Quote:
Quote by: Gods_Mercenary  Anarchy is not simply challenging authority, socialists are not anarchists,
yet they would be considered challenging the government of most
capitalist countries.
You named a few individuals, and I sais their poltitical
ideologies have nothing to do with their advances, considering they
were and are under the protection of a state as
they make their discoveries. |
First of all, anarchism is a form of socialism. If you did some minimal research into
its true principles you'd know that. It's simply an anti-state form of socialism.
As for the individuals who made scientific advances, there is every reason to believe scientific understandings of the world go hand in hand with anarchic theory.
Good scientists don't simply take someone at his word. They examine claims as best as they can. In other words, they question even leaders in agiven field.
In the case of Graeber, he found his anarchic views strengthened by his anthropological studies.
You bizarrely give the state credit for the innovation of individuals.
It's revealing that state supporters tend to give the state credit for prosperity, scientific advances and anything remotely positive, yet never suggest state societies are responsible for the wars they cause, for the ignorance of the general population or for any other social ills.
That's when it miraculously becomes solely a matter of stupid individuals, which the state ideal apperently deserves little credit for.
You're a great example of this attitude. You go out of your way to portray people as without any potential aside from where they are unless they have rulers. This view overlooks how the very basic nature of being ruled leads to Yesmen who, by their very position, will be less likely to apply critical thinking skills. In short, hierarchy often makes people stupider, especially if intelligence is punished.
Grandpa h.