What part of "laws are just threats of violence made by the predominant socioeconomic ethnic group in a given nation and the cops are basically an occupying army" do we not understand?
bro, you are commenting in a community called "moretankie196", of a marxist-leninist instance whose name is inspired in a soviet city. we do care about concepts and definitions.
Except thatās not what anarchism is, and you canāt just say āAnarchism is whatever my heart says it isā, by saying that it has a lot of different definitions to people. Thatās not how definitions works, especially for a political ideology.
Exactly, some āanarchistsā are just liberals who like to have an edgy/faux-radical flag and symbol (you), while others are communists with ideological differences who are still willing to work with us toward a similar goal.
Sorry, but I got the impression you were, as you repeatedly said you agreed with parts of anarchism and think anarchism can mean many things. If you consider being called āliberalā an ad hominem then what are you?
idk, I guess some flavor of socialist? DemSoc? I've never really sought out the perfect label, I prefer to just be pro/anti specific concepts or ideas.
In that case you're holding a belief that goes completely against the ideas implied by the label you use. Yes, there's always variety of thought in all political fields but this one is an outright contradiction.
I don't really use the label "anarchist," as I said I like some laws and I think states are inevitable, the thing about hierarchies is how some (alleged?) anarchists described the principles to me