• Sanctus@anarchist.nexus
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    20 days ago

    In communist terms, yeah. The distinction doesnt really matter to anarchists as long as its not the people just governing themselves we dont really like it.

    • LeeeroooyJeeenkiiins [none/use name]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      20 days ago

      No, in like, terms

      the distinction does matter because the answer to “why don’t the people govern themselves” matters

      “democratic” government under liberal bourgeois democracy doesn’t represent the people because the economic and political power afforded to the bourgeoisie by their ownership of Shit is mutually exclusive with actual democracy

      That doesn’t mean “government” is the problem because that’s literally the word you use for the collective of “the people governing themselves” unless you’re on some fucked up Josiah Warren* every man a small proprietor governing themselves shit which just isn’t realistic and also isn’t anarchism because anarchism isn’t “no hierarchies!” it’s concerned with the abolition of unjust and arbitrary hierarchies i.e. “i have all the political power because i literally own the town” is a problem but “we discussed it and adopted a constitution by a vote empowering executive representatives” isn’t (literally the people governing themselves)

      anyway im drunk good night

      *prob not accurate look dawg i’ve read a lot but i don’t read yknow