• thewonder
    1.4k
    When you ask an Anarchist, any Anarchist, anywhere in the world, for a definition of Anarchism, they will offer you the thought-terminating condescending, as, clearly Anarchists have already effectively created a community that does lack any form of order, along with all of the relationships of power that come along with it, cliché, "Anarchism is the abolition of all heirarchy." This is a rather spurious and literal etymological translation of what is, in point of fact, a political philosophy that was born as an alternative to authoritarian strains of Socialism. The reasons for this are varied. What I suspect for most Anarchists to want to do is to keep an open mind as to just what is or is not Anarchism. While well-meaning, I do not think that this is truly apt. I ascribe to a hypenated form of Anarchism, Anarcho-Pacifism, but do more or less generally agree to a kind of Anarchism without adjectives. What I would like to be able to say, when asked for a definition of Anarchism or to clarify my political views is, "Anarchism is libertarian socialism." If you anything about the history of Anarchism, you will find that this statement is just simply true. Anarchists, however, are a little too willing to placate other Anarchists and a little too unwilling to assert what, to me, are just simply facts for this to suffice in nearly every given political context.

    Max Stirner was the founder of the philosophy of Egoism, which I have no qualms with having an influence upon Anarchism, and, along with Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, one of the so-called "Young Hegelians", which has created much historical confusion as to just what is and is not Anarchism, as Anarchists tend to cite Stirner as an early Anarchist with a political philosophy markedly distinct from the various Anarchist philosophies that all could be defined as "libertarian socialism". The problem with this is that Max Stirner was not really a political philosopher. His "Union of Egoists" were ultimately vaguely analogous to Friedrich Nietzsche's society of "freethinkers", though infinitely less apropriable by the likes of Ayn Rand with her representation of the philosophy of "Might makes Right" via the character of Ragnar Danneskjöld in Atlas Shrugged. Stirner, like Nietzsche, however, also had an influence upon Fascism, a minor historical point that is quite often lost on a certain set of Anarchists who happen to be particularly prone to what you might characterize as "ruthless individualism".

    The next historical example of non-Socialist, an entirely false one at that, Anarchist philosophies is, of course, the ill-defined Nihilism. Nihilism is kind of in vogue in both philosophical and political circles these days and, like many intellectual trends, the term itself can either be overdetermined or function as a near empty-signifier, depending upon the context in which it is used. Within a political context, it generally denotes a revolutionary pessimism, which would be fine, as I, too, think that an effective and ethical revolution is a near impossibility. The problem with Nihilism, though I won't throw the good author(s) of Nihilist Communism under the bus, here, is the proposed solution to this crisis, which is to engage in direct action à la l'art pour l'art. What that effectively is is adventurist terrorism, and, so, who these people are are would-be cult leaders. You can try to debate what constitutes terrorism if you like, but a spade is just a spade.

    There are two other philosophies which are fairly contemporary that are also listed as examples of Anarchism that can not be defined as "libertarian socialism", the first of which I will address is Anti-Civilization.

    Anti-Civilization was born out of the philosophy of the former member of the Situationist International, Jacques Camatte, with the journal, Invariance. It was titled as such to express what Camatte perceived as an invariance from the Communist project. His critique of industrialization and domestication was later taken up by John Zerzan, who popularized what became known as "Anarcho-Primitivism". Zerzan is somewhat notorious for having published Ted Kaczynski's Industrial Society and Its Future, which would have been fine had he not also supported him. Because of that "primitivism" is an essentialist term, this school of thought later became known as "Anti-Civilization". I consider for myself to be somewhat techno-critical, and, so, am vaguely sympathetic towards the critique of industrialization. Kaczynski's advocation of right-wing anarchism, however, poses a certain predicament for the Anarchist movement, as, though this charge is often levelled at anyone who has anything negative to say of technology or civilization whatsoever, it did open the doors to crypto-Fascist entryism.

    The final school of thought that I will discuss was coined by the author of Anarchy 101, Bob Black. Before doing so, I will simply state that any form of individualist anarchism, even with the preference for liberty that I, too, endorse, that doesn't somehow ultimate in, at least, an invoked egalitarianism is just simply Social Darwinism so as to assure you that the political philosophy of one, Robert Charles Black Jr., is the only theoretical leg that my variegated detractors have left to stand on. Way back in the 1990s, Black took the Anarchist movement by storm by coining the term post-Left Anarchism in Anarchy after Leftism, a divisive maneuver that has singlehandedly done more damage to the Anarchist movement than the establishment of the PATRIOT Act under George W. Bush. Post-Left Anarchism denotes a rather insipid and banal third position outside of the standard right and left dichotomy. What kind of community these people expect to emerge was once described to me as "groups" who would "do things". What I do suspect for this characterization to be indicative of is the amount of thought put into what, though they would loathe to see me use this term, society will look like after their proposed revolution. Sure, I, too, have qualms with the Left, but what Anarchism is without Socialism is just some other political philosophy. If the post-Left Anarchists want to leave the Left behind, then, they might as well just take it one step far enough and leave the Anarchist movement as well.

    The problem that I primarily have with these philosophies is with what they are per se nor with that they have had an influence on Anarchism. I consider for myself to be an open-minded guy who is capable of a certain degree of political pluralism. The problem that I have with them is that their adherents are often intransigent or fanatical and attempt to lay claim to an exclusive mandate over just what is and is not Anarchism. They, and they are all vaguely allied, form a minority within the Anarchist movement, but it is both significant and gaining traction. We have come to say that "anarchy is the abolition of all hierarchy" so as to placate them. What I can accept is there being multiple definitions of Anarchism. Within the Punk community, there is an old trope that the least Punk thing that a person can do is to debate just what is or is not Punk. What I do refuse to acquiesce to is that, in any given general conversation that doesn't require too much nuance, I can't just simply explain that "Anarchism is libertarian socialism", which is precisely as it has historically emerged as a political philosophy. What issue I also take with the agreed upon definition of Anarchism is that it suggests that it is something other than a political philosophy, particularly one that can be easily defined. Cultivating a way of life is one of the more important things that a person can do with their lives, but, in the sense that Anarchism differs from something like being kawaii, it is a political philosophy and not what people generally infer by invoking a so-called "way of life". There is a difference between dressing in all black and listening to the band, The Body, and being an Anarchist. Though I do realize that this is rather boorish of me, I do feel a need to emphasize that it is not a fashionable trend. Anarchism is a political philosophy and it can more or less be simply defined as "libertarian socialism". Though there may be nothing wrong with it, everything else is just some other school of thought.
  • Outlander
    1.8k
    I read most of this and will continue to read the rest when time or interest allows. I think most people go too deep with anarchy as an established philosophy or frankly anything else. You just got people who want more then they have and on occasion realize, most people do as well and so, often under false pretenses, conform to the same playbook authoritarians do, being "a vision of a better tomorrow" .. such as theirs is. Anarchy is selfishness personified, insidious as it claims to offer freedom, to those who take it. Which never lasts for long. If it did, that means there's some structure, hierarchy, or otherwise means to protect said state of affairs. It claims there won't be, but rather it's simply the worst form of authoritarianism there is. It's been many a time "they utopia they seek is really a dystopia of the worst kind". People get weary of blood on the streets, having more teeth, entrails, and cadavers on a sidewalk then small change, paper products and trashbags, as well as having to walk even the safest street with a sword on your waist and your eyes focused just as frequently behind you as in front. The allure or glow of "maybe" having more than you have in an all out melee quickly turns to a dull ember. One that any person would soon believe with a little understanding needs to be extinguished entirely. The grass is always greener. And when it's not, it's a crimson shade of dark red.
  • javi2541997
    4.9k
    Anarchy 101, Bob Black.thewonder

    This sounds so interesting. I will check it out deeply later on.



    I am surprised that in all of your arguments and theories about Anarchism, you did not mentioned Bakunin. He was so important in this field because he saw Anarchism as a movement not only against State but their selfishness. One of the objectives of Bakunin was the union and cooperation of European nations by the culture value, not economic or politically. Most of his writings are about of how wasteful is seems having political ideologies because these tend to provoke more issues than solutions. So, Bakunin, tried his best to build a nation where the citizens could make interest things without the matter of political bureaucracy.
    Sadly, nobody put attention to Bakunin ever and then, you see how polarized are the people in this issue. To be honest, I even think that is difficult pursue an Anarchic community because there will always be people who would act selfish or hurt others, so you have to put at least some order according to law. But, exactly in this context, we have another problem: all the vicious and corrupt politicians buy judicial power. It is difficult to have a clear or transparent rule of law which controls the governors or something related.
  • thewonder
    1.4k

    Fanaticism is a plight of any political philosophy, Anarchism included, despite its defense mechanisms, but you're moreso talking about the caricature of Anarchism, to revel in generalized chaos, which, though it has unfortunately been recuperated to a point of excess, is only so characteristic of the movement in general.
  • thewonder
    1.4k

    I have always and always will have taken the side of one, Peter Kropotkin. Mikhail Bakunin's "communist anarchism" was a mistake. Anarcho-Communism is the ideologically pure historical Anarchist sect.

    My jest aside, you are right to suggest that Bakunin, for what qualms I have with him, had good points to make about political ideologies in general.

    My personal gripe is over not being able to get the very simple point as to what I mean to invoke by Anarchism across to anyone when I suggest that I am an Anarchist. Within the movement, it is a faux pas to say that it is "libertarian socialism", out of an appeal to an open plurality which I have argued is somewhat mistaken, as the other parties do not agree to being open or pluralistic. The "abolition of all hierarchy" also doesn't really mean anything in a political context. It just expresses a vague anti-authoritarianism. I do actually think that there ought to arise a broad-based anti-authoritarian movement, but, if I can't, for brevity's sake, say that Anarchism is libertarian socialism than I am not sure as to how it really qualifies as a political philosophy and not just some lifestyle trend.
  • javi2541997
    4.9k
    I am not sure as to how it really qualifies as a political philosophy and not just some lifestyle trend.thewonder

    I understand your point and what you feel. Probably this is due to how Anarchism is related to many aspect in life furthermore political issues. It is interesting that many people use to see Anarchy as a sense of “violence” or freedom to do whatever without punishment. This where most the people are wrong. Anarchism wants to show us that humanity can be responsible by themselves without any kind of political dogma. Thus, the State.
    The idea is misunderstood and confused for most of the people, I guess this is the reason why there are an amount of people that criticize it.
    I guess this philosophical/political/social etc… view is not necessarily related to socialism or leftist ideas. Anarchism is sui generis
    These are just my points but who knows! There are a lot of essays that could be written in this issue.
  • Tom Storm
    8.3k
    Thanks for this. What makes people think that anarchism (I take the problem of definitions and categories) would work in practice?

    Chomsky:
    "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. And if they can't justify that authority and power and control, which is the usual case, then the authority ought to be dismantled and replaced by something more free and just. And, as I understand it, anarchy is just that tendency. It takes different forms at different times."
  • thewonder
    1.4k
    This sounds so interesting. I will check it out deeply later on.javi2541997

    Wait until you are repeatedly referred to it and then forced to prove that you are neither a Neo-Liberal nor a Marxist-Leninist.

    I guess this philosophical/political/social etc… view is not necessarily related to socialism or leftist ideas. Anarchism is sui generis
    These are just my points but who knows! There are a lot of essays that could be written in this issue.
    javi2541997

    There is a certain complexity to Anarchist political philosophy and nuance that is lost by the definition, "libertarian socilaism", but Bakunin, himself, referred to his political philosophy as "communist anarchism" and headed the International Workingman's Association, i.e. the First International, before being effectively ousted by none other than Karl Marx. There are very clear historical lines to be drawn between Socialism and Anarchism.


    That Chomsky quote is a good counter-point to this particular kvetch of mine, but he is a member of the "Wobblies", the International Workers of the World.

    I'm going to lose all of my credibility within the radical Left by explaining this, but I tend to view Anarchism as a kind of apothetical Liberalism. Aside from my preference for nonviolence, I think that any veritable politic ought to attempt to maximalize liberty and, I would argue, as it follows, equality, which are ideals that any left-wing Liberal, or even those of what I call the "radical center", could hold, but, as I do not think that this can be effectively done under the form of Liberal democracy that exists today, therefore necessitating a change too radical to happen in any immediate future, at least, through reform, do consider for myself to be an Anarchist. I don't think that a revolution could either be effective or ethical, however, even an ostensibly nonviolent one, and, so, mere advocate the active disengagement from politics as such and creation of a world otherwise, which is a major point of contention within the libertarian Left, as some form of revolution usually plays part and parcel to whatever their particular political philosophy more or less is. I also advocate for an open and pluralistic anti-authoritarian movement, including some Liberals and even Libertarians, which will lead some Anarchists to claim that I'm just a Liberal, but that idea doesn't really differ too much from either Spanish Republicanism or the government created during the Paris Commune. As to how pluralistic participatory democracy can be immediately effectuated and functional, I don't think that it can, which does, in a way, make me not an Anarchist, at least as Anarchism has proceeded from Bakunin, which would be a fine enough charge were it not to be a façade for the issue that some people take with that I am a Pacifist. I, instead think that, though I may still support certain communities, we'll have to somehow transition to a fully-fledged Anarchist society, which, given the rather fanatical bent of Anarchists today, does seem to place me in another school of thought, but has always just been exactly what sensible Anarchist praxis was.
  • ssu
    8k
    Anarchism is a political philosophy and it can more or less be simply defined as "libertarian socialism".thewonder
    Would anarcho-capitalism be included in that definition?
  • Tom Storm
    8.3k
    Thanks. Nice summary of the issues.

    As to how pluralistic participatory democracy can be immediately effectuated and functional, I don't think that it can, which does, in a way, make me not an Anarchist, at least as Anarchism has proceeded from Bakunin, which would be a fine enough charge were it not to be a façade for the issue that some people take with that I am a Pacifist.thewonder

    I tend to think that most alternative political views held by people can't be implemented and are unlikely to work in practice. Anything can work our heads, but humans don't agree and the desire for power and control is awfully strong. I'm also cynical about any political ideology that relies upon abstruse theoretical foundations and justifications. Chomsky makes anarchism sound like a friendly old uncle.
  • thewonder
    1.4k

    Not by any stretch of my imagination, but, if they want to fund us, we might consider letting them build some of micro-nations or whatever.


    For all the absurdity there is to the expository nature of my political views, it really ought to be fairly well-understood as to what anyone means by "libertarian socialism". What has become of kind of a lot of movements within the libertarian Left, the various sects and whathaveyou, lead to much of the confusion and neurosis that I seem to have over clarifying my political position. If you think about any political philosophy, if you can't sum it up in a paragraph of less in The New York Times, then how can you possibly expect for most people to agree to it?

    I'm content enough, personally, with Liberalism not to harbor too many utopian delusions of grandeur, but do ultimately asses it as being insufficient. Because I am both an Anarchist and Pacifist, I can write off a number of qualms that people generally have with political experiments, as it is somewhat safe to assume that there is a limited danger of authoritarianism and violence, but all kinds of other things could go wrong, famine, for instance. I do think that people need to start thinking beyond Liberalism, however, and where that effectively is, for me, at least, is Anarchism.
  • thewonder
    1.4k

    What I mean about the political complex that I have is that its born out of that I am an Anarchist who is both wildly unpopular within and neither agrees to or with the current direction of the Anarchist movement. I'm usually fairly clear, but rarely concise by that account. I also left the movement awhile ago and now, in as much good faith as I do pretense, claim to be a-political.
  • Tom Storm
    8.3k
    I'm content enough, personally, with Liberalism not to harbor too many utopian delusions of grandeur, but do ultimately asses it as being insufficient.thewonder

    Milan Kundera put it best - You create a utopia and pretty soon there's a need to build a small concentration camp.
  • thewonder
    1.4k

    That's the second time you've said that quote to me, and, though, the first time that I agreed with you doing so, but, this time I'm not quite so sure.

    We have a form of Liberal democracy now and in the so-called "West" it's okay and in the rest of the world it's a little bleak. Overall, I think that the best assessment of the contemporary political system is to say that it's sub par. From there, I think we ought to consider some alternatives.

    There are many, but, for me, only two matter. One of them, the Nordic Model, has been tried and, I would argue, has proven to be somewhat successful. It'd seem to me to make sense to then put the Nordic Model to greater use. That, I think, is what we can hope for from Liberalism.

    The other is Anarchism, of which the historical examples of being tried are so few and far between that we just simply don't at all know what it will be like. It's entirely fair to suggest that the immediate establishment of Anarchist society globally could result in catastrophe, but that's not what I'm suggesting should be done. I think that Anarchist society could be established through a kind of gradual process. Some communities and initiatives will fail, but some will be successful. Over time, what I assume is that people will prefer Anarchism to Liberalism, and, so, the Liberal democratic project will gradually dissolve unto a pluralistic Anarchist participatory democracy. This, I think, doesn't quite hazard the same dangers as something like Communism in Czechoslovakia.
  • ssu
    8k
    Not by any stretch of my imagination, but, if they want to fund us, we might consider letting them build some of micro-nations or whatever.thewonder
    Just to make the surprising note that not all anarchism is leftist. And basically they are against nations, just like anarchists are.
  • Tom Storm
    8.3k
    That's the second time you've said that quote to me, and, though, the first time that I agreed with you doing so, but, this time I'm not quite so sure.thewonder

    I don't think the quote is true. It's a provocation - shall we call it 'truthy'? I think it just underscores that fact that one man's utopian leader is another's doctrinaire fanatic who brooks no dissent. I've certainly known many a wannabe utopian political revolutionary who would cheerfully mass murder families if it established their system.

    he Nordic Model, has been tried and, I would argue, has proven to be somewhat successful. It'd seem to me to make sense to then put the Nordic Model to greater use. That, I think, is what we can hope for from Liberalism.thewonder

    Agree. Often where models do not work it is likely to be where cooperate interest intervenes and corrupts the process.

    This, I think, doesn't quite hazard the same dangers as something like Communism in Czechoslovakia.thewonder

    I think K was contemplating the nature of revolutions rather than Czechoslovakia specifically.

    I think that Anarchist society could be established through a kind of gradual process. Some communities and initiatives will fail, but some will be successful.thewonder

    My gut feeling - and I am not a political theorist or all that interested in politics - is that human nature will turn anything we attempt into a powerplay with internecine squabbling, inevitable conflict and consolidations of power. I am probably a pessimist and a Hobbesian. Is that a tautology?
  • thewonder
    1.4k

    The quote, I think, is a clear dig at the Soviet Union, which was probably informed by Kundera's experience in Communist Czechoslovakia. It's very poignant, but, I think, unfair when applied to my reasonable and practical interpretation of Anarchism. In ways, I am still offering some radically new and ostensibly better world, and, so, haven't fully absolved myself of the false promise of utopia, but I don't think that my political philosophy even can become better at avoiding any potential catastrophes without being tried.

    Thomas Hobbes thought that the State dissolved into discordant multitude as soon as it was formally legitimated by a constitution, an idea that was later theorized by Giorgio Agamben as "civil war as a political paradigm" in Stasis. His theory is quite good, but the concept was slated all too provocatively, which Tiqqun, the only faction of the libertarian Left aside from a few left-accelerationists I have failed to mention as it concerns my many detractors in this post and also the inspiration, upon reading The Cybernetic Hypothesis, a text with germane analysis, but unfortunately advances a return to the "Years of Lead", as, of course, a French intellectual journal has every right to do so, for my leaving the Anarchist movement in protest of its general proclivities towards crypto-Fascism and political violence, which I later rescinded when Joe Biden was elected, took to be a sanction for what seems like it ultimates in a relentless ultra-Left crusade in the extraordinarily well written and completely impolitic Introduction to Civil War. As I, too, take a leaf from Agamben, I, instead, advance a withdraw, the aforementioned "active disengagement", from the Spectacle, effectively the entire political foray, and eventual creation of a loosely affiliated set of freely associated Anarchist communes, which I believe can resolve the crisis which Hobbes called to light.

    Sans as much of what is sure to be arcane to anyone else as is possible, the purpose of establishing an eventual participatory democracy is to eliminate the basis for such "internecine squabbling, inevitable conflict and consolidations of power".
  • Tom Storm
    8.3k
    The quote, I think, is a clear dig at the Soviet Union, which was probably informed by Kundera's experience in Communist Czechoslovakia. It's very poignant, but, I think, unfair when applied to my reasonable and practical interpretation of Anarchism.thewonder

    The point of a good quote is it transcends any specificity. K clearly thought utopias were fraught. That's the point of my using it. And the beauty of the quote is it applies to organizations and businesses as much as it does to governments. I am not thinking of anarchism - but any pollical path people think will usher in a better world.
  • thewonder
    1.4k

    Under certain Christian doctrines, pride is considered to be the cardinal sin, from which all others originate. Though I am not a Christian, I think that there is something to this philosophy of evil. Chauvinism, the excess of pride, in my opinion, created the First World War. I think that Kundera is much more poignant, but Eric Voegelin had a theory of totalitarianism that was later kind of co-opted by none other than William F. Buckely which posited that totalitarian states had set out to immanentize the eschaton, effectively to reify the final project for all of humanity, which later became fairly important for the concept of political religions, particularly within critiques of totalitarianism. I do think that we ought to take a leaf from Voegelin and a various set of political theorists in their critique of utopian projects. There's also a certain degree of cynicism that comes with such notions, particularly within neoconservative circles, however. If you right off every attempt to change the world for the better as some form of political crusade or another, then, you have just simply become a reactionary.

    You might call the syncretic politic that I put forth "market-anarchism". Eduard Bernstein, who was famously castigated by Vladimir Lenin, is the theorist behind what later became an extremely divisive split within Social Democratic Party of Germany. He developed a gradualist approach to Socialism that he called "evolutionary socialism", effectively founding what we understand today as Social Democracy. What I'm advocating is something like "evolutionary anarchism", though it would be considerable less reliant, though not completely, on reform. I do think that this is an entirely sensible political philosophy that harbors little danger of messianism. It would make the world a better place, though.
  • thewonder
    1.4k

    Personally, I feel like you haven't appreciated well enough the nuances to my political theories. Sure, in The ABC of Communism, Nikolai Bukharin used the metaphor of a communal store house for what communist society would be like. At first, everyone will work "from each according to their ability to each according to their needs", and, so, in so far that you needed anything from the storehouse, you could just go ahead and pick it up. Once, communist society is established, however, everyone can just go to the storehouse and get anything that they want to, as, as we all are well aware of, there will be a superabundance under Communism. When you ask an Anarchist for an explanation of this or that idea or how they can be practically effectuated, it is quite common to be told little fables like this.

    When it comes to the ideological sect that I have formed unto myself, however, we are as ideologically pure as we are self-righteous, which, as we believe that only nonviolent gradualist Anarchism can significantly change the world for the better, is to say, "entirely".
  • Tom Storm
    8.3k
    Personally, I feel like you haven't appreciated well enough the nuances to my political theories.thewonder

    That may well be the case. Politics is not the point of my involvement here. I was simply making some related observations, which I've made. You're drilling down into detail way past my level of interest or ability to engage with. As I already wrote above I am not that interested in politics.
  • thewonder
    1.4k

    Eh, I was practicing mock criticism and self-criticism unto myself by that point, anyways.
  • 180 Proof
    14k
    I appreciate the deep dive, comrade. :fire:

    After about four decades of activism ('80s) and study ('90s), the OP recalls my own distillation of the stakes and (missed?) opportunities from a previous, related thread:
    Economic democracy (i.e. libertarian socialism ... syndical anarchism, etc), simply put, renders obsolete such (early) 19th century (& "Cold War") shibboleths. Political democracy (procedural) without economic democracy (substantive)^ has historically amounted to shareholder "security" at the laissez-faire expense of stakeholder^ "liberty" – that is, the liberty to participate in making decisions the consequences – costs usually far in excess of benefits – of which they and their communities will have to live with.180 Proof
  • thewonder
    1.4k

    Thanks!

    Y'know, for all of thought, time, and effort that I have put into factional disputes within the Anarchist movement, I really haven't thought too much about economic democracy. I guess that people can get kind of lost in either critique or the persecutory delusions they harbor towards other Anarchists or sects within the libertarian Left, Anarcho-Pacifism being one of the minor ones. As I am considerably younger than he is, though, it is only within good chronology for me to claim that Peter Gederloos started this dispute, which, by now, I do think it time to set aside, despite that they'll continue to spam How Nonviolence Protects the State on r/Anarchism regardless as to what anyone, particularly I, as, anymore, I think that it's just me that that whole sort of thing is directed towards, does.

    Everything in your post makes perfect sense, aside from that I don't quite know what you mean by your usage of the term, "shibboleths". You are using the term as kind of a dig against other political philosophies, no?
  • 180 Proof
    14k
    Yeah, in the context of the thread discussion (link @ my handle) that quote is lifted from, it's a dig at other political philosophies & tropes.
  • thewonder
    1.4k

    It's strange that @Nikolas quotes Simone Weil, who aided the Durruti Column during the Spanish Civil War. It could've been from a critique of hers of the Soviet Union, though, and, so, may have made sense in context.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.