jwiggler

I agree but also I think you’re getting at a broader issue of the cooption/reclaimation of words, and the problem of language being fluid.

Unfortunately for anarchism, its been an uphill battle. In Plato’s The Republic, Socrates refers to anarchy in the negative context we mostly see it used today, similar to just pure chaos.

The term was reclaimed by Proudhon in the 19th century as he developed anarchist philosophy, but I’m not sure the term ever really got divorced from the negative connotation it had. And so I think we still see people use anarchism to refer to any anti state belief, or chaos, in general. Are they wrong or right? Eh. Id like to say they’re wrong because I was really moved when I read Kropotkin and Graeber and whatever. But then again, I’m not gonna really get mad when someone uses “gentleman” for a polite man instead of a member of the landed gentry or whatever the term “gentleman” used to mean.

This is all me being an armchair linguist though and kinda talking outta my ass so take that for what you will

Edit: I just read your objection about the mischaracterization of anarchism as a movement because of all this – and yeah that is a problem for sure. It does make it difficult to describe to people, “I’m not talking about anarchism like you normally think, like pure chaos. I’m talking about anarchism as a political philosophy. See, in the 19th century there were these dudes…” Yeah, that gets pretty old. But idk my opinion is conflicted on this because my personal philosophy around language tends liberal due to their fluid nature

Yeah yeah, I gotchu. Overall, great meme

Agree 100% but wanna add that some right wing libertarians like to glob on to the A because they fashion themselves as chaotic or watched V for Vendetta one time and now have Batman complexes. Obviously they are completely ignorant of anarchist philosophy. I think the OP is similarly ignorant here (sorry OP, not meaning that as a slight against you – most people think anarchy just means no government or chaos or whatever)

Edit: oh yeah, as others have mentioned there are also ancaps, which are oxymoronic but I’m sure they don’t really care

Ending federal government != ending hierarchy or the state. As you said yourself, they’re radical libertarians, not anarchists.

“Right-wing anarchists” makes me wanna puke. I think libertarian freestaters is probably a more accurate name.

We are living through the greatest constitutional crisis of our lifetimes – maybe since the Civil War. The US has never seen anything happen like this domestically. We are rapidly moving toward the dissolution of the US and civil war.

If the courts do not prosecute Trump and Elon Musk, which is highly likely, the assault on EVERY federal service and source of funds will continue. “Throwing it back to the states” will cause the states to contract – without confidence in any federal assistance or regulations, states will need to figure it out themselves – and if they start seeing the federal government as something they need to protect their citizens from…well, why would they remain a part of that federal government? If the US government is completely unreliable due to the massive brain, experience, and regulation drain, what reason do states have to remain a part of that? Especially when the feds want to restrict speech and expression in the way they do.

And if the courts somehow slap down Elon and Trump and they are removed? Then we’ve got violence from the J6ers and likely more.

We very well might be witnessing the end of the US, as I see it. But maybe someone can offer some counterpoints