So you understand the difference between the two definitions and you are falsely equating them in your first comment on purpose? In order to derail the conversation? That's disappointing.
No, I’m not equating them. I’m relating them. They are related. Anarchists have yet to demonstrate that they can build a robust society grounded in their theories (second definition) that doesn’t descend into anarchy (first definition), or result in some individual/group seizing power and putting down the opposition, betraying anarchist principles.
What anarchists propose is not in principle impossible, but it’s never been demonstrated to be practical. A near-universal critique of utopias is that they are not robust in the face of sustained opposition: that is, they assume everyone is ideologically aligned.
chongli|2 years ago
What anarchists propose is not in principle impossible, but it’s never been demonstrated to be practical. A near-universal critique of utopias is that they are not robust in the face of sustained opposition: that is, they assume everyone is ideologically aligned.
briantakita|2 years ago
Fwiw, Anarchists use the analogy of nations having anarchist relationships with other nations.