What are some of the most misunderstood ideas/ideologies?
My vote goes for: Anarchism, Communism and Nationalism.
>>965126
They are not misunderstood. They are shit by themselves.
>>965126
That depends on what you mean by misunderstood. Are you talking about the ideal concepts or the practical implications?
>>965137
I'm sure you have some misconceptions of each of those.
Anarchism is probably the worst off, people think it means you just wan't to destroy stuff.
>>965144
The concept itself, misconceptions coming from individuals or organizations practicing those ideologies.
>>965126
Revolutionairy reactionairism
>>965152
Well in that case, every ideology is misunderstood by everyone who doesn't follow it. The trouble is that the concepts of ideology are all one-sided and assumptive that it's difficult to actually refute any one because they all run on their own hypothetical rules. In this case capitalism is also severely "misunderstood" by communists, and vice versa, while statists are "misunderstood" by anarchists.
tl;dr you can only understand an ideology if you've come to it by the conclusion of pre-defined assumptions.
Anarchism is very misunderstood.
I mean at least some people have a vague notion what communism is about. As far as most people are concerned anarchism is just something Johnny Rotten invented.
>>965126
the ideology of the XXI century
speciesism
soon people will kill humans to save the last wild animals
>>965146
>Anarchism is probably the worst off, people think it means you just wan't to destroy stuff.
Considering that most of the people recognized as "anarchists" are edgy teens yelling "fuck da system xDD" it's hard to not cast some prejudice.
It amazes me that to this day people can't differentiate communism, socialism and social democracy.
Or for that matter, between democracy and representative democracy
>>965280
>Considering that most of the people recognized as "anarchists" are edgy teens yelling "fuck da system xDD" it's hard to not cast some prejudice.
Well, you can judge any group that adheres to any ideology by the low-hanging fruit. I mean, I could be judging all conservative people as gay-bashing religious fundamentalist wackjobs who deny evolution, but that wouldn't be particularly reasonable.
Communism is definitely misunderstood, but it's still shit.
>>965328
I can admit Anarchists are judged by these edgey teens since they seem to make up a good 40% of the crowd, but the ideology is still stupid none the less.
>>965177
Could you give me a quick non bullshit definition? Cheers.
>>965438
Not him, but as far as I know personally, it comes down to authority in society being illegitimate. Since there is no true and reasonable(according to anarchists) justification for why a capitalist should have authority over his workers, or why the state should have authority over it's people, they think both systems should be removed, and replaced by something that is voluntary, and doesn't have hierarchic authority.
>>965457
Thanks. Never got my head round it past the edge Lords who declared themselves an anarchist commune and boycotted lectures (topkek)
>>965328
>conservative people as gay-bashing religious fundamentalist wackjobs who deny evolution
But that isn't the majority....
>>965457
Wait so what about social contract theory? What if I willingly hand over parts of my freedom to a greater institution in exchange for security?
Is my giving up of freedom illegitimate?
Because then, if Anarchists argue that it is, aren't they putting themselves illegitimately in a position of power over me, by determining what I can and cannot do with my own will?
Timecube
>>965485
Off the top of my head, I'd think social contract theory would be acceptable given two conditions:
1. The capacity to withdraw from the contract and reclaim one's freedom.
2. That the contract is not inherited by default, that each and every member has voluntarily decided to join.
>>965485
I think most anarchists would be natural rights adherents and consider social contract theory to be a violation of fundamental natural rights, but I might be wrong.
According to Noam Chomsky, who is somewhat an authority on anarchist theory, he says that authority in itself isn't necessarily the problem, because there are several kinds of overruling of a person's will that would be justified, according to him. He uses the example of a father forcibly stopping a child from running into traffic, as an example of justifiable authority.
>>965126
Anarchism is impractical. people are too violent and reactionary to be stateless.
Communism goes too far the other way. The state has too much power and it's citizens are used as a means to an end. (slave labor)
Nationalism is the only ideology that can be practically implemented with little negative effect to its constituents.
>>965510
So this would be satisified if there was an Anarchist state anywhere in the world where I could emigrate to and naturalize in, right?
So isn't the anarchist utopia already achieved via the existence of anarcocommunes? Or does tacit acceptance of societal structure (e.g. not going away to live in a commune) not equate to acceptance of a social contract?
>>965541
>So isn't the anarchist utopia already achieved via the existence of anarcocommunes?
Not him, but why would it be? If you create an anarcho-commune today, you are still a subject to the state wherever you make that commune, and you still have to buy property from someone, and you still have to pay taxes to a system you don't support.
>>965541
>So isn't the anarchist utopia already achieved via the existence of anarcocommunes?
Possibly, lots of anarchists and anarchist organizations work through communes and/or community projects.
Not really all that involved with anarchism myself, but it seems to be the armchair types overly concerned with overthrowing gov'ts instead of just getting together and doing what they like within a microcommunity.
>>965317
But anon " "social" "democracy" " is literally communism in disguise
Common misconception about anarchy: anarchists believe in no government.
Not true. Anarchists believe in governing, making rules, social defense and things of that nature. Its a state that is rejected by anarchist. A beauricratic state that controls the police and military instead of allowing those things to be controlled by the masses. And that applies to politics as well. Where the masses cannot elect a representative of the people or have a difficult time doing so because of political corruption. And as an anarchist would believe, that political corruption would not happen if there was not a state in existence.
Fascism is the single most misunderstood ideology in the modern world.
>>965526
>Communism
>More state control
>>965526
>Communism
>The state has too much power
You fucking idiot. Communists believe there should be NO state.
>>965596
Marx was against Social Democracy, dolt.
>>965743
They believe in a combination of direct democracy and socialism, essentially.
>>965698
So anarchists basically describe a proto-state. Great. For reasons of streamlined bureaucracy and sometimes, an individual's pursuit of power, the state will grow larger.
Then you end up where you started.
>>965744
So what's the difference between comunism and anarchism?
Liberalism by Americans.
Buddhism, Taoism, and Shinto in the West.
>>965126
democracy
Obviously fascism.
>>965847
Often times Communism falls ideologically with Anarchism but in practice becomes stateism
Anarchism comes in many forms, from anarcho-capitalists to anarcho-socialists
>>966056
Do you know any theory depicting Communism or Anarchism on a large scale? It seems that anarchism cannot be realized to any significant degree, and Communism inevitably becomes statism when it functions larger than a hippy commune
>>965836
Communism is about the workers seizing the means of production, and from there transitioning into stateless and moneyless society.
At least it was until Lenin, Stalin and Mao dicked it up.
communism = does not work, favors those who control the factors of production and community planners, and if you say pure communism works your a fool people will always corrupt
Anarchism = never works. (period) don't even need to explain
Nationalism = easiest to implement, large sweeping control of population, most effective as long as their is a goal or enemy
Democracy = birthed capitalism, most effective fair form of government, when combined with capitalist polices you have the perfect form of government, that rewards citizens based on their work and effort
Socialism = opposite of democracy, most mediocre form of government, only rewards those who exploit the system, relies on the middle class to fund everything, no incentive to work harder because lack of personal rights and ownership
Libertarian-ism = future of all government, by far the fairest form of government, allows the maximum amount of liberty and control to the citizen and allows all citizens to to make their own future
>>966077
No, they didn't fuck it up, it just can't work. The transition doesn't happen. Why? There's no reason for it to happen. It's nonsense. You're giving a group of people total control over an economy and expecting them to give it back. For what? It'd be better if you just started out with the stateless society rather than naively expecting people to act outside of their own nature. At least then you'd find out fairly quickly that a 'moneyless' society with no private property isn't economically viable, and since it would be a direct democracy you could also vote it out fairly quickly.
>>966069
No because the average IQ of humans are too low for any form of anarchism to function
Though it could be mused that in a consequence free environment, anarchism works very well. Such as the internet where there are no centralized powers and the network can be used for capitalistic goals or socialistic goals; whichever the users see fit
>>966141
>I'm an American who thinks social democracy is socialism
>>966167
There needs to be a way for it to be realized on a substantial level. That's what is keeping anarchism from becoming a serious political movement rather than just philosophy, in my relatively uneducated opinion.
>>965126
Nihilism and strict agnosticism
>>966141
>The Austrian School of economics is the future
Kek
>>966405
Did anything from Austria become the future ever?
>>965280
Reminds me of this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YbdpIiKyM20
Fucking hell
>>965126
Ideas are spooks besides anarchy as that is the natural order of all the other carbon-based lifeforms.
>>971363
Infanticide, Neonaticide, Eugenics.
>>965847
Non-Anarchist communism respects the state as a tool, but never as an end.
>>971363
From what I can tell, those are insurrectionary anarchists, who are some of the worst people you're bound to find under the banner of "anarchism". The rest of them are usually either idealistic hippies or punks, very rarely you'll find half decent people who can hold a conversation for more than two minutes.
>>971363
>"Fuck the system, You're scum!" - said the upper middle class suburban douche.
>>971471
>Let's use an extremely statist society as a steppingstone to a stateless society
Luddites
Fascism.
>>971363
do they expect to be taken seriously? this baffles me
>>974193
this really it gets used as a buzzword to attack pretty much anything
