Quote:
Originally Posted by JCC
Why does being an anarchist automatically mean that you are forcing something upon others? When Noam Chomsky writes his newest piece of polemic, or makes a speech at a university, or appears in a documentary, is he forcing something upon others by expressing an idea or theory? If you see anarchism and revolutionary politics through the narrow mindset of violence and pre-emptive strikes then it is coercive, but there's nothing coercive in holding or propagating an ideal.
|
I agree (sorry if my post might have made it seem otherwise). I really don't see any problem with holding it as an ideal or an overall goal. My problem with anarchism comes from the more practical/right now implimentation of it. At best there is the danger of wasted effort in pursuit of a currently unattainable ideal (I previously compared it to a guy drawing up plans for an elegant golden palace he's going to build, when all he has access to are logs and the most rudimentary tools) and at worst a wide open door for the clever and immoral to engage in manipulation and exploitation of the mob.
Basically I don't see working towards and hoping for an anarchist society sometime in the future as a bad thing, more demanding it now.
I guess what I'm saying is that the statent: "this is how I want people to be, how do I change them?" is the realm of artists, priests and philosophers. while the statement "this is how people are, how do I deal with it?" is the realm of cops and politicians.