I tend to use anarchy when I mean a deliberate attempt to destroy the existing social order but I should be more precise if that's not accurate. Doesn't it mean that? In a "small A" sort of way?
I tend to use anarchy when I mean a deliberate attempt to destroy the existing social order but I should be more precise if that's not accurate. Doesn't it mean that? In a "small A" sort of way?
In a political sense it doesn't mean that at all. Anarchism is a political current in its own right, with its own goals. Many of which are very hard to explain because it contradicts so heavily with what exists today.
People like Noam Chomsky and David Graeber were anarchists. Both actively opposed Trump.
What you mean is "insurgency" or if you want it to ring more positive "revolution".
I'd call both a decent enough term to describe Trump, but neither is complete. Both insurgents and revolutionaries have a goal. It's far better to describe them by naming them after the system for which they engage in insurgency/revolution. In the case of trump that is fascism. Making him a fascist.
Anarchist is definitely used in contemporary political commentary in the way that you use it. But it shouldn't be. Because it confuses the political ideology of anarchism with the individual will to create chaos without any goals whatsoever (violent nihilism). Politically speaking: it confuses two things that are diametrically opposed.
Anarchism as a political ideology has been around long before it was used in the way that you used it. It started to be used in that way to defame and discredit it.
I tend to use anarchy when I mean a deliberate attempt to destroy the existing social order but I should be more precise if that's not accurate. Doesn't it mean that? In a "small A" sort of way?
In a political sense it doesn't mean that at all. Anarchism is a political current in its own right, with its own goals. Many of which are very hard to explain because it contradicts so heavily with what exists today.
People like Noam Chomsky and David Graeber were anarchists. Both actively opposed Trump.
What you mean is "insurgency" or if you want it to ring more positive "revolution".
I'd call both a decent enough term to describe Trump, but neither is complete. Both insurgents and revolutionaries have a goal. It's far better to describe them by naming them after the system for which they engage in insurgency/revolution. In the case of trump that is fascism. Making him a fascist.
Anarchist is definitely used in contemporary political commentary in the way that you use it. But it shouldn't be. Because it confuses the political ideology of anarchism with the individual will to create chaos without any goals whatsoever (violent nihilism). Politically speaking: it confuses two things that are diametrically opposed.
Anarchism as a political ideology has been around long before it was used in the way that you used it. It started to be used in that way to defame and discredit it.
Thank you for educating me. I clearly need to do some reading in this area specifically. I agree he is a fascist, no doubt there.