Add new comment

"but when you talk about including fascists and capitalists in your general anarchistic vagueness, something just chaps my ass."

Why? This is what I mean by one should evaluate why associating with anarchists who may advocate capitalism in practice but not word, yet are repulsed by anarchists who advocate the same thing but nane it capitalism. This is the anarchists good non-anarchists bad that I am talking about.

"you seem to place anarchy/anarchist in a completely moralist context, with all the "good/bad" crap."

Personally I don't see anarchism as a good or bad thing. As mentioned anarchists, like fascists, do cause disruptions to the institutions I find myself oppressed by, but so too fo they reinforce these institutions (as do fascists).

"i would say that the baseline for anarchy is not simply anti-state and anti-capitalist. i would change anti-capitalist to anti-economic-systems, and add anti-religion (not necessarily spirituality). but really i would probably choose to frame it as anti-institutional systems."

This may describe your anarchism but I think at this point this definition excludes most self identified anarchists. Which perhaps you are okay with being exclusionary but I'm more interested in a descriptive definition of anarchism rather then a prescriptive one. And this again comes back to the question does anarchism have some core of what it is, something that threads anarchism together, or is it simply just a word to describe what we find good (or to symbolize ones opposition to evil).