/lit/ - Literature

>>14392938
that's exactly the paradox I identify. libertarian/anarchist politics seem to be a tenuous alliance between those who want freedom from power and those who want freedom to power. in my youth I quickly identified with anarchism through that very resentment naively telling myself without the system I would prosper. but this seems like a disingenuous line of thought. it is not a true desire for the destruction of hierarchy but the ressentiment fueled destruction of current heirarchy in favor of a new one in which YOU will reign supreme.

if it is the beleif that the current civilizational heirarchy is flawed exclusively in that it lets the weak have dominion over the strong, and is oriented in the name of the strong through reasserting primitive heirarchy, anarchism is a self defeating half-measure when fascism, a structured elevation of primitive heirarchy (instead of anarchism's free floating buoyancy for the strong) is what you should be after.

alternatively we could interpret anarchism as a moralistic limitation of power that affirms primitive heirarchy but says the fascistic and state sponsored elevation of the strong is Going Too Far, but then isn't that idealist and if still leading to the death of the weak a little hypocritical ethically.

there could also be the belief that fascism Ideally would be the best system but a recognition of its and any state's tendency toward the corruption of bureaucracy and the infestation of the weak.

but none of these sounds like Anarchism to me. none of these sound like what Noam Chomsky or Kropotkin really want to say. is it just the dual nature of anarchism that behind its moralizing weak it harbors a new wave of power hungry and ressentiment fueled oppressors?