0
2

[–] Broc_Lia [S] 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago  (edited ago)

I linked Proudhon and IWW stuff, to highlight the absurdity of anyone styling themselves anarchist while championing wealth accumulation and vilifying organized protest.

And if I were bothered, I'm sure I could dig up some quote pointing out the absurdity of someone styling themselves anarchist while championing democracy and collectivism. As you say, there's really no point.

Post-modern libertarians calling themselves anarchist just always calls to mind out of date slang used incorrectly in pop culture vehicles that were clearly written by people from a demographic out of touch with that of the term's originators...all it ever does is ruin a word. The co-opters might gain a small uptick in naive followers ... but they tend to be the ones the other side is happy to see go.

Post-modern socialists calling themselves anarchist just always calls to mind discredited slogans which look good on a t-shirt too for teenagers, but when actually applied to groups or real humans caused utter misery and devastation... all if ever does is make anarchy look totalitarian. The zealots might gain a small uptick in naive followers... but they tend to be the ones the other side is happy to let go.

We can keep this up as long as you want. The strings of noises you associate together are no more correct than anyone else's

[–] [deleted] ago 

[Deleted]

0
1

[–] Broc_Lia [S] 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Objective truth exists, but words are conventions, not facts. You can have a factual argument about where a word came from or it's etymology, but you can't have a factual argument about what a word means. You might as well try to debate whether driving on the right hand side of the road is true or false.

The meaning of a word is a convention, and they change over time. Right now the word anarchy only holds the specific meaning you want it to, in the opinion of a handful of people. And the etymology is much broader.