read up on some history and look at the beginning phases of the industrial era

        • @Dasus
          link
          -1
          edit-2
          21 days ago

          anarchy as an idea was always horizontal government structure built on decentralised syndicates and communes

          ZzzZZZzzzZzzZzzzz

          Your ancient Greek sucks, bruv.

          https://www.etymonline.com/word/anarchy#etymonline_v_13397

          1530s, “absence of government,” from French anarchie or directly from Medieval Latin anarchia, from Greek anarkhia “lack of a leader, the state of people without a government” (in Athens, used of the Year of Thirty Tyrants, 404 B.C., when there was no archon), abstract noun from anarkhos “rulerless,” from an- “without” (see an- (1)) + arkhos “leader” (see archon).

          • @TimeNaan
            link
            2
            edit-2
            21 days ago

            Bro still can’t grasp that words can have more than one meaning

            • @Dasus
              link
              -121 days ago

              So you admit that the definitions I’ve used are right, thanks.

              Language evolves, yes. Words can have several colloquial meanings. But prescriptive meanings don’t change.

              Prescriptively, the type of “anarchism” you support is minarchic synarchism, and not anarchism, per se

      • @captainlezbian
        link
        121 days ago

        You’re doing the equivalent of saying the satanic temple worships the devil

        • @Dasus
          link
          121 days ago

          Not really, no.

          More like arguing that Satan is a central figure for LaVeyan satanism, ie The Church of Satan (Satanic Temple is the more… rational one of the two, although both value reason.)

          And while neither believe in an actual Satan in the Christian sense, they do value him as a symbolic adversary.

          So it definitely wouldn’t be wrong to say that the Church of Satan has people who “worship” Satan.

          Nice try but no dice. Also, theology is far less objective than “what is the prescriptive meaning of anarchy” which isn’t s terribly hard question to answer.

          • @captainlezbian
            link
            321 days ago

            A philosophical movement is defined by its philosophy and followers not by the word it calls itself.

            • @Dasus
              link
              121 days ago

              So let’s go back to what the most basic information on this we have: the Wiki article. Which begins:

              Anarchism is a political philosophy and movement that is against all forms of authority and seeks to abolish the institutions it claims maintain unnecessary coercion and hierarchy, typically including the state and capitalism.

              So where exactly doesn’t it mean these things…?