• Jerkface (any/all)@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        4 months ago

        Yes, well, you can not be an anarchist while supporting the exploitation of animals, either, but look around you.

        • TwiddleTwaddle@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          4 months ago

          Fuck yea, animal liberation all the way. Not sure why you’re using that to defend capitalism tho. Doesn’t really feel like a good faith comment to make.

          • Jerkface (any/all)@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            4 months ago

            What I am saying is that you are going to have to search pretty fucking hard for a “real” anarchist once you start applying the actual definition.

            • Tiresia@slrpnk.net
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              4 months ago

              You’re right that there is a definition of anarchism that nobody will meet, just like there’s a definition of feminism or capitalism or communism that nobody will meet. Those definitions are therefore useless, but that doesn’t mean anything goes.

              There’s a difference between self-styled ‘anarchists’ who name themselves after oppressive systems and consciously include oppressive tools in their proposals for change and self-styled ‘anarchists’ who name themselves after systems that can help empower anarchism and that try to include as little archism in their proposals for change as possible.

              The anarchist movement isn’t a static definition, it’s a vector force pulling at present-day society. Ancaps don’t pull along that vector. Non-vegan anarchocommunists do.

    • poVoq@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      21
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      No one said they are the “true enemy”. US “Libertarians” (another stolen term) are largely irrelevant and just propped up by billionaires like Peter Thiel. They are the court-jesters of the oligarchs and deserve ridicule for being so naive and not noticing it. “Natural allies” for what? In boot-licking?

    • stabby_cicada@slrpnk.netOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      4 months ago

      Books banned, women and children forced to give birth against their will, total depredation of the environment, oligopoly, corruption, conspiracy theories, propaganda, and fascism.

      Other than the book banning, that sounds like your average libertarian to me.

    • LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      I’m just talking about word definitions here. If you support hierarchical dominance of some humans by others, you aren’t an anarchist by any reasonable definition.

      That doesn’t mean we can’t cooperate on certain issues, though of course I’ll have to use my judgment as far as whether that collaboration does more harm than good, as I do in all cross-ideological collaboration. But our ideological differences are not very trivial so I don’t agree that we are natural allies either.

      If you’re tired of having this argument just stop calling ancaps anarchists. It’s not accurate and even big papa Rothbard admitted as much in unpublished writings.