• DriftinGrifter@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    fucking hobbes and rousseau lol nah fam been there done that it was part of my school curiculum the problem with the definition of anarchist lies in the fact that anarchy as an idea was always horizontal government structure built on decentralised syndicates and communes but the propaganda term and non political term of lack of order is now commonly accepted as the new definition i suggest you read up on some history and look at the beginning phases of the industrial era

    • Dasus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      anarchy as an idea was always horizontal government structure built on decentralised syndicates and communes

      ZzzZZZzzzZzzZzzzz

      Your ancient Greek sucks, bruv.

      https://www.etymonline.com/word/anarchy#etymonline_v_13397

      1530s, “absence of government,” from French anarchie or directly from Medieval Latin anarchia, from Greek anarkhia “lack of a leader, the state of people without a government” (in Athens, used of the Year of Thirty Tyrants, 404 B.C., when there was no archon), abstract noun from anarkhos “rulerless,” from an- “without” (see an- (1)) + arkhos “leader” (see archon).

        • Dasus@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          6 months ago

          So you admit that the definitions I’ve used are right, thanks.

          Language evolves, yes. Words can have several colloquial meanings. But prescriptive meanings don’t change.

          Prescriptively, the type of “anarchism” you support is minarchic synarchism, and not anarchism, per se