I don't see what bickering over words is going to accomplish. Your post is typical of the far left: do everything you can to appear smarter than your interlocutor, short of actually engaging the issue.
I actually think it's important to call things what they are, just as North Korea aint a democracy even though they call themselves that, this is nothing reassembling anarchist thought. By hi-jacking concepts we introduce confusion and ultimately destroy the original meaning and ideas.
I'm fairly tired of this being the case from the right, not just in america but in my country as well where the most right-wing party recently branded themselves "The new workers party".
Or, alternatively, why not actually foster dialogue between left-wing and right-wing anarchists and help the two groups realize that they're often not as far apart as they think? Seems to be working quite well over at http://c4ss.org/ .
"Right wing anarchists" seem to want to take the trappings of capitalism, from which they have benefited immensely, and keep as much as they can to themselves. For the good of themselves.
True anarchists reject capital and properly rights, and want precisely the opposite. For the good of everyone.
The anarchy subreddit is actually pretty good and not filled with as much junk as a lot of the subreddits are.
It depends on who you talk to; I feel like there's a sort of winding spectrum. It's something like:
F A
| |
| |
| |
E B
\ /
\ /
D------C
A = Wealthy people who just want to maximize their own revenue without particular regard for ethics. Some do not support libertarianism at all, some support some aspects of it but turn around as soon as they can benefit from pollution, eminent domain or copyrights/patent privileges.
B = Wealthy people who are actually libertarian to a high extent, caring about some notion of property rights, but have basically no concern for equality, corporate power, etc.
C = Libertarians who also care about reducing corporate power and promoting decentralization. These people love markets and voluntary exchange, but also dislike monopolies. They tend to heavily promote 3D printing, Bitcoin, seasteading, etc.
D = Left-libertarians who are fine with property rights, but seek a less market-oriented basis for society. They might like 3D printing, organic farming, urban agriculture, and perhaps also Bitcoin, though to a smaller extent since it is still money even if it does bypass the banks.
E = Anti-propertarian anarchists. Buy into leftist morality (eg. "exploitation" where you benefit much more than the counterparties from an economic agreement is immoral), and are happy to expropriate capitalists. However, they are also anti-state.
F = State socialists and social democrats.
This experiment seems to be something like B with maybe a touch of C. A proper C-libertarian experiment would also try to provide ways for people to live with very little money (eg. by living in a small closet that would normally be illegal under occupancy limit regulations), and D-libertarian would be a commune.
That is a great site, I have no problem with dicussion with what you would call right-wing anarchist. Even though I want to point out that I don't think it's fair to call agendas advocating property-rights and wage working anarchist as it's so far from anarchist thought.
I am all for clear language, and I agree that North Korea could not be called a democracy.
However, there is a difference between concepts that are well defined in ordinary language (like democracy) and concepts whose definition is highly contested, like anarchism. Libertarianism is clearly a term with right wing connotations for most people. When you argue against using it this way, you are going against ordinary usage, and therefore against clear communication.
And this is consistent with my earlier post, because you imply that the person who uses libertarian in the usual sense, is ignorant because they don't define it according to the literature that you consider to be relevant or important.
On the "New workers party", that is clearly an attempt by this party to subvert left wing rhetoric (of being pro-worker), a kind of culture jamming if you will. It is clearly not an attempt to trick people into voting for them or redefine the term "worker's party", which I assume has long tradition in your country and is unmistakeably identifiable with the left.
I was engaging directly with the flaws in the post. You might not agree with what I said, but you cannot say my post had not content or that I put no thought into it.
To recap what's happened in your post. Not only did you do everything but engage the issue at hand but you also threw in a personal insult, a group insult and some general disparagement towards any ideas you don't agree with.
He engaged that particular poster's issue just fine: the word salad he threw out to appear intelligent. You know how I can tell? "with regards to" and "that is now apparently" for starters.
Fair enough -- I saw one of your other posts and I definitely didn't get the same feeling. Being overly critical seems to be the favorite past-time around here, and I seem to have fallen into that as well.
But "interlocutor" is just fine and dandy. Why I use that in conversations with my 5 year old niece all the time:
"Now, now even if your teacher wasn't your intended interlocutrix when you called Josh 'Mr. Poopy Pants' she still was right to tell you to not be mean to him."
