nimh wrote:
"how can you describe them as the logical extension of capitalism?"
I can't seem to get you to hear me. I never described it as an
extension of capitalism. I really think your preferences are bashing your perception of what I'm saying.
Anarchism, if laid down on a continuum, is far to the right, past capitalism. The two don't have to be similar.
Go from ultimate state structure to less structure. I can't see how you can compare state enforced slave labor communism with having a 9 to 5 job. That's insane. I realize what anarchists think of capitalism, but that doesn't color reality. It's about government control and individual rights. That's about it. You can try to make it more complicated, ....but it's really not.
Why do you pretend not to agree with that one little point?
nimh wrote:But they both want to deconstruct, if not outright destroy, the capitalist order.
Again, I'm not defending this or that brand of anarchism, at this point; I am merely trying to grasp how you can redefine anarchism as a kind of super-capitalism when most every anarchist of prominence swore to the cause of revolution?
You do realize this is a persistent feature of your imagination..? I...didn't ....say.....this.
nimh was wrong when he wrote:If communism is about equality and libertarianism about freedom, anarchism is about both; and the one does not precede or override the other (more below).
Again, you are furiously trying to say what they are, what they mean, what they subscribe to politically and socially, when I have told you I am speaking purely structurally.
Lash wrote:I realize neither is synonymous wih anarchy, but how you aren't seeing the easy answer to where anarchy fits on the structural model is baffling to me.
Yes they do want to go MUCH farther into individual freedoms, but they are worlds removed from the enforced slave labor of communism, and the heavyy paternalist oppression of socialism.
Yes, they'll pass capitalism haughtily on their journey further right into well-meaning, but doomed free communalism, but c'mon!
nimh was incredibly correct when he wrote:OK, but lookit.
Lash wrote:Why, God, did he not stop here? Why?
nimh wrote:First, I've never equated communism with anarchism. In reality, they are enemies. But they are, in fact, as much enemies as anarchism and capitalism are.
Lash wrote:But on opposite sides of the economically structured continuum.... my point, that.
nimh, using outrageous comparisons to escape my salient point, wrote: Lets go back to the graph that I responded to. It has four corners. That concept may be useful here, because what seems to be part of the misunderstanding is seeing only something linear, from communism to capitalism, and trying to place anarchism somewhere on that line. In reality, its a triangle (three corners) or a square (four corners) - with anarchism in an opposite corner from either.
Lash wrote:We could draw all types of pointy shapes. IF we use the linear model, what I say is easily approved. Why so wiggly?
nimh wrote:Imagine a square - another square. Two axes. Lets take your cue, and say one is about political structure, and the other about economic structure.
Lashypoo wrote:Imagine an isoceles triangle, a parabola and a flaming midget horseshoe... but first, :wink: imagine the line.
