Monarchy is, of course so far away from anarcho-anything

Yes —
1. State communism
2. Fascism
3. Neo-Nazism
4. Monarchy/Neoreaction
as seen from below:
13. Anarcho syndicalism
16. Anarcho communism
17. Anarcho collectivism
All look like fascism. State Communism for example, even _is_ the leaders make all the otherwise correct scientific choices for the objective betterment of all humanity and species with complete fairness etc, they remove the space to screw up, to explore, to buck the system. So, it “might as well be fascist” to somebody who is 13, 16, 17.
Monarchy is, of course so far away from anarcho-anything that the nuances between it and fascism are lost.
I’d say that person’s quick sketch matches up well.
Wait: are all the ones that mapped the only Anarcho-?
Or is this your mapping and you made it match?
It’s a funny thing: I don’t “see myself” as an anarcho-anything. I don’t see myself as a communist anything. A socialist anything.
Until 2014, I thought I was a perfect centrist. Right in the middle of everything. Totally balanced and objective in all things political.
What a shock to my system to find there’s a “spot” for me. Even now, I call the political compass a “personality sorter” and ” not really real just a bit of fun” because it’s not really a part of my belief system.
Yet, it’s practical to work with to quickly discuss ideas and personalities.
Looking at Cyborg Manifesto though, with its dissolving of barrier between identities, new spaces created, self-actualization and authenticity stuff, etc, it makes sense that I’d have that opinion about political identity too 
It’s a funny strange loop, that. I don’t believe in it and yet the square it puts me in says “Ken won’t believe in it”.
 Oddly enough I’m familiar with the _cultures_ of each of these, but not the original sources.
I wallow through a lot of BS online where people wave their political flags at each other, going into battle, expressing stereotypes of each other and memes and such.
Ancap for example are in a category that I can’t take seriously. I’ve been told to read Rothbard probably hundreds of times through the years so I certainly know the name 
But the reason I don’t take it seriously is probably the reasons why I don’t take my _own_ political positions seriously: pragmatism. The blind sports are there and I see them and like

James Sweet

it ends up putting me into a different part of the compass than I’d like to be because I am looking at the “tug of war” aspect of it rather than ideal political stances.



Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

− one = 4

Leave a Reply