Add new comment

: you assert that there is only one correct way, making you more normative, restrictive and authoritarian than what you
: accuse me of "monitoring beliefs" or "purity programs
No it's not normative, it's practical. An anarchy that forced people to live by the beliefs of others would not be an anarchy. It would preserve the monopoly of violence in service of getting people to conform. Words have consistent meanings and the consistent meaning of the word "anarchy" is not consistent with forcing people to believe (or pretend to).

"anarchy is not an end state, "
Yes it is. It's the abolition of the State. That's what we're aiming for.

" it's a lived antagonism, a tension and defiant orientation against the existent."
No, that's being an anarchist (or at least a revolutionary). That's not the point. The revolutionary activity is meant to create the new world, not be it.

"The ONLY anarchists are those who have not obeyed even once literally immediately attacking every single instance of oppression against them that they encountered AND AT THE SAME TIME have not expected or asked anything from anyone. "
No, lots of anarchists have compromised in the face of State force, for their own protection or for tactical reasons. It doesn't mean they don't believe in anarchy, which again, is the absence of the State, not some play-acting about rebellion.