How can Anarchy be Left-wing?

Anarchism as I understand it is a subset of socialism. Socialism and communism seek a leaderless society just like anarchism. The communist dictatorships that actually have come in to power tend not to really be in line with what communism is meant to be.

Anarchism is 'no-wing' - ideally socialist, but like all Libertarian ideologies the consequences will be unbridled Right-wing nightmare!

Justify your claim.

Actually, it's historically been part of the Left. Is there no subject where you don't spew ignorance?

Lord of the flies, Rule of the jungle, Mafia, Somalia, Small villages in developing nations, school playground, street gangs etc....who rules in those situations?

There is a reason why the word 'anarchy' has a meaning of chaos in the popular usage of it

or do you really think, that if no govt was around then everyone would all 'just get along' ?

it's a current of thought, perhaps associated with Marxism and the Left in purely academic terms, but in the real world - no thanks!

I'd prefer not to have to sleep with a shotgun under my pillow

Even Marxism has an end goal of a stateless society with the administration of things rather than the government of persons (as Engels put it).

Lol, did you know anarchy and communism and socialism are tautologies of each other? Anarchy and communism are the same thing.

It's funny how your whole argument against anarchy is that you fear a centralised gang will rise to power and rule over people. What's your solution to this? Create a government - a centralised gang that rules over people.

https://scontent-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.net...df&oe=55EDB0CC

After skimming through this entire thread, I'm surprised no one has posted this diagram. I'm sure the more traditional Marxists will disagree with their own placement, but I think it does place social anarchy in the correct place.

Not the worst of such diagrams that I've seen, but is there any justification for neoliberalism being placed on the left? I can't think of any. Classical liberalism and republicanism are pretty debatable, too, for that matter.

Neo-liberals, liberals, reformists and social-democrats are more "libertarian" than Marxists. Cuz y'know Marx = state = authority, 'invisible' laws of the market = liberty.

What a crock of shit.

In theory, you're right. In practice, it has yet to work out that way. But that's another discussion.

It is important to make a distinction between rulers and authorities. Rulers should be eliminated, but authorities cannot be. There will always be those with a certain level of senority over others. For example, there are more experienced tradespersons that would be in a position to make decisions that less experienced ones shouldn't make.

Anarchy seeks to eliminate positions of generalized authority. In particular contexts there will always be some sort of authority. Though these descisons must always be subject to veto or recall to prevent corruption. No power shall be absolute. Self-justifying authorities should be eliminated.

Anarchy is not a society without authority. It is a society without self-justifying authority.

I think a partial quote from the Roman statesman Seneca brings to mind how the rich are enslaved by capitalism too.

Capitalism enslaves us all.

Anarchy isn't left wing. It is libertarian. Most forms of Anarchy are left wing but some are not. Individualist Anarchism, National-Anarchism, and Anarcho-Capitalism comes to mind. I don't see why you are worried about anarchy. Most don't want to jump straight into the stateless society. Most want to condition the people through the lower stages of communism until the upper stage is reached. It isn't some boom revolution now lets get rid of the state completely.

The term "libertarian" has historically been nothing but leftist jargon to describe certain schools of socialist thought, it was first used by French anarcho-communists, it does not transcend the political spectrum by any means. Anarchism is always exclusively leftist because it is anti-capitalist and theoretically egalitarian, including individualist anarchism. National and capitalist anarchism however, do not exist, they are schools of political thought with no theoretical basis, completely illogical, and have no historical legitimacy outside appropriation of leftist slogans.

National-"anarchism", and "anarcho"-capitalism have nothing to do with anarchism. They're hideously hierarchical, and thus, contradict the basic principles of anarchism.

The fact that these rabid, authoritarian ideologies are called anarchism demonstrates the perversity of contemporary political culture.

That sounds like hippy mumbo jumbo with no analytical basis. The bourgeoisie own the means of production, which enable them to occupy positions of autonomy with the maximum amount of freedom possible with complete access to all the fruits of the working person's labor. When workers' movements that threaten these positions of privilege, which are the farthest thing from enslavement, rise to a position of power, the bourgeoisie begins a conscious stage of violent political reaction in an attempt to defend their privileged positions, a stage of repression in which they will murder as many workers as it takes and even employee fascists to secure their positions. They are by no means "enslaved by themselves".

Individualist anarchism is still left-wing, actually. "National anarchism" and "anarcho capitalism" are both very recent inventions, and are counter to the entirety of anarchist political thought.