posted on Feb, 14 2014 @ 08:25 AM
reply to post by Kali74
It is an ideology: a system of ideas and ideals, esp. one that forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy.
It can't be defined as a concise set of ideas or ideals, beyond what I said, anarchy has only that common ground over all possible interpretations (I
talked about this in an earlier post). Now if you are talking about a more defined particular interpretation (that is nevertheless not consensual)
then I would have to agree with you that it may be accepted as an ideology (under an umbrella labelling that would cover many more).
It is (anti-capitalist). In anarchism the only private property that is recognized is personal including a home, car etc. In anarchy you are only free
to do as you like if you are not exploiting another person, group or land/water in a way which renders it useless for others.
In the general form it is not. Maybe in the particular form you are referring, in anarchy not even private property is recognized if you can't enforce
your ownership, The bit about exploitation also is not generalized, even if anarchist tend to give more respect to other individuals freedoms there
might be anarchic systems that revoke that view in certain conditions even in idealogical grounds (for example anarchy is not a cure against
discrimination, racism, patriotism or for example in the betterment in regard to a commune/group, even as punishment for a crime. It all depends on
the circumstances on on the definition of anarchism and exploitation that is fallowed. There is nothing beyond property rights that can't be
implemented under an anarchic system, capital and the pursuit of economic advantage has many forms, most complex trade (that is not direct barter can
be defined as a form of exploitation especially if it involves third parties and is not immediate).
Capitalism clashes with anarchy at every point. Anarcho-capitalist is an oxymoron.
No and a reticent yes. Liberalism in the form of free markets can be defined as anarchic if only restricted to economic transactions (that by
definition refute state intervention on trade), but that correctly explained in a previous
post by Echtelion
(that I stared) it is a forced collage.
It's utterly impossible currently to implement anarchism, most anarchists including myself don't advocate for anarchism to go into effect at this
I don't agree in the general term anarchism exist immediately after a state collapses, but due to their lack (or slow initiative to organize) it
rapidly evolves (or devolves, depending of the perspective ion something else) as a better organized group takes control and imposes a different
system. As I said before anarchism can only exist on a long duration in a sparse populated area where there are no social pressures nor a rush to own
resources (that include the people).
But I get that you are defending a sublimated view of anarchism, but you ought to find a better definition to it to separate it from other distinct
views or generalizations. In you limited anarchic system what you say may be valid but it is not a commonly accepted definition of anarchism (the one
I'm utilizing, and I made that distinction clear in my first post on the thread).
edit on 14-2-2014 by Panic2k11 because: was giving credit to the wrong person