I understand where you are coming from. I always identified anarchism as a vague compass direction rather than a strict dogma. When that direction faces an obstacle, some veer around either to the left or to the right, whilst others give up claiming the obstacle insurmountable. Yet others come along and find a way through the obstacle, effectively changing the game. My point is that to get from where we are now, to achieving actual anarchism, might not involve simply giving up democratic control of the state and letting corporations and rich institutions to control everything. In fact, I am pretty sure it doesn't involve that. In fact, if global anarchism is actually achievable, dismantling the state might only come after it has already been rendered redundant. To do that, global access to healthcare, basic food and shelter, care for disabled/elderly would already need to be organised privately. Simply cutting government support hoping it all works out is psychopathy, not anarchism.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Really? I thought anarchism was the opposite of psychopathy since the psychopaths are usually in the government or controlling them behind the scenes.
Well said