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.
Ich bin ich. ;-)
kenne ich gar nicht...
Ich wollte mit meinem kryptischen Kommentar nur darauf hinaus, daß das Einteilen von Individuen in Kategorien den einzelnen Menschen eher nicht gerecht wird. ;-)
Bist wohl nicht alt genug, das Buch ist aus 1972 und das kleine Ichbinich wollte das gleiche sein, nor völlig unpolitisch :)
Oder es war eine versteckte politische Botschaft!
Da wäre ich wohl dabei gewesen, es mit der Muttermilch aufzusaugen. ;-) (Offenbar kannte es meine Mutter auch nicht)
bin Mensch
" ich bin ich und ich bin Geist ".
Rehived.Ich sehe das ähnlich wie der liebe @andyjaypowell und würde das noch ein bisschen erweitern
Also eigentlich sind die politischen Richtungen sehr klar definiert. Jedoch wurden sie in der Gesellschaft schwammig gemacht und sogar vertauscht (absichtlich), z.b. sind die "Nazis" nicht rechts gewesen, sondern Links (Nationalsozialisten).
Klassifizieren möchte sich eigentlich niemand. Wenn es denn sein muss - sind wir libertär ---> gegen gegliche Herrschaft! Das wäre aus unserer Sicht die Freiheit für die Menschheit. Denn das Übel dieser Welt geht nicht von links oder rechts aus, sondern vom Staat! Lg DieReiseRitter
none of the above