How can Anarchy be Left-wing?

I wrote a longer post and it apparently did not post. So ill make it short and sweet. I searched "Anarchy" on tapatalk and found this forum. Its called "RevLeft" which I take means "Revolutionary Left"? I also see people reffering to themselves as Anarchist-Communists which seems like an oxymoron.

Can someone give me some perspective here? I'm not asking for super long replies to explain the meaning of life but a little something to nibble on would be appreciated.

Anarchos = without rulers.

Capitalists = rulers.

Leftists = anti capitalists.

but wouldn't a leftist also be pro-government? Governments are rulers.

Anarchists have always been part of the socialist (or communist, if you prefer) movement, with the earliest recognisable anarchists being members of the First International alongside Marxists, Lassaleans and so on. I think the question is, why do you think anarchy can't be left-wing (or how it could be anything but left-wing).

Well like I stated above, leftists are pro-government of some flavor or another. Government is a ruler in any flavor. Anarchists are anti-ruler.

Except leftists are not "pro-government", unless you want to count liberals and social-democrats. Marxists want to smash the bourgeois state and hold that the revolution will eventually lead to a stateless society.

So essentially were getting hung up on word definitions then. For me what your saying would require me to take the left/right spectrum and add a Y on the left side to accommodate what you just said. I know socialism and communism are down there on the left side so how can we say that lefists are anti-ruler if we are using a left/right spectrum where far left is socialism and far right is zero government. which is where I would place anarchism.

Communism

"a political theory derived from Karl Marx, advocating class war and leading to a society in which all property is publicly owned and each person works and is paid according to their abilities and needs."

Anarchism

"belief in the abolition of all government and the organization of society on a voluntary, cooperative basis without recourse to force or compulsion."

Im not sure if the majority here are Anarchist-Communists or if its a minority but with the above definitions I see it as two totally contridicting ideas.

Can someone explain this to me?

Is communism not a form of government?

Correct. Communism is a society without a state.

I strongly suggest that you lurk a bit more here before making posts on such basic issues.

Im trying my best to lurk. I just keep reading confusing/contridicting info. Is there somewhere you can direct me to help explain communism in a nutshell besides Wikipedia?

My initial question that arises from what you just said is, if communism is a stateless society, then who decides how property and wealth is evenly distributed?

The reason you think it's contradictory is probably because you don't understand the word public. In this context, when we say the property is public owned we mean collectively owned, where all members of society democratically run things. This is in contrast to private property, which a few members of society own and exclude others from making decisions on. You're probably thinking of the word public as defined by the bourgeois government as "government owned."

Left wing doesn't mean more supportive of governments, so...

But it is fundamentally against anarchism to vote upon the fait of anothers life, liberty or property. Nobody can justify casting a vote as an Anarchist. So democracy and Anarchism cannot be used together.

I suggest you read the threads directed at new members and FAQs because most of your questions could be easily answered there. You're stuck in a very basic and incorrect view of the political spectrum. Far-right would not be anarchism but fascism, so the opposite.
Everything, particularly politics, boils down to class perspective. A view that the political spectrum goes from liberal-right libertarians (because that has to be what you think anarchism is with this much confusion) is strictly stuck in a bourgeois perspective of politics of how to manage a capitalist system. We, as revolutionary Leftists, don't fit on a such a narrow spectrum. We have a working class perspective of how to dismantle the past political system and create one for our class. Anarchism is firmly rooted in anti-capitalism and is anything but right-wing.

---

btw, moving this to /learning

Going to read the FAQ's now.

http://www.anchorrising.com/jk-polit...trum-600px.jpg

Hope this helps.

Very much. But it further reinforces that communism and anarchy are on opposite ends. I see Collectivism being indicated as opposite sides to Anarchy on that diagram. Am I misinterpreting it?

I think the diagram is misleading. "Collectivism" in rightwing parlance means something like "good luck finding a way to survive as we cut away all social services, go bother your friends or family or whatever". Genuine collectivism, in the communist sense, is however a positive message of actually organising the working class as a social force for social change, that is, the overthrow of capitalism to build a future without borders, alienated institutions where a minority rules us (aka, the capitalist state), war, poverty... This is distinct, but not hugely different from what anarchists are fighting for.

Ignore that diagram as it's shit.

Communism and anarchism are not on opposite ends of anything and in fact anarchism is a part of the socialist/communist movement. What differentiates anarchism from the rest of communism is at the very least terminology and at the most tactics and strategy for the abolition of capitalism and the creation of a stateless, classless society where all land and means of production are held in common.

If the left-right distinction means anything is that those on the left tend towards social equality while those on the right tend towards social inequality. Anarchism/communism is thus on the far-left

I think its important to remember the character of the state and what we mean with different words. Marxists define the state as an instrument of class rule. The way I've understood it, we're not opposed to administration, only the state as an instrument of class rule. I believe Engels wrote something along the lines that the state would lose its political function, its class character, and become the mere administration of things. So there would be administration/governance/call it what you will in communist society, but it would lack a political character and a class character (thus making it not a state) seeing as there would be no classes. Then there are dozens of ideas on how to organize said administration/governance. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, though.

Anarchism is left-wing in that is is in favor of social equality in opposition to hierarchy.

"Government" has nothing to do with the left-right spectrum.

To save yourself a lot of time a forum trawling I suggest you use this website most of the questions you have can be answered here:

http://www.infoshop.org/AnAnarchistFAQ

This is a very clear and easy to use site that should hold most of the answers you seek.

For instance in relation to your question in the quote there is this section

http://www.infoshop.org/AnarchistFAQSectionI

Yes, he did.

I'd advise the following link for the Anarchist FAQ as the one on Infoshop is version 13 while the one on anarchist writers is version 15

http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/index.html

It's interesting to note that Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, a French economist, philosopher and SOCIALIST was supposedly the first person to call himself an anarchist.

I'm guessing your confusion has something to do with that internet fad known as "anarcho-capitalism" which is actually even more utopian than regular anarchism could ever be. It's also a contradictio in terminis as anarchism means the abolition of hierarchy. This is something that would certainly persist in a stateless society that is solely run by the "free market" as wealth and status constitute hierarchy. In other words, the goal of anarchism is to abolish rulers, "anarcho-capitalism" does not do this. In fact it makes matters much worse as it would cause even more inequality and exploitation.

Libertarians, a kind of people who politically want to increase people's freedom, have historically been on the left, and closely linked to socialism, communism, and anarchism. In fact, for example in Spanish a "libertarian" almost exclusively refers to an anarchist socialist. Anarchists, and left-wing libertarians - which historically have not even been distinguishable - radically oppose capitalism.

Capitalism is a system structured upon class society and private ownership of the means of production, hereinafter referred simply as private property. It is seen as progress compared to the previous stage, and was brought about by the bourgeois or liberal revolution; the liberals were on the left, and the monarchists on the right. After such a revolution occurred, however, liberals became the right, and socialists became the left. That is because the political spectrum is defined by whether one wants to progress to the next social order (being on the left), by opposing the interests of the rulinig class, or keep the current social order, by serving the interests of the current ruling class. After the emergence of capitalism, the class structure of society changed.

Analysis made it clear on how class society worked under capitalism: in capitalism, the defining factor of a class, is the relationship to the means of production. In capitalism, thus, there are two large classes: the bourgeois, who own private property, and the proletariat, which is composed of these who do not.

The communists' political aim is to work towards the liberation of the proletariat. The communists ally with the liberals in defeating the monarchy and bringing about capitalism. This has already happened world wide. Then, the communists oppose the liberals, and fight to bring about socialism.

Capitalism is structured upon authority. Without authority, capitalism would be unable to work; socialism would immediately come to be. The state is an instrument of political power to enforce class rule.

In more recent times, however, almost exclusively in the United States of America, a new kind of people who call themselves libertarians has developed: a right-wing kind of libertarians. The thought of these libertarians directly contradicts almost every single point in the earlier kind of libertarians' ideology. They are not revolutionary, rather they are conservative: they are on the right because they oppose to change the current social order; because their interests are in line with that of the ruling class. They support anything that is in line with the interests of the bourgeois, and oppose anything which is in line with the interests of the proletariat.

Because their model of thought does not make sense, they have spread rumors that anarchism - as most people regard it to be "ultimate freedom" - is on the right.

Anarchists despise the current social order. They despise capitalism. They fight to end all forms of authority. When the state, which serves to enforce class rule is removed, socialism will result.

But who will run socialism? Im finding it difficult to imagine this system without rulers of some kind.

.

Russian Red,

So everyone will take turns being Ruler?

In its most developed form, socialism will not be ruled by anybody. Once the transition is completed, no authority needs to be in charge of anything.

Nope, there will be no rulers since the means of production will be collectively owned, nobody will have economic power over anybody else.

To govern is to rule over.

This will answer your questions on who "rules"

http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/secI5.html

and this section will answer your questions on how economic decisions would be made.

http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/secI4.html

When I said earlier that this would save you time I was being sincere. Reading this then returning with questions based on what you have read is far more productive than having the members of this forum re-invent the wheel for you by going into detail about the basic principles and misconceptions people have about anarchism.

Oh, how profound. :rolleyes:

Ok, so, for one, I think it's important that we establish what you're contrasting this with. What would a "non-left" anarchist social relationship look like? Do you imagine such relationships as mediated by the market?
If we want to talk about despotism, we need to look no further than the example of supposedly "free" markets - where the legitimacy of property is propped up by the ever-present recourse to violence, where the everyday life of everyone without property is defined by this violence, and, of course, the spectres of collection agencies, evictions, and so on.
To be clear, therefore, any anarchism that is not communistic in character - premised on the absence of property and on an "economic" order which is directly participatory and egalitarian - is no anarchism at all.

Well im failing to see how this ORDER will occur without one or more men or woman having a recognized power over others.

I read through the links above your post and it honestly just sounds like a variation of what a "Sovereign Citizen" preaches, where they recognize the power of the state but nothing beyond that. Call it a commune or a state or a pool party, but if you have people voting or people telling others what to do, then you have a system with rulers. Its just more regionalized then our current system in America.

If someone wishes to not participate then what happens?

I can not believe how vague you people can be...
OP clearly was asking for an easy answer. And it really is that easy...


Communism, socialism, anarchism. All of those want a society without rulers. Since capitalism is highly hierarchic, it is packed with rulers.
Capitalism is considered rightwing.
Far-right is not (and because capitalist, can never be) anarchist. Fascism and Nazi-ism is on the far right.

The main difference between Marxist Communists and Anarchists is the way we want to achieve a society without rulers.
While Marxist Communists believe that we need a peoples state after the revolution, Anarchists believe that the state must cease to exist immediately.

So to sum up: Anarchism is Socialist. Socialism is NOT government. Socialism is leftwing. Rightwing can never be Anarchist.

Ok so lets try this then. How is capitalism highly hierarchic, and packed with rulers? Im reffering specifically to a totally free market without any government intervention.

My next question is, how is socialism or communisms extremely strict set of rules to be implemented without some form of a government or state?

Thank you for attempting to be straight forward.

Private ownership of property creates hierarchy. Property owners and employers absolutely have power over people who do not own, and who must sell their labor to them to survive.

I think your confusion stems from the assumption that property is something "natural" and not something that itself requires force to establish and maintain.

But people aren't required to sell their labor to anyone in particular. The person buying the labor is a customer. To make the purchase they must have the best deal.

To your second reply above, can you go into more depth on that? Im not sure I understand what you're saying.