Add new comment

Hi Peter-Groupie, I'm sorry if you got the impression that I might not like the Greatest Anarchist Theorist Since Kropotkin Himself, I just think his definition of anarchism to be a little inconsistent. Maybe you could try actually addressing the points that were raised before claiming it's not a valid argument? Like,
do you agree with Peter that the objective of anarchism is best summed up as creating a loose collection of local "communities" (defined as um individuals and um families or something like that?) each being a "separate world", that must organize their respective societies based on -um- "their" traditions and history?
This leaves a lot of questions, such as: How are these communities constituted? By "families"? Are they ethnic communities? Cultural/religious communities? Tribal or genetically endogenous communities? Peter says anarchism is against patriarchy, but isn't the nuclear family patriarchal? Does he have any idea about how these communities which must be based on "their" (whose?) specific history and tradition, left to separately define their (new? improved?) methods of local organization will somehow eliminate "all forms of oppression" like magic?
I didn't say anything about ancaps, but what about classical anarchist tropes like abolishing money, markets and such? Is capitalism ok if a small community decides to maintain a small scale version of it because it's a part of their history or tradition? Just curious.