I dont find it apolitical, or vague, its just simple. It's not wrong, surely you understand the root of the word. But you'll say a democracy doesnt have leaders. It would be the leader.
You don't find it apolitical or vague because you probably never read any book about anarchism, because otherwise you would be saying it is indeed apolitical and vague. Also, the dictionary you used is apolitical, so the political definitions will always be vague in apolitical ones, even wrong, because of how vague they are.
Also, I didn't understand the last part. What would be the leader?
Uh. No. It's what I've known it to mean since I was freaking 4 years old. A democracy would be, well, a democracy, not anarchy. Pretty simple stuff. Leftists have a funny way of obfuscating things, so they dont have to say they're Democrats, cuz even they know how stupid they look.
Anarchism isn't a form of government, dude. You're saying this as if it was a form of government, when it's not. Just like communism isn't a form of government. However, Marxism, a form of communism, proposes statism. We anarchists want direct democracy, which is different from the kind of democracy you're thinking of.
Also, referring to the Democrats as representative of all leftists is pretty dumb, not worth even telling you why you're so wrong.
Like I said, you like our government, you just think it should he run your way. I find it funny that you dont realize this is the way our society works. Its no-ones fault but your own that you dont take part in your county government.
Your points aren't even logical. What government? And I don't like any actual government, because none of them is direct democratic, and all of them support statism. As an anarchist, I want direct democracy and no state. I find it funny that you say something about me that I've never said or implied, but whatever, if you're unable to understand basic concepts and explanations, then I'm done.
Dont need to, it's obviously wrong.
Wow, that's a nice one. So, without reading it, you're saying it's wrong. But I'm the one who "thinks it should be run my way" and I'm the bad guy, lol. Take some time to read first, dude. I didn't want to be hostile, but you're starting to piss me off with this crap.
Why call yourselves anarchists?
Because we follow what the guys and girls who theorised anarchism wrote about. Because we are a supermajority. Because our term is appropiate, yours isn't.
Tell me how "anarcho-communism" would be different than communism.
Well, communism is a stateless, moneyless and classless society, so yup, it wouldn't be different! Have you even read Marx or Engels or any communist author? Or are you only stuck up with capitalist crap?
No type of communism would be able to be implemented without enforcement, which is antithetical to anarchy.
Rojava, the Revolutionary Catalonia, the Paris Commune, the Free Territory of Ukraine, many tribes, both past and actual, disagree with you. But if you won't even research about what you criticise, then it's not my problem!
By the way, you can't enforce private property without force. That's why once capitalism was implemented, from the start, it always required a police force to enforce property rights. The state gets also benefited from the protection of property rights, even though there's a trend between "an"caps which consists of thinking that every economical policy made by the government or the parliament is automatically leftist.
The biggest problems we see in our economy, actually come from the areas which are fundamentally not capitalist. Fyi, we arent really capitalist, we've strayed very far from what was laid out for our economy in the constitution.
Dude, I'm not even sure of what economy or country are you talking about. And yet still, I don't care if you're talking about the US, France or a planet outside of this galaxy, not all countries are affected in the same way by capitalism. All I'm saying is basic, duh.
I can.
Okay, what about the millions of people who died because of capitalist wars? Wars with the purpose of economical profit? And what about those who died of hunger because of a system that didn't grant them a chance of surviving? What about those who died because they couldn't afford a better healthcare? What about those who were exploited by property owners who treated them as slaves?
You keep criticising communism for being different from the theory. How is capitalism not different from the theory? Where's the freedom capitalists claim to support? If capitalism is about freedom and voluntaryism, why do workers get always exploited and trated as ownership or tools of profit, and slaves, by the bourgeoisie - capitalists?
Clever people will always find a way to get around working.
No, because the system isn't made for clever people, but for cheaters and inhumane people. Why do you think lying and coining those around you make someone successful in a capitalist society? Because that's what capitalism encourages and requires.
Also, under true anarchy
"True anarchy", care to explain what's "true anarchy" and how that's anarchism?
it would be taken, doesnt need to be given.
Why not? You could save lives, what would you with that money? Because under anarchism, you can't simply take money and keep it for yourself, that's actually antithetical with anarchism. The only option left is to distribute wealth, to those who are in need of it. How is that bad? It just sounds inhumane and evil to me, but whatever.
Does animal farm come to mind? It does for me.
Animals in farms are lied to make them feel comfortable with their owners and behave to later be killed, everything they do for these animals in farms, is to later eat them. Doesn't sound like appropiate.