Anarchism

24 readers

1 users here now

Discuss anarchist praxis and philosophy. Don't take yourselves too seriously.

Other anarchist comms

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com

please compare 'anarchism' and 'classical liberalism' and 'libertarianism' (lemm.ee)

submitted 1 year ago by Sleepographer@lemm.ee to c/anarchism@lemmy.dbzer0.com

24 comments fedilink hide all child comments

i know only a little bit about each philosophy. they seem so similar, and i wonder, are they really just the same thing in spirit? or would you make certain distinctions? i'm seeking more understanding. i know that each has a different history, but i am asking about the philosophies themselves, separate from their manifestations.

additionally, are there other titled philosophies that are more or less the same as these?

i have read some definitions of so-called "classical liberalism" and they vary. some say that it is a philosophy that isn't attached to any political agendas, but other definitions bind it to certain political agendas. i presume that so-called anarchism and libertarianism are also defined in different ways depending on who you ask.

it seems to me that many of the terms people use to categorize each other are too ambiguous, over-simplify, become perverted over time, and cause too much misunderstanding. maybe we should rid ourselves of these category conventions altogether, but that's a conversation for another time; my primary question is enough of a topic for this post's discussion.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] PM_ME_VINTAGE_30S@vlemmy.net 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

The way I read it is as follows:

We believe that the state usurps the natural "safety and freedom" of "individuals and communities" to "impose its own order."

E.g., not that the safety is a property of nature, or that we need to go back to a "natural" state. My view is that people are social creatures, and that without a state bearing down on us all time, we are likely to organize into groups and conduct our lives relatively peacefully.

I cannot guarantee that there would be absolutely no conflict in a stateless society and that all people will be entirely peaceful always, but any ideology that promises that is lying to you. Furthermore, the idea that people are always peaceful or even mostly rational is not necessarily a fundamental assumption in formulating our views, as it often claimed by those who scoff at our "idealism".

Lastly, it is my view that the state and its enforcers are the biggest impediments to safety in most communities. What genocide ever occurred without the blessing and help of the government of the victims? How much violence do police inflict upon our communities by enforcing the law as it is written, harassing and killing minorities and the poor, breaking up protests and movements? How much ill-will has your country's military generated on your behalf destroying other communities and plundering them for resources? The state gives an illusion of safety because that's what it is designed to do. I suppose that for some people that look is enough, but I am a practical, results-driven person and I'm not willing to pretend that the state materially keeps us safe from anything.