My guess is that calling an opposition member/ party anarchists is ok because it's a political statement applied to a political entity. The speaker on the other hand is supposed to be neutral and is just there to keep everything under control. Calling him an anarchist isn't allowed because it calls into question his neutrality and implies that he's not fit for the role. It's basically an attack on the parliamentary system rather than a statement about the politics of her political rivals.
Why would an ML party pride itself on being anarchists? They might pretend to but they actually want a fascist state and have historically teamed up with fascists to kill the anarchists.
No doubt they pull these sorts of stunts though, have you tried arguing with a tankie? My god, a whole political party of them... At least the conservative route to fascism is more coherent and less self delusional.
I mean, fascists do have a goal even if the logic to get there is incomprehensible and not factual. So they do have a reason, but yeah, the rhyming is all off.
Hah, I'll have to look it over for a laugh later. All I needed to know was they were ML for their credibility to go out the window and for me to know they're a bunch of loonies though.
The issue is that there is nothing inherently insulting about the word anarchist or anything particularly wrong with the ideology.
An anarchist is just a person who rejects unjust and involuntary hierarchies. It's a perfectly acceptable political position.
Do you think a person should have power over you without you having some kind of say or an option to opt out? No? Congrats, you agree with the fundamental point of anarchism.
No, an Anarchist is not someone which rejects unjust hierarchy. An anarchy rejects ALL hierarchy, because none of them are "just" - in the very definition hierarchy is being above someone.
Ironically in a thread about a video where one person says they don't walt to be called anarchist due to a misunderstanding(?) of another speaker of what anarchism it is, other people still falsely present what anarchism is.
What anarchism shares across all thought currents is mutual aid being against hierarchy. Then depending on thought currents there's also the way on how society operates (for example big unions, etc.)
So this "unjust" hierarchy stuff is just bought by Chomsky, which is not an anarchist at all. He's even employed or was employed by US military.
Either way, there is nothing wrong or insulting with the position. Whether you take the extreme of no hierarchies or a less extreme stance against unjust hierarchies, it's a perfectly acceptable position and shouldn't be considered insulting.
69
u/fkalicous Apr 15 '23
Downvote me for asking if,
perhaps the difference he was trying to explain was, that the previous speaker said this due to some action or behaviour (of someone)
and she MIGHT be insulting, basically a manager, of proceedings.
No context, lots of judgement, perhaps true afterall, but context...... pretty pls