Why is Anarchy considered leftist?

[Zak]

If anarchists desire the absence of a formal government or state why are they considered part of the left? This is the very definition of the right, the reduction of the powers of the state. It seams as though Anarchism is the most extreme form of right-wing government. It essentially cuts all government programs, spending, and taxation and then dissolves the official government. All of these things are the goals of the right; however the left ideally increases the government’s benefits to the people while increasing the size and influence of the state.

[violencia.Proletariat]

This is the very definition of the right, the reduction of the powers of the state.

Anarchism does not feel capitalism can regulate itself without a government (the extreme right your talking about) it wishes to abolish capitalism along with the state which it deems opressive and hierarchical.


It essentially cuts all government programs, spending, and taxation and then dissolves the official government.

Yes, it wishes to make the direct tranistion to direct democracy and have the dictatorship of the proletariat without a state.

If you dont already know, communism is a stateless, classless, moneyless society.


All of these things are the goals of the right

All the goals above are extreme opposites of what the right wants to accomplish. The so called "anarcho capitalists" (which is a contradiction of words) feel the market can regulate everything so there is no need for a state. While anarchists wish to abolish "the market" and the state since they are both tools of exploitation and opression.


however the left ideally increases the government’s benefits to the people while increasing the size and influence of the state.

You stereotype the left as some kind of welfare state. YOU ARE WRONG. We want communism (stateless, classless society) not capitalism light.

[ReD_ReBeL]

There is left wing and right wing Anarchism:

Anarcho-capitalism (aka free market anarchism): is a philosophy based on the idea of individual sovereignty, and a prohibition against initiatory coercion and fraud. It sees the only just basis for law as arising from private property norms and an unlimited right of contract between sovereign individuals. From this basis, anarcho-capitalism rejects the state as an unjustified monopolist and systematic aggressor against sovereign individuals, and embraces anti-statist laissez-faire capitalism. Anarcho-capitalists would aim to protect individual liberty and property by replacing a government monopoly, which is involuntarily funded through taxation, with private, competing businesses that use physical force only in defense of liberty and property against aggressors. Hence, they believe that all goods and services, including law, order, and security, should be supplied through the mechanism of a free market.


Left Anarchism: is a term used almost exclusively by opponents of traditional anarchism to denominate philosophies that oppose capitalism (private ownership of the means of production). This term thus encompasses anarcho-communism, libertarian socialism, and anarcho-syndicalism. In the post-leftist schema the polemical element is "left anarchism's" adherence to a political plane of action. In the pro-market schema the polemical element is "left anarchism's" anti-market views.

[violencia.Proletariat]

Red Rebel, no anarchist I've ever spoken with considers there to be such a thing as "anarcho capitalism" seeing how capitalism in itself is hierarchical. Therefore it not anarchism.

[Alexknucklehead]

'Anarcho-Capitalism' is a largely dead concept cooked up by the ultra-liberal 'Anarcho-Individualists' in the Stirner vein. It is pretty much ignored these days to the extent that there is not even much point in analysing it.

Zak, the points you make lack an understanding of what Anarchism is even on a basic level as Nate has shown. I suggest you read some simplistic introductory theory on the subject.

[Djehuti]

Anarcho-Capitalism is decended from liberalism (not anarchism), and is not a part of the anarchist tradition. It's a naîve utopia. Capitalism demands a state, there can be no anarcho-capitalism. And anarchism is not just an anti-state tradition anyway, it is also anti-capitalist and more.


"Anarcho-capitalism, in my opinion, is a doctrinal system which, if ever implemented, would lead to forms of tyranny and oppression that have few counterparts in human history. There isn't the slightest possibility that its (in my view, horrendous) ideas would be implemented, because they would quickly destroy any society that made this colossal error. The idea of "free contract" between the potentate and his starving subject is a sick joke, perhaps worth some moments in an academic seminar exploring the consequences of (in my view, absurd) ideas, but nowhere else."
Noam Chomsky


And Stirner never viewed himself as and anarchist and he was an anti-capitalist and an anti-individualist (he was an egoist, not an individualist). Anarcho-capitalism does not really have anything to do with Stirner. Marx was quite inspired by Stirner though.

[Alexknucklehead]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2006, 07:53 PM
And Stirner never viewed himself as and anarchist and he was an anti-capitalist and an anti-individualist (he was an egoist, not an individualist). Anarcho-capitalism does not really have anything to do with Stirner. Marx was quite inspired by Stirner though.
Being an egoist makes you somewhat of an Individualist I think you'll find mate in regard to the fact that the ego is viewed as all-important over the free collection of peoples in a society, including the individual right to profit in the abstract sense. Egoism paved the way for Individualism.

And if you'll look at my post properly you'll see that I didn't refer to Stirner individually, I referred to the vague field of ultra-liberalists influenced by Stirner's thinking who transformed it into the ideas of 'Anarcho-Capitalism/Individualism'.

[Don't Change Your Name]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2006, 04:14 PM
If anarchists desire the absence of a formal government or state why are they considered part of the left? This is the very definition of the right, the reduction of the powers of the state. It seams as though Anarchism is the most extreme form of right-wing government. It essentially cuts all government programs, spending, and taxation and then dissolves the official government. All of these things are the goals of the right; however the left ideally increases the government’s benefits to the people while increasing the size and influence of the state.
You've been misled by right-wing propaganda.

Do some research on anarchism (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=6421). It's not that hard.

The "reduction of the powers of the state" of the "right wing" just means a proportional increase of the powers of private owners. When the "right wing" whines about "big government" they usually do so because they see it as a threat to their property "rights".

They still want to be your boss.

[Djehuti]

Ok. But Stirner very forcefully critizised "the individual" for being a collection of identities that is more or less forced upon one from without (he calls them "ghosts"). Instad he searches "inwards" man and tries to find the genuin, the "ego". The ego is not an identity in that sence of the word, it is rather some kind of "primal force" that drives us. He talks about Power, and what the ego with its power forces under himself he calls Property (the words are therefor used in a totally different sence than usual. He is no liberal who wants private property, that is something different...). Nietzsche would some years later talk about "the will to power" as this driving force.

The problem with Stirners Ego was that he did not realize that what the Ego was, and how it's Power looked and worked, also was a subject to change (it was historical). This was actually Marx's critique (Marx liked Stirner, and Stirners book "The Owner and His Property" was very important to Marx' intelectual development.) on Stirner.

[Alexknucklehead]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2006, 08:36 PM
Ok. But Stirner very forcefully critizised "the individual" for being a collection of identities that is more or less forced upon one from without (he calls them "ghosts"). Instad he searches "inwards" man and tries to find the genuin, the "ego". The ego is not an identity in that sence of the word, it is rather some kind of "primal force" that drives us. He talks about Power, and what the ego with its power forces under himself he calls Property (the words are therefor used in a totally different sence than usual. He is no liberal who wants private property, that is something different...). Nietzsche would some years later talk about "the will to power" as this driving force.

The problem with Stirners Ego was that he did not realize that what the Ego was, and how it's Power looked and worked, also was a subject to change (it was historical). This was actually Marx's critique (Marx liked Stirner, and Stirners book "The Owner and His Property" was very important to Marx' intelectual development.) on Stirner.
Once again, I wasn't talking about Stirner, when I said 'in the Stirner vein' I was talking about the Individualists who drew their perspectives on individual importance from Stirner's egoism and added (or twisted whichever way you look at it) their own angle, coming up with Individualism.

Although you'll be hard pushed to find a quote more fitting from a man who was a precursing force to Individualism - "Whoever knows how to take, to defend, the thing, to him belongs property."

Regradless of whether particular Individualists chose to label themselves anti-capitalist or not the fact is that 'Anarcho-Capitalism' is Individualism taken to (from their point of view) its logical conclusion, which I suppose you could call extreme-right market economics. Hence nothing to do with Anarchism, thus answering the person who posted this thread.

Perhaps 'in the Stirner vein' was a bad choice of words for you... :rolleyes:

[rioters bloc]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2006, 06:14 AM
If anarchists desire the absence of a formal government or state why are they considered part of the left? This is the very definition of the right, the reduction of the powers of the state.
communism also desires the absence of formal government - is that also a rightist ideology? :blink: if so, what is the left, really?

[More Fire for the People]

It essentially cuts all government programs, spending, and taxation and then dissolves the official government. All of these things are the goals of the right; however the left ideally increases the government’s benefits to the people while increasing the size and influence of the state.
What law is there that says that unions, cooperatives, workers’ councils, and workers’ organisations cannot do this? Even in our capitalist societies workers’ organisations are far better at finding work for the unemployed and unions are far better at negotiating wages than the state.

[Jadan ja]

This is the very definition of the right, the reduction of the powers of the state. It seams as though Anarchism is the most extreme form of right-wing government.

Who told you these interesting "definitions"?

About anarcho capitalists:
What "anarcho"-capitalists don't understand is that market is just a result of government's actions. Market is competition, and competition is impossible without certain rules which must be written by the government (these rules are usually created to help capitalists to exploit workers). Markets aren't markets without protection of property, which is also provided by the governments. Hierarchy of capitalism, and (any kind of) hierarchy is what all anarchists oppose, is impossible if there is no government to defend it.

All communists and anarchists are against goverment's existance. Mussolini, I think, defined fascism as the directly the opposite of these idelogies, because fascism advocates extending the powers of the state. In fascist ideology, state is most important and people should live for the state. Fascists hate the leftist ideas of elimination of the state and hierarchy (they firmly believe in hierarchy) more than anything else. (I forgot where I found these explanations, so if anyone wants to help me by adding quotations, or correcting me on something, please do that.)

So, according to you "definitions", fascism would be left wing and communism right-wing?

[Goatse]

"Anarcho"-Capitalists wish for the state to be abolished, but to keep the market privatized. There is no way this would ever work. There would be thousands of mini-wars between corporations, horrible conditions on the streets, wildlife would be completely wiped out, and even if society didn't collapse, the world would be wiped out by huge pollution levels. When the world reached a stage were it was almost certainly doomed, either a centralized government would form to try and regain order and stop the imminent disaster, or everyone would die.

A true anarchist society would be almost identical (if not exactly) to a communist society.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by Jadan [email protected] 14 2006, 12:57 PM
So, according to you "definitions", fascism would be left wing and communism right-wing?
Left refers to any idea that seeks to improve society for the benefit of the majority. Or one that focuses on the majorities concerns. Right is simply more opportunist focusing on the interests of the individual, or a small minority of people.

Anarchism is seen as "left wing" because it seeks to destroy Capitalism and Hierarchy and create a communist society, or at least, a variation of.

[Goatse]

Wasn't the left-right scale made as an attempt to undermine females? Because left was the female side, and right the male, and it was adopted that anything extreme was to be considered "left"? Or something like that, I read this a long time ago, and I don't know if it was a factual book or anything.

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2006, 04:45 PM
Wasn't the left-right scale made as an attempt to undermine females? Because left was the female side, and right the male, and it was adopted that anything extreme was to be considered "left"? Or something like that, I read this a long time ago, and I don't know if it was a factual book or anything.
In the French Legislative Assembly of 1791, during that whole Revolution business, the royalists sat on the right of the hall while the radical republicans sat on the left. And from there the phrase caught on.

[Goatse]

Ah right, what I read was bullshit then.

My bad.

[Zak]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2006, 04:45 PM
Wasn't the left-right scale made as an attempt to undermine females? Because left was the female side, and right the male, and it was adopted that anything extreme was to be considered "left"? Or something like that, I read this a long time ago, and I don't know if it was a factual book or anything.
Left and Right come from the seating of the 18th centaury British Parliament. Where conservatives sat on the right and liberals on the left. I want to emphasize that I'm not trying to push any side here I'm just trying to clear something up. By the nature of the responses I take it my definition of left and right wing was not in keeping with other people on the board here. Before I posted this I read the pined article on Anarchism on this forum. I took the definition of left and right for granted; I now see it is not.

I take Princeton to be a reliable source

Left wing

n : those who support varying degrees of social or political or economic change designed to promote the public welfare [syn: left]

Source: WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University

right wing

n : those who support political or social or economic conservatism; those who believe that things are better left unchanged [syn: right]

conservatism

n : a political or theological orientation advocating the preservation of the best in society and opposing radical changes [syn: conservativism]

So yes, I apologize, I was wrong in my definition of left and right, but I asked the question to learn.


So, according to you "definitions", fascism would be left wing and communism right-wing?

No, according to my definitions fascism would be right wing because the state is very small only one man, centralized power. That’s what the right was originally all about centralizing power. But my definition was wrong. According to Princeton Fascism would be left wing because it desires change.




You've been misled by right-wing propaganda.

The "reduction of the powers of the state" of the "right wing" just means a proportional increase of the powers of private owners. When the "right wing" whines about "big government" they usually do so because they see it as a threat to their property "rights".

They still want to be your boss.


I'm not attaching any ethical perspectives. I'm a leftist. I'm just talking about the definitions of the ideologies. I agree with your statments above. I took this reduction of the government to be the basis of the concervatives.

[YSR]

Your definition of left and right are not in keeping with what is generally seen as correct, not just with people on this board.

It's not as though the radical community is the only place where anarchists are considered leftists. A dictionary is not exactly the best place to look up the definitions of left vs right wing. An encyclopedia would be a better location.

Furthermore, if

Left wing

n : those who support varying degrees of social or political or economic change designed to promote the public welfare [syn: left]


then I'm pretty sure those who encourage abolition of the current model of government and the market are probably left-wing.

And for the record, I think ComradeOm is correct the left/right name origin.

[Jadan ja]

Originally posted by Additives Free+Feb 14 2006, 04:09 PM--> (Additives Free @ Feb 14 2006, 04:09 PM)
Jadan [email protected] 14 2006, 12:57 PM
So, according to you "definitions", fascism would be left wing and communism right-wing?
Left refers to any idea that seeks to improve society for the benefit of the majority. Or one that focuses on the majorities concerns. Right is simply more opportunist focusing on the interests of the individual, or a small minority of people.

Anarchism is seen as "left wing" because it seeks to destroy Capitalism and Hierarchy and create a communist society, or at least, a variation of. [/b]
This question was for Zak. It was about his definitions.