Isn't Anarchism a Rightist ideology?

[himalayanspirit]

Under Anarchism, there won't be any body to enforce (maintain) law among the citizens, and, as a result, there would be nothing to monitor the trade/"exchange of goods" between individuals which could also be driven by greed for profit or personal benefit. People would be free to form organizations and groups for their own profits, because there is no one above them to govern them. This is so much like the free market economy of the capitalists.
Then why is Anarchism considered a left ideology?

Shouldn't Anarchism be a Rightist ideology? In fact, to me it seems to be the most extremely rightist ideology - the epitome of laissez-faire economy.

[Blackscare]

Well if that ridiculous straw man were actually representative of anarchism, you'd be right. Fortunately, it isn't.

Read some anarchist literature before you make crazy claims like that again. Something by Peter Kropotkin would be preferable, since it'd show you why most anarchist thought is indeed leftist (he founded anarcho-communism).


The definition of communism is a "classless and stateless society". Does that make it right wing as well? :rolleyes:

[teenagebricks]

The idea behind a right wing and a left wing originated in France and refers to seating arrangements in government, those who believed in social hierarchy, authority of the state, and nationalism would sit on the right. While the idea of a free market goes hand in hand with right wing politics, it isn't necessariliy right wing by definition, it only becomes right wing when the capitalists become authoritarian, these days this is usually the case, and of course it does promote social hierarchy, but in an anarchist society there would be none of that, so it would not be rightist at all. I believe you are thinking of right libertarianism, or anarcho capitalism.

[griffjam]

No.

[himalayanspirit]

Okay, thanks. I guess I will read more because my knowledge at the moment is at its infancy.
One thing I would want to know is; isn't there a possibility in an Anarchist society for the formation of oppressive classes once again from the point of statelessness and classlessness?

How is crime supposed to be monitored in an Anarchist society? If an anarchist society is a society with no crime, no greed, no communalism, then isn't it just a utopian idea? As much as I know, there can never be a lawless society. For example, consider the example from history. The Mongolians were more or less under Anarchism before Genghis Khan's emergence (I suppose) because there was no law to govern them. But there was crime, inter-tribal wars, and constant bloodshed and violence. Eventually, the Mongols ended up being lead by Genghis Khan; this was a natural transition from an approximately Anarchist Mongol society.

And since there would always be propensities of the perfect (ideal) anarchism being disturbed by lawlessness, crime, communalism and greed, wouldn't that society naturally disintegrate or collapse?

In abstract terms, I am only saying that there should be some "force" to maintain Anarchism, because if it was natural, it would have long been naturally established in the human societies. However, if there is some "force" required to maintain Anarchism,
would it still remain "Anarchy"?

PS- I know I asked too much without reading much about Anarchism. But I hope I get at least the answer for my last query.

[teenagebricks]

Anarchism was naturally established in human societies, there were no leaders when we were put on this planet. As for crime, it could easily be dealt with cooperatively and democratically by the public, the idea of a police force would be redundant anyway, since capitalism is one of the main causes of crime. Capitalism leads to crime, crime leads to authority, getting rid of capitalism and authority would solve a surprising amount of seemingly unrelated problems.

[GPDP]

Anarchy means "without rulers." It does not mean "without rules." Some form of government would still be present under an anarchist society. It would be heavily decentralized, however, and there would be no leader towering above the masses. The people themselves would be part of the government, and take part in the administration of everyday matters.

Remember, statelessness =/= lawlessness.

[Pogue]

If you're opposed to anarchism, as in the structure of society, your also opposed to communism, because they're the same things. Anarchism is the political doctrine and theory of how to get there.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Under Anarchism, there won't be any body to enforce (maintain) law among the citizens, and, as a result, there would be nothing to monitor the trade/"exchange of goods" between individuals which could also be driven by greed for profit or personal benefit. People would be free to form organizations and groups for their own profits, because there is no one above them to govern them. This is so much like the free market economy of the capitalists.
Then why is Anarchism considered a left ideology?

Shouldn't Anarchism be a Rightist ideology? In fact, to me it seems to be the most extremely rightist ideology - the epitome of laissez-faire economy.

A free market is not "rightist."

[Communist Theory]

Shoot the idiot!
Purge, purge, purge. :closedeyes:

[Kukulofori]

:/ at all these reply basically calling the TC an idiot.

You guys weren't born knowing everything about leftism either.

The answer is that without a state to guarantee the existence of private property, it doesn't exist. How exactly will you stop me from using a factory you "own" if the laws forbidding me from doing so have been revolted against?

[Tower of Bebel]

Under Anarchism, there won't be any body to enforce (maintain) law among the citizens, and, as a result, there would be nothing to monitor the trade/"exchange of goods" between individuals which could also be driven by greed for profit or personal benefit. People would be free to form organizations and groups for their own profits, because there is no one above them to govern them. This is so much like the free market economy of the capitalists.
Then why is Anarchism considered a left ideology?

Shouldn't Anarchism be a Rightist ideology? In fact, to me it seems to be the most extremely rightist ideology - the epitome of laissez-faire economy.
When there's no production of commodities, what will there be left to trade (> exchange)? When there's nothing to trade, will there be a (free) market? When there's no wage slavery, nor any money, where will greed for capital come from?
I think you'll need to look up the basics of communism to grasp what we stand for. The difference between anarchists and communists is mainly a tactical one; sometimes strategically, but not to be found in what we think are the ends of our struggles.

[Comrade Kaile]

If you wanna get a good look at how anarchy would end out, just look at the game Fallout 3. Just ignore the mutants...

Sure you've removed the government, and its laws, but as many have said you would have sects that form up in a common belief, i.e. the Tenpenny Tower, some cappy decided to inhabit a hotel, and then refuses anybody except the bourgeois to live there. Alternatively you've got murderous raiders and some groups of nice happy people that actually don't where the country went.

That's just my opinion, it'd probably go down something a little bit differently. Oh and the elimination of the means of production, and thus the commodities, wont remove the capitalist element in the remains of society, you'll have slavers, upstarts who try to reform the government, and so on.

And the motivations of others to pursue their own materialistic desires I think is a freedom granted by a complete anarchy, but you also the pursuit of others in attempting an egalitarian commune. On this note you could state that anarchy is just extreme libertarianism with a heavy left connotation.

[Jack]

If you wanna get a good look at how anarchy would end out, just look at the game Fallout 3. Just ignore the mutants...

Sure you've removed the government, and its laws, but as many have said you would have sects that form up in a common belief, i.e. the Tenpenny Tower, some cappy decided to inhabit a hotel, and then refuses anybody except the bourgeois to live there. Alternatively you've got murderous raiders and some groups of nice happy people that actually don't where the country went.

That's just my opinion, it'd probably go down something a little bit differently. Oh and the elimination of the means of production, and thus the commodities, wont remove the capitalist element in the remains of society, you'll have slavers, upstarts who try to reform the government, and so on.

And the motivations of others to pursue their own materialistic desires I think is a freedom granted by a complete anarchy, but you also the pursuit of others in attempting an egalitarian commune. On this note you could state that anarchy is just extreme libertarianism with a heavy left connotation.

You should get that red flag out of your picture.

[StalinFanboy]

If you wanna get a good look at how anarchy would end out, just look at the game Fallout 3. Just ignore the mutants...

Sure you've removed the government, and its laws, but as many have said you would have sects that form up in a common belief, i.e. the Tenpenny Tower, some cappy decided to inhabit a hotel, and then refuses anybody except the bourgeois to live there. Alternatively you've got murderous raiders and some groups of nice happy people that actually don't where the country went.

That's just my opinion, it'd probably go down something a little bit differently. Oh and the elimination of the means of production, and thus the commodities, wont remove the capitalist element in the remains of society, you'll have slavers, upstarts who try to reform the government, and so on.

And the motivations of others to pursue their own materialistic desires I think is a freedom granted by a complete anarchy, but you also the pursuit of others in attempting an egalitarian commune. On this note you could state that anarchy is just extreme libertarianism with a heavy left connotation.

Are you for real? What the fuck do you think communism is?


Am I the only one who feels that this persons avatar is reminiscent of National Bolshevik imagery?

[Bright Banana Beard]

If you wanna get a good look at how anarchy would end out, just look at the game Fallout 3. Just ignore the mutants...

Sure you've removed the government, and its laws, but as many have said you would have sects that form up in a common belief, i.e. the Tenpenny Tower, some cappy decided to inhabit a hotel, and then refuses anybody except the bourgeois to live there. Alternatively you've got murderous raiders and some groups of nice happy people that actually don't where the country went.

That's just my opinion, it'd probably go down something a little bit differently. Oh and the elimination of the means of production, and thus the commodities, wont remove the capitalist element in the remains of society, you'll have slavers, upstarts who try to reform the government, and so on.

And the motivations of others to pursue their own materialistic desires I think is a freedom granted by a complete anarchy, but you also the pursuit of others in attempting an egalitarian commune. On this note you could state that anarchy is just extreme libertarianism with a heavy left connotation.

You literally failed. Sign off, walk on the bridge, and then jump off of it. That should show you how fucked up you are thinking right now.

[Comrade GothMoth]

If you wanna get a good look at how anarchy would end out, just look at the game Fallout 3. Just ignore the mutants...

Sure you've removed the government, and its laws, but as many have said you would have sects that form up in a common belief, i.e. the Tenpenny Tower, some cappy decided to inhabit a hotel, and then refuses anybody except the bourgeois to live there. Alternatively you've got murderous raiders and some groups of nice happy people that actually don't where the country went.

That's just my opinion, it'd probably go down something a little bit differently. Oh and the elimination of the means of production, and thus the commodities, wont remove the capitalist element in the remains of society, you'll have slavers, upstarts who try to reform the government, and so on.

And the motivations of others to pursue their own materialistic desires I think is a freedom granted by a complete anarchy, but you also the pursuit of others in attempting an egalitarian commune. On this note you could state that anarchy is just extreme libertarianism with a heavy left connotation.

Comrade. Fallout 3 is in no way a representation of anarchy. The anarchy represented there was anarchy imposed by war, not from a revolutionary upheaval of the working class.

Where did you get the idea that anarchism 'eliminates the means of production'? The means of production, commodity production will not be abolished, they will be altered and taken from the oppression of the bourgeois to be given to the proletariat to use for the satisfaction of human need, not to slake the insatiable thirst for profit. They'll be used by everyone, for everyone, and we, as the people, will democratically decide how production should proceed.

When the international revolution is achieved by the working class, and true, direct, democracy is achieved (I mean the communist utopia, not socialism), then there will be no-one to abuse power. What positions of power will they abuse? What good will a few rebels be against an armed populace convinced of the merits of communism? The order is one of community order, created by themselves, for themselves, on democratic principles.

[Comrade Kaile]

i see. thanks for the education, and not the abuse.

[cb9's_unity]

In reality anarchism equals something like socialist direct democracy. Not chaos as is the common belief.

[Holger Meins]

Before I start i will define capitalism as right wing, and socialism as left wing.

TC is wrong, and his/her misconception stems from the common belief that capitalism == free market and that socialism == state-controlled, more or less, planned economy. This is not the case. First, socialism simply means that the worker get the whole share of his work, and whether this conceived by communist means or by mutualist means is not relevant. Mutualism is still as much socialism as communism, no matter how much statist "communists" upholds that it's not.

Another misconception is, as said, that capitalism == free market. A capitalist market is not free, infact it is a very unfree market. Many monopolies (patents, land monopoly, intellectual property), all of wich is constantly fought for on the right wing, creates a unfree market. Ownership of land in capitalism is not based on tenancy and use, instead it is based on ownership by claim, even if the capitalist doesn't use the land he can still claim that it is his and therefore charge people for using it (rent).

If anarchism would be a right-wing ideology, it would not protest against these monopolies, and it would not assert the workers right to all that he produces. But that is just what anarchism claims. Anarchism is maximum freedom for the individual, and wage slavery, patents, land monopoly, intellectual property, the very essence of capitalism, is seen as limitations of the individual freedom.

[Brother No. 1]

Under Anarchism, there won't be any body to enforce (maintain) law among the citizens, and, as a result, there would be nothing to monitor the trade/"exchange of goods" between individuals which could also be driven by greed for profit or personal benefit.

Communsim doesnt have a body to "enforce" anything. Its a stateless,classless Socitey like Anarchism.




People would be free to form organizations and groups for their own profits, because there is no one above them to govern them. This is so much like the free market economy of the capitalists.


In Anarchsim there wont be profit. Besides how is the controling Market of Capitalist society like Anarchism? Anarchism destroys the state and heads to Communism quicker. I'm not Anarchist but I'm fully in disagree with you for Anarchism is a proud leftist Ideal. Anarchists and Communists are leftists who right the right Capitalists.


Then why is Anarchism considered a left ideology?

because it is a left ideology. It gives freedom, and a stateless,classless soctiey and thats what Communism brings so yes Anarchism is a leftist ideology through and through.




Shouldn't Anarchism be a Rightist ideology? In fact, to me it seems to be the most extremely rightist ideology

Its not rightist for many reasons. #1: it doesnt opress the people, the working class, it opresses no one. #2: it gives freedom and a Classless,stateless Society to the people but just skips over Socialism for they believe the state,even under Socialism, opresses the masses. But please read up on Anarchism before asking people stuff like this.