I would say Anarcho-primitivism, no?
Even if Lennon did not realize his ideas reflected this form of anarchy, I think they fit to a 'T'. His song led me to the realization that I am an anarcho-primitivist.
If there were "no countries, nothing to live or die for." aka. no structured organization; or private property, or even greed; there would be world peace. That's how we anarcho-primitivists see it. Although there aren't many anarcho-primitivists out there. So, because other branches of anarchy have not claimed this song to be theirs, and because it completely lies in the anarcho-primitivist spectrum, I think it's fair to say that it belongs with Anarcho-primitivism. In all other anarchies, part of the song does not fit, or has to be stretched so that it may fully lie within their spectrum. I believe Lennon was an Anarcho-primitivist (although not in practice, but perhaps he was somewhat with his trips to India), even if he didn't realize that there was a term for it. Anarchy is not bad either, and I think that if people had a stronger understanding of it, like Lennon provides in "Imagine," it wouldn't be frowned upon as much. Now are the goals of an anarchist truly tangible, maybe maybe not, but the ideas are flawless- and that is their purpose: to be flawless, but improbable.
My question is not whether or not Lennon was an anarchist, although I wouldn't mind hearing open-minded discussion on that. My question is whether or not Lennon was an anarcho-primitivist or not? And I wouldn't mind hearing some OPEN-MINDED (not close-minded) insight on this.
Even if Lennon did not realize his ideas reflected this form of anarchy, I think they fit to a 'T'. His song led me to the realization that I am an anarcho-primitivist.
If there were "no countries, nothing to live or die for." aka. no structured organization; or private property, or even greed; there would be world peace. That's how we anarcho-primitivists see it. Although there aren't many anarcho-primitivists out there. So, because other branches of anarchy have not claimed this song to be theirs, and because it completely lies in the anarcho-primitivist spectrum, I think it's fair to say that it belongs with Anarcho-primitivism. In all other anarchies, part of the song does not fit, or has to be stretched so that it may fully lie within their spectrum. I believe Lennon was an Anarcho-primitivist (although not in practice, but perhaps he was somewhat with his trips to India), even if he didn't realize that there was a term for it. Anarchy is not bad either, and I think that if people had a stronger understanding of it, like Lennon provides in "Imagine," it wouldn't be frowned upon as much. Now are the goals of an anarchist truly tangible, maybe maybe not, but the ideas are flawless- and that is their purpose: to be flawless, but improbable.
My question is not whether or not Lennon was an anarchist, although I wouldn't mind hearing open-minded discussion on that. My question is whether or not Lennon was an anarcho-primitivist or not? And I wouldn't mind hearing some OPEN-MINDED (not close-minded) insight on this.