Anarchism so left its right?

[El Rojo]

this occured to me a while ago, and although my knowledge of Anarchist philosophy is lacking, i figured id ask;

Anarchism advocates a state of no government, and of individual freedom. Isnt that the same as certain right wing ideologies, small government and individualism?


this is probably a oft-repeated myth of anarchism, so if im ticking someone of by having them repudate this of the 100th time i apologise

[Dimentio]

this occured to me a while ago, and although my knowledge of Anarchist philosophy is lacking, i figured id ask;

Anarchism advocates a state of no government, and of individual freedom. Isnt that the same as certain right wing ideologies, small government and individualism?


this is probably a oft-repeated myth of anarchism, so if im ticking someone of by having them repudate this of the 100th time i apologise

Anarcho-communism, which is the ideology which most anarchists internationally are supporting, wants to abolish the state and replace it with a decentralised confederacy of councils, managing their own resources locally and democratically. The anarchists want to get rid of the state in order to get rid of private property.

[apathy maybe]

Anarchism advocates an individuals control over there own life.
Anarchism advocates no hierarchy, no oppression etc.

Anarchism, by virtue of this, is explicitly anti-capitalist.

So sure, advocating no government and a high level of freedom for individuals maybe features shared in common by certain right-wing ideologies, however, anti-capitalism is a distinctive feature that separates them.

[Cumannach]

You can't have something that is 'so left, it's right'. That's like saying something is 'so black it's white'.

[Sasha]

Anarchism advocates a state of no government, and of individual freedom. Isnt that the same as certain right wing ideologies, small government and individualism?


your question is based on a simplified understanding or anarchism;
anarchism has at least as many strands as marxism and ranges from anarcho-communism and anarcho-syndicalism to hyper individualist anarchism.
while i agree with your premises when it comes to the anarchists of the hyper-indivdualist kind; they are now a days a small minority and are most of the time either rightwing punx with a warped perception of anarchism or extreme liberal (liberal in the european sense of the word not the american) capitalists who want to present themself as intresting.

its like saying that all marxists are the same as authoritarians, while there are clearly more strands (some even explitly anti-authoritarian ones) than only the lenin-stalin-mao-hoxaists

[El Rojo]

conclusion = Archism has many elements and only one is comparable to the extreame right? Gotcha


You can't have something that is 'so left, it's right'. That's like saying something is 'so black it's white'.


Although im sure this will piss you off, I would say Stalin way for all intents and purposes a right wing dictator sprouting the occasional Marxist sayings while he sipped premium vodka in his luxury dacha.

[Sasha]

http://neatorama.cachefly.net/images/2007-06/no-exit-libertarianism-anarchy-for-rich-people.GIF

i stil lolled

[Stranger Than Paradise]

I don't understand why Individual freedom is considered right wing to you. Surely any society we want to achieve should have both individual freedom and collective equality?

[Idealism]

I don't understand why Individual freedom is considered right wing to you. Surely any society we want to achieve should have both individual freedom and collective equality?

It is not individual freedom that is right wing, its the belief that the individual should not by hampered by external force (i.e. government, community, society) in their pursuit of self-interest. That is what is meant by "individualism" not individual freedom, unless you consider the right to private property an actual right, which we dont.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

It is not individual freedom that is right wing, its the belief that the individual should not by hampered by external force (i.e. government, community, society) in their pursuit of self-interest. That is what is meant by "individualism" not individual freedom, unless you consider the right to private property an actual right, which we dont.

But we do not advocate that. That is for 'Anarcho'-Capitalists and the sort. Of course it is ridiculous for the individualists to use that term, that is because only a society with equality and freedom can achieve either.

[Idealism]

But we do not advocate that. That is for 'Anarcho'-Capitalists and the sort. Of course it is ridiculous for the individualists to use that term, that is because only a society with equality and freedom can achieve either.

I didnt mean to say we advocated for that, because the contrast to individualism is collectivism, also called social anarchism. They have a different view of liberty than us, as its the difference between "positive" and "negative" liberty.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_liberty
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_liberty

[Black Dagger]

conclusion = Archism has many elements and only one is comparable to the extreame right? Gotcha


Kind of, but not really. So-called 'anarcho-capitalism' AKA libertarian capitalism AKA right-wing libertarianism AKA Libertarianism is not an 'element' of anarchism by any means. The term 'anarchism' when used in the context of anarchism as a socio-political philosophy refers to the development of a set of ideas and a movement which found its feet in the 19thC articulated by proudhon (the first to identify with the title 'anarchist'), but advanced more by bakunin, kropotkin and others later into the 20thC.

There is no 'anarcho-capitalist' strand to the history of these ideas or of the historical anarchist movement. The advent of this term 'anarcho-capitalist' is a modern phenomenon found almost exclusively in the US, and is merely the rebranding of another (separate) political philsophy (libertarianism) - which has a distinct history from 'anarchism' and 'the anarchist movement'.


It is not individual freedom that is right wing, its the belief that the individual should not by hampered by external force (i.e. government, community, society) in their pursuit of self-interest. That is what is meant by "individualism" not individual freedom, unless you consider the right to private property an actual right, which we dont.

I don't think it's as simple as that, it really depends on what 'pursuit of self-interest' means. Anarchism (or at least anarchist communism) endorses the principal of 'from each according to ability, to each according to need' - are one's needs not also 'self-interest'? The idea that one's needs or interests be satisfied is not 'right-wing' unless the satisfaction of these needs entails the exploitation or oppression of others (thus procluding the 'freedom' to exploit anothers labour as proposed by libcaps). Otherwise certainly, no individual should be hampered by 'government, a community or society' or any coercive force to this end in a free society (i think this is a point perhaps not appreciated or considered enough by other schools of communism). Really it is one of anarchism's great strengths, the committment to the total liberation of all - and against social coercion of any form and from any source (the family, the state, a political party etc.),


Anarchism poses the question not simply of a struggle between classes based upon economic exploitation. Anarchism is really posing a much broader historical question; that even goes beyond our industrial civilization, not just classes – but hierarchy.

Hierarchy as it exists in the family; Hierarchy as it exists in the school; Hierarchy as it exists in sexual relationships; Hierarchy as it exists between ethnic groups.

Not only class divisions based upon economic exploitation, and it is concerned not only with economic exploitation – it is concerned with domination.

Domination that might not even have any economic meaning at all. The domination of women by men, in which women are not economically exploited. The domination of ordinary people by bureaucrats, in which you may even have welfare, a so-called socialist type of state. Domination as it exists today in china, even when you’re supposed to have a classless society.

So these are the things that I noted in anarchism, and increasingly I came to the conclusion that if we are to avoid the mistakes that were made over 100 years of proletarian socialism; if we are to really achieve a liberatory movement, not simply in terms of economic questions, but in terms of every aspect of life; we would have to turn to anarchism, because it alone posed the problem, not merely of class domination, but hierarchical domination. And it alone posed the question not simply of economic exploitation, but exploitation in every sphere of life.

[JimmyJazz]

Anarchism, by virtue of this, is explicitly anti-capitalist.

apathy, for obvious reasons I like you a lot better than Murray Rothbard.

But when it comes to the rather empirical question of how a stateless society will organize itself economically, why should I believe you over him?

[Black Dagger]

But when it comes to the rather empirical question of how a stateless society will organize itself economically, why should I believe you over him?

You are not encouraged by the steps taken towards anarchism in Spain for example during the revolutionary/civil war period?

[DancingLarry]

I don't understand why Individual freedom is considered right wing to you. Surely any society we want to achieve should have both individual freedom and collective equality?

Absolutely. If we're going to go to all the trouble of making a revolution, I want what we get to be worth the effort.

[ZeroNowhere]

Anarchism advocates a state of no government, and of individual freedom. Isnt that the same as certain right wing ideologies, small government and individualism?
Wait, let's be precise here. Anarchism advocates a stateless society. This would require the abolition of class rule, therefore calling it somehow 'right' is silly. After all, if libertarian socialism (excluding Blanquism and such, even though they technically advocate a stateless society too), for example, Marxism and anarcho-syndicalism, were right-wing, then the political spectrum, which is bad enough as it is, would be even sillier. As AM pointed out, capitalism inherently involves the existence of a state. 'Anarcho'-capitalists and other right-wingers, unlike anarchists, do not advocate a stateless society, they merely wish to restructure said state. For that matter, I don't think that I've ever seen an 'anarcho'-capitalist who would even be anti-state by the Weberian definition used by Ayn Rand and the like, and I doubt that it's possible for there to be one.
As for 'individualism', capitalism is a hindrance to individuality. We socialists are the real promoters of individualism, or individuality, as opposed to the right-wingers. As for individual liberty, "In place of the old bourgeois society, with its classes and class antagonisms, we shall have an association, in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all." How the fuck is promoting individual freedom 'right-wing'? We need freedom if mankind is to spread its wings, and to flourish.


But when it comes to the rather empirical question of how a stateless society will organize itself economically, why should I believe you over him?
If it organizes itself as Rothbard would advocate, it would no longer be a stateless society.

[Bilan]

The 'right wing' is not a homogenous group with a monotous form of politics. The forms go from Fascism to Libertarianism to Conservatism, and so on.
Anarchism advocates total freedom of all, collectively and individually. The organisational form and goal of anarchism is totally counterpoised to that of the ' right' generally.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Define left, and define right.

In my view, the right defends class-based societies (capitalism, slavery, feudalism), and the left is against all class boundaries. Outside of that small distinction, you end up blurring the line too much - communists, collectivists, and individualists are all "socialist," but they have different views on detailed matters.

Still, the dichotomy is hard to come by.

Statelessness is explicitly anti-capitalist, because "anarcho-capitalists" defend radical minarchism. Hoppe and Rothbard both dreamed of a world where you HAD to be subserviant to the landlord no matter what. In essence, anarcho-capitalism is just neo-feudalism.

[Jack]

The 'right wing' is not a homogenous group with a monotous form of politics. The forms go from Fascism to Libertarianism to Conservatism, and so on.

They're all anti working class, so it doesn't really matter.

[Hiero]

You can't have something that is 'so left, it's right'. That's like saying something is 'so black it's white'.

Well this idea comes from certian groups during the cold war that their far leftisim was simply based on the critique of other leftist and socialist nations. This criticism went so far it amounts to the right criticism of the socialist nations. Infact that is why have some prominent right wing politicians having a leftist background.

[Idealism]

I don't think it's as simple as that, it really depends on what 'pursuit of self-interest' means. Anarchism (or at least anarchist communism) endorses the principal of 'from each according to ability, to each according to need' - are one's needs not also 'self-interest'? The idea that one's needs or interests be satisfied is not 'right-wing' unless the satisfaction of these needs entails the exploitation or oppression of others (thus procluding the 'freedom' to exploit anothers labour as proposed by libcaps). Otherwise certainly, no individual should be hampered by 'government, a community or society' or any coercive force to this end in a free society (i think this is a point perhaps not appreciated or considered enough by other schools of communism). Really it is one of anarchism's great strengths, the committment to the total liberation of all - and against social coercion of any form and from any source (the family, the state, a political party etc.),

I wasnt meaning to say that was somehow anarcho-communism, thus the individualism, does this mean that anarcho-communists want society to control every aspect of the individuals lives? no, but the as i posted before in this thread; individualists, what i would consider to be "right-wing" anarchism, have a different concept of freedom then us.

[Hoxhaist]

anarchism can only be conceived as right if one follows the theory that the removal of govt control extends to the economy (if my understanding of anarchism is correct) this not only destabilizes the economy but creates an environment where exploitation and classes can quickly spring up because some can play the disorder better than others

[JimmyJazz]

Statelessness is explicitly anti-capitalist, because "anarcho-capitalists" defend radical minarchism. Hoppe and Rothbard both dreamed of a world where you HAD to be subserviant to the landlord no matter what.

Pinkertons? Blackwater? Private security guards? Armed payroll transport? Right-wing, racist, nativist vigilantes? Enforcing subservience to a landlord or an unequal contract doesn't require a state. Especially if you only wish to do so locally.

If you want to see a specific conception of property rights (whether capitalist or collective) enforced across an entire society, you need at least a minimal state to achieve this. And while I believe this goes for all conceptions of property rights, both leftist and rightist, the hired guns at the disposal of big business can probably come a lot closer to achieving to imposing their vision of property rights across an entire, stateless society.

@BD- My answer to Spain would be: it is not America. Did Catalonia ever in its entire history see vigilante assholes committing something like this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bisbee_Deportation)? I'm just not that impressed that the population of a relatively small region for a relatively short amount of time managed to build something close to a consensus regarding the superiority of socialist economics. Certainly not impressed enough to totally base my ideas about modern revolutionary tactics on it. I'm not trying to be cynical, it's just coming out that way.

[Chicano Shamrock]

I think people are being too harsh on the OP. I agree with him pretty much. At least what the title of the thread says. Some anarchists define themselves as off of the political map. Neither left nor right. Noam Chomsky is a Libertarian Socialist(anarchist) and believes he is a conservative. It's not as cut and dry as other thinking styles.

[Chicano Shamrock]

Pinkertons? Blackwater? Private security guards? Armed payroll transport? Right-wing, racist, nativist vigilantes? Enforcing subservience to a landlord or an unequal contract doesn't require a state. Especially if you only wish to do so locally.

If you want to see a specific conception of property rights (whether capitalist or collective) enforced across an entire society, you need at least a minimal state to achieve this. And while I believe this goes for all conceptions of property rights, both leftist and rightist, the hired guns at the disposal of big business can probably come a lot closer to achieving to imposing their vision of property rights across an entire, stateless society.

A "state" based on hierarchy? Are you going into the tired debate between what state means?What does minimal state mean?


anarchism can only be conceived as right if one follows the theory that the removal of govt control extends to the economy (if my understanding of anarchism is correct) this not only destabilizes the economy but creates an environment where exploitation and classes can quickly spring up because some can play the disorder better than others
If I am understanding you right then you are wrong. If you are talking about anarcho capitalism then yes exploitation and classes could spring up heavily but that is not a legitimate form of anarchism. That is capitalism without the state which is not anarchism. Read "An Anarchist faq" (http://www.infoshop.org/faq/index.html) for a better understanding of anarchism. Also there are a bunch of things on this site about anarchism and introductions to it.

[JimmyJazz]

Are you going into the tired debate between what state means?

I've never had that debate, actually. I thought we all agreed that the state was an instrument for class rule. Which is exactly why Marxists believe it is necessary to preserve it (although just until the ruling class has been overthrown in every country).

[#FF0000]

anarchism can only be conceived as right if one follows the theory that the removal of govt control extends to the economy (if my understanding of anarchism is correct) this not only destabilizes the economy but creates an environment where exploitation and classes can quickly spring up because some can play the disorder better than others

Sounds like you're totally wrong. We're all for collective ownership and control over the means of production (and by extension, the economy). However, we opt for non-hierarchical, non-statist means. Instead of a number of soviets that submit to the authority of a higher soviet, we instead have a federation (or confederation) of autonomous, self-managed communes that voluntarily work together based on mutual aid.

[LOLseph Stalin]

I simply don't understand this thread. I think you guys are over-complicating the issue. It's simple. "Right wing" Anarchism is simply "Libertarianism".

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Pinkertons? Blackwater? Private security guards? Armed payroll transport? Right-wing, racist, nativist vigilantes? Enforcing subservience to a landlord or an unequal contract doesn't require a state. Especially if you only wish to do so locally.

If you want to see a specific conception of property rights (whether capitalist or collective) enforced across an entire society, you need at least a minimal state to achieve this. And while I believe this goes for all conceptions of property rights, both leftist and rightist, the hired guns at the disposal of big business can probably come a lot closer to achieving to imposing their vision of property rights across an entire, stateless society.

@BD- My answer to Spain would be: it is not America. Did Catalonia ever in its entire history see vigilante assholes committing something like this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bisbee_Deportation)? I'm just not that impressed that the population of a relatively small region for a relatively short amount of time managed to build something close to a consensus regarding the superiority of socialist economics. Certainly not impressed enough to totally base my ideas about modern revolutionary tactics on it. I'm not trying to be cynical, it's just coming out that way.

My point is, you can't find a legitimate difference between a capitalist landlord and an existing state. Rothbard simply falls back on whoever first mixes their labor with the soil, but then he freely admits one could acquire a backyard without doing much to it. Thus, by his own admission, "anarchism" is really just minarchism. By avoiding any reference to class distinctions, Rothbard has made it impossible for "anarcho-capitalism" to be anything short of statism.

[danny bohy]

The term Anarchism can be interpretted in so many different ways you could say that this is true. but the ideal anarchism advocates equality and good morals. It is supposed to be about the good of everyone not just the good of some people like right wing idealogies. and also right wing idealogies are conservative and dont want change. you cant get more of a ghange than anarchism seeing as its really the only thing that hasnt been done.

[GPDP]

I might as well bring this up here.

How do ancaps propose we arrive at their ideal society? Through a libertarian party? Revolution? Gradual dismantling of the state?

And for the minarchists - what would be the political structure of their minimal state? Do they propose a democracy? A representative republic? Dictatorship of the enlightened? Just a mere judicial body charged with enforcing contracts and property rights? What about ancaps? Would there be ANY kind of polity? Or is it all really done through spontaneous individual associations?

I usually hear little out of libertarians and ancaps that doesn't have to do with economics, the virtues of capitalism and private property, and the evils of the state and collectivism, so I hope it's understandable that everything else about their vision is so muddled up. They talk more about what they don't like than the actual make up of a future "libertarian" society, or how to actually get there.

[Black Dagger]

GPDP, considering libertarian capitalists are restricted i would not expect any direct response from them here :unsure:

As for speculation on the questions you raise, i can only imagine they see their vision taking hold at the behest of some kind of neo-liberal government - devolving powers, and slowly 'withering away'... as they are not known for being 'revolutionaries'.

[MarxSchmarx]

And for the minarchists - what would be the political structure of their minimal state? Do they propose a democracy? A representative republic? Dictatorship of the enlightened? Just a mere judicial body charged with enforcing contracts and property rights? What about ancaps? Would there be ANY kind of polity? Or is it all really done through spontaneous individual associations?


I think minarchism has even more pressing limitations.

From what little I know about "minarchism", the exact nature of the state is irrelevant from a minarchist perspective.

As best I can gather, their only interest is in the idea that the state be restricted to the 'nightwatchman', and whether that be through a single King, direct democracy, or hell local communes for that matter, is irrelevant in their view.

Under this understanding, the vigilance of the people is supposed to keep dibs on any excesses by the minimal state. Most minarchists would probably opine that whatever formal mechanisms exist to protest state encroachment would be useless compared to a well-informed and determined populace.

Nevertheless, the central weakness of minarchism is that it still leads to the creation of an empowered bureaucracy with its own class interests.