|
>>
|
No. 10482
ID: 616a75
File: 125748680322.jpg-(229.76KB, 1024x766, HaymarketRiot-Harpers.jpg)
>>10477
I would agree with you, except that in discussing individual issues about philosophy, society, or politics, capitalism and the state justify each other. In this respect, I think anarchists differ from libertarians most significantly. I'm generalising obviously, but when asked, for example, about providing state welfare in certain circumstances, a libertarian will probably vehemently oppose it, whereas an anarchist will tend to support it, while recognising that the system of capitalism which causes welfare to be required should be dismantled along with the state.
(That's if they're an anarcho-syndicalist, which I'm assuming most of 99chan's anarchists are/would be).
From an external observers point of view, the anarchist's position seems like a justification for state capitalism, when it is in fact exactly the opposite. If an anarchist was to add at the end of his post that s/he was anti-capitalist and anti-government, it would derail the entire thread (see pic). If s/he included only one of those positions, s/he would inevitably be assumed to be supporting state communism (interpreted, no doubt, as Stalinism), laissez-faire capitalism, or the usual, chaos.
It isn't a matter of being factioned off. We ARE factioned off. Factioned off into silence, or half-explanation.
I completely agree that contemporary anarchist thought is an elitist intellectual circle jerk. One of the nice things about /anarchy/ would be that we could discuss it without the sinking feeling that a cultural studies fiend is on the verge of hysterically wailing about imperialism, or racism, or gender (not that those aren't important). If users from other boards wanted to see what anarchy actually meant, then /anarchy/ would provide a place for them to do so, instead of riots, unpleasant ideologues and people with more piercings than sense.
In other words, it fills a gap that needs filling and can't be filled otherwise. Sex.
|