Are you
- left
- right
- socialist
- (classical) liberal
- libertarian
- an anarchist
- all of the above
- none of the above?
When I talk to someone about politics, I sometimes get such questions. The questioner then would like to assign a label to me. Since I do not like to be classified, my answer is "I am a (classical) liberally thinking person". I have all of the attributes mentioned above or none of them. It depends on the definition of these terms. Especially the terms "left" and "right" are very unclear terms that try to squeeze the 3-dimensional world into one dimension.
Some see the left as "socialist" or "communist", others see the left as "anti-authoritarian" (which is somewhat contradictory to communist). The political left was originally the bourgeoisie, which sat opposite to the "right" nobility.
Today I would like to briefly present my view of the term anarchy:
- Linguistically speaking, anarchy is derived from ancient Greek an-archia (absence of ruler). Then the question arises as to what exactly rule means.
- According to the sociologist Max Weber: Rule/dominion/domination means the chance to find obedience for a command of certain content among specifiable people."
- According to Dieter Nohlen's lexicon of politics, rule is an "asymmetrical social relationship with stabilized behavior expectations, according to which the orders of a higher authority are followed by its addressees". (https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herrschaft#cite_note-Wei%C3%9F_2004:249-2)
The mere use of terms such as "command", "obedience", "asymmetrical social relationship" and "orders from a higher authority" shows me that I don't like rule.
What does "an asymmetrical social relationship" mean? Do I want to have asymmetrical social relationships in my life? I see two possible forms of such a relationship:
- I am superior to another person and can give orders and expect obedience. I am not interested in that because I am not a sociopath.
- I am subordinate to another person. I have at least as little interest in that.
I conclude that "rule" is something inherently negative. So I find the "absence of rule" to be something positive. From this perspective, I am an anarchist and suspect that people who reject anarchy implicitly want rule/domination (i.e. asymmetrical social relationships and obedience). Such people are suspect to me.
What is your point of view? ;-)
P.S. I focused here on the meaning of the word "anarchy". How anarchy can be achieved or implemented is secondary and not subject of this post.
Hier ist es plakativ dargestellt 😉
I feel that we are at a time in civilization once again where people need to be ruled. They are weak, degenerate, lazy. They gave up freedom for comfort and therefore no longer deserve it. Anarchy is nonsense and usually the people who use such terms beg for protection as soon as anything happens ie corona virus, natural disasters, mass shootings, economic hardships. Of course, I am superior to some and inferior to many. No two things on earth are equal, humans are No different. If You dont like your masters then find new ones.
Or be your own master ;)
Agreed! But how when you don't own land, livestock, gold, or guns? Or maybe you do? 🤣
You got a brain! That's everything you need.
When the market economy is big enough we can also get our land back.
Cuz germany is for german people. Not for socialists who want a big slave country. ;)
100% and people who say germans are not native to Europe, are forgetting about neanderthal DNA!
Socialists in Germany: “Germans must not have many children because it's bad for the environment. But we need African refugees to bring children to support our social system!”
My political views are that of tribalism. Each clan for themselves and come together in time of war to make important decisions and settle disputes.
But instill thing we need rulers to maintain order within the clan itself. Ie patriarch of the family
XD
hast du Telegram?
Ja habe ich. @balticbadger
I note you have an absolute ruler: you. Anarchy is a term for madmen, who are incapable of self control.
You are an autocrat, who rules themselves, as am I. As we all are, no matter what we call ourselves, or what politics we undertake. You can be a slimy Communist, but every morning when you get up, and at the end of every day, you rule yourself, every cell of you, from your hair to your toenails, with utter and absolute lawful authority.
I reckon I'm all the ruler I need.
I can't say it just like you, cuz I know how deeply people can be manipulated and "programmed"..
Self-re-programming also aint easy.
You really need to want it. Much work.
I see things decentralized, nature itself is decentralized - also our body.
It's not controlled from the brain. Each cell is independent. With their own job, supply and reproduction (each cell has their own dna.. it's not controlled from a centralized place, your brain)
these many decentralized cells form one big organism via natural mechanisms like self-organisation, self-responsibility, self-regulation.. like a free market economy
OTOH, all life is one immortal thing.
yea, that's the big organism, emergenced out of many little stupid things :)