General Discussion

RobertEarl

(13,685 posts)

18. How about this description: 'Anarchistic'

Tue Mar 20, 2012, 10:30 PM

Mar 2012

Corps do love that the government controls individuals. But hate that government tries to control them. So maybe the right term is they are not anarchist but anarchistic?

Like someone above said: to claim they are anarchist is to imply personhood. So maybe it is that in their corporate yearning for elimination of over-arching rules they are simply anarchistic? Which is merely a political stance.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

21 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Real Anarchists [View all] RobertEarl Mar 2012 OP

corporations are not anarchist institutions. that is just silly. Warren Stupidity Mar 2012 #1

Oh? Silly? No. Just not understood, obviuosly. RobertEarl Mar 2012 #2

No I said corps are not anarchist orgs. Warren Stupidity Mar 2012 #3

they are anarchist RobertEarl Mar 2012 #4

This plays into the Tea Party mantra... brooklynite Mar 2012 #5

that's a good first step RobertEarl Mar 2012 #6

yeah what would I know. Warren Stupidity Mar 2012 #8

Indeed, corps are extreme statist institutions. JackRiddler Mar 2012 #14

Corporations, per se, are not anarchists - the people who run them, are... JFN1 Mar 2012 #7

Tsk tsk tsk there is a difference between anarchy and anarchism Taverner Mar 2012 #9

No leaders...exactly RobertEarl Mar 2012 #17

Corporations are anarchists? Really?! white_wolf Mar 2012 #10

Actually, large groups of people cannot successfully exist without Skidmore Mar 2012 #12

"Libertarianism is Anarchism for the rich" ErikJ Mar 2012 #11

Not quite. Corporations want government control... backscatter712 Mar 2012 #13

Totalitarians is correct RobertEarl Mar 2012 #15

Corporations are not anarchists. baldguy Mar 2012 #16

How about this description: 'Anarchistic' RobertEarl Mar 2012 #18

Instead of trying to reinvent the wheel, why not use the actual definitions of the word? baldguy Mar 2012 #20

Thanks. A nice confirmation RobertEarl Mar 2012 #21

Whut? lonestarnot Mar 2012 #19