Is Anarchy Left Wing?

[theblackmask]

http://destroy.svbtle.com/is-anarchy-left-wing

“In left-right politics, left-wing politics are political positions or activities that accept or support social equality, often in opposition to social hierarchy and social inequality. It typically involves a concern for those in society who are perceived as disadvantaged relative to others and an assumption that there are unjustified inequalities that need to be reduced or abolished.” -Wikipedia
Many people, anarchists included, tend to group anarchy in with the so-called “left wing” ideologies. To them, anarchy sits in the left palm of capital, along with its pals communism and democracy. To those who consider themselves a part of the left, anarchism is something thought up by European men, like Proudhon or Godwin. This ignores the fact that for the majority of human history, we lived in anarchism. It was not an ideology to be written about or struggled towards. People did not call it “anarchy” because there was no need. Coercive and hierarchical structures had yet to dominate the face of the planet. Life was without rulers, and life without rulers is anarchy. To place anarchy in the left wing of politics and capital is to dismiss an entire history of people across the globe in favor of the theories of a handful of dead white men.
“The illusion of the political left and right, or left and right of capital, is a Eurocentric construct coming out of pre-revolutionary France. In legislative bodies, the aristocracy would sit to the right of the speaker and the capitalist class, or bourgeoisie (then referred to as “common” people) would sit to the left. Of course now the bourgeoisie is considered to be the political right, and the political left, just as before, dishonestly portrays itself as the vanguard of “the common people…The left is a white construct, by whites, for whites. Leftism is simply an ideology and a method of organizing the political, economic, and social order of white society. Prior to European invasion of places such as Africa and “the Americas” there was no left or right of capital. The political left and right are Eurocentric means to Eurocentric ends. They are a false dichotomy that serves to limit discourse and confine us all to a civilized, Eurocentric paradigm.” -Bison Live Oak
Left and right cannot exist without politics. Politics, the act of deciding what and how to produce, cannot exist without capital. To claim that anarchy is left wing is to claim that anarchists simply want to decide what and how to manage capital. There may be some anarchists that don’t see a problem with this, mainly platformists and syndicalists, but this denies the oppressive nature of production itself. Production and industry are often fetishized by these anarchists, ignoring the fact that industrial work itself is always mind-numbing and dangerous. They believe that if production is structured in just the right way, this oppressiveness can be eliminated. Such left wing anarchists, just as politicians do, wish to control capital and production, and believe that they hold all the answers to all of society’s problems.
Anarchism predates production, capital, and politics. Life without rulers cannot be defined within the terms of a hierarchical society. Centuries ago, Laozi grasped this concept:
“There is a thing inherent and natural, which existed before heaven and earth. Motionless and fathomless, It stands alone and never changes; It pervades everywhere and never becomes exhausted. It may be regarded as the Mother of the Universe. I do not know its name. If I am forced to give it a name, I call it Tao, and I name it as supreme.” -Laozi
It would be an insult to call the later Taoist uprisings in China left wing. The questions of agrarian reform and political corruption were certainly part of the rebellions, but the central aspect was the belief that apocalyptic change was necessary in order to realize these things. The elimination of authority took precedence over more material issues. While these rebellions were eventually crushed by the military professionals of the Han dynasty, the threat that this loose group of peasants and shamans posed to the existing social order cannot be denied. This was all done while completely rejecting the current state of politics, and while building less coercive structures outside of the Han government. Roads were maintained on a much more voluntary basis, free storehouses were erected for travellers, and private property was largely abolished.
Across the world, in the Americas, there are also instances of anarchism before leftism. Roughly a millenium later, we have found traces of a collapsed hierarchical society in the American southwest. Unlike the Chinese rebellions, where authority prevailed, the society of Chaco Canyon collapsed completely, leaving behind no written records or actual history. What we know of these times can only be inferred by archaeological evidence. What we can see, though, is a society built of two starkly different halves. In Pueblo Bonito, the elite lived, supported by poorer members of outlying communities. This lower class was essentially responsible for supporting their rulers. They were tasked with growing food and providing wood for building supplies. The roads they used can still be seen today.
The difference between the revolt at Chaco Canyon and the continuing succession of revolutions we have witnessed since is that is actually eliminated the society it opposed. The civilization collapsed to the point that we must dig in the earth to find out what actually happened. While the rulers lived in luxury, with their macaws, copper, and jewelry, those in outlying communities suffered a high rate of infant mortality, and were physically smaller due to malnutrition. While the collapse of this civilization was devastating to all involved, it may have served as a lesson for those who would attempt to establish hierarchies later on.
“Potawatomi storytellers of the Great Lakes told of a certain Wiske, an ancient trickster who, long ago, almost became Archon over Nesh-nabe, over free people…This Wiske was not altogether villainous to the Potawatomi. In ceremonies enacting his deeds, he wore the long-eared mask of the Hare totem. It was said that he helped the destitute, the trapped and the lost. His nephews said he gave the people webbed shoes so they could traverse the snow, canoes so they could float on water, as well as spears and arrows so they could feed themselves…The free people of the lush woodlands of Kichigami were happy without an Archon. They were happy because they were free. The good uncle was told to take his gift-giving disposition to a northern land of ice or to a southern land of fire, to a place where, it was thought, he might find people who were destitute, trapped and lost.” -Fredy Perlman
It is clear that other native cultures recognized the inherent oppressiveness of production and hierarchy. To these cultures, Wiske was not a legend of old, but a constant threat to their society, and this story was reenacted countless times. Again, to call this rejection of authority and production “left wing” is an insult to those people. This rejection of the trickster, which spans many native cultures, is a startlingly clear view of hierarchy. While there may be some benefits in the short term, upon close examination, these benefits do not come without a cost. These cultures realized that this cost, the cost of being subjugated by one’s own decision to embrace technology and hierarchy, was simply not worth it. Can this be called left wing?
Perhaps it is no coincidence that the later inhabitants of the Chaco Canyon area were able to once again eliminate those who sought to oppress them. Perhaps it is no coincidence that the “Taos” Pueblo was one of those that took part in the rebellion. When the Spaniards arrived around 1540, a period of almost constant warfare between the pueblos and invaders ensued. It wasn’t until 1680 that the Spanish were eventually expelled from the region, not to return until 1692. It is notable that while Santa Fe was founded in 1610, the earliest surviving map dates from 1767, as all previous records have been destroyed.
Also notable is the 12 year period while the Spanish were not present in the area. The leader of the rebellion, Popé, while promising a period of prosperity, was unable to bring this to fruition, possibly because he died during the expulsion Another possible reason that the Europeans were eventually able to dominate the area is the fact that Popé and his lieutenants attempted to enact a code of laws for the pueblos to follow. While the pueblos were united in their desire to rid themselves of the Spanish, they could not be united after this goal was achieved.
“All crosses, churches, and Christian images were to be destroyed. The people were ordered to cleanse themselves in ritual baths, to use their Pueblo names, and to destroy all vestiges of the Roman Catholic religion and Spanish culture, including Spanish livestock and fruit trees. Popé, it was said, forbade the planting of wheat and barley and commanded those Indians who had been married according to the rites of the Catholic Church to dismiss their wives and to take others after the old native tradition.” -Wikipedia
Popé’s attempt to enforce politics on the pueblos was most likely the beginning of his undoing. His attempt to enforce what he viewed as a return "to the state of their antiquity” could not eliminate the problems his society faced, just as left or right wing ideologies have failed to do the same to ours. While the pueblos were largely self governing, they could not unite against drought and raids by neighboring tribes. It is possible that their reliance on Popé and his politics reduced their ability to act independently against the encroaching Spanish.
It is also possible that our reliance on left wing politics has eliminated our ability to act independently against the structures that oppress us. Politics has replaced our ability to do things with an ability to vote on how to do things. Instead of empowering ourselves and building a bridge, for instance, we vote for people to decide what to build the bridge out of, or who should be hired to build the bridge. We have become so infatuated with “opposition to social hierarchy and social inequality” that we have forgotten that we have the power to end these things ourselves. We can feed and clothe each other, rather than vote or donate towards political programs that feed and clothe people. The “anarchists” that existed before European anarchism realized this, and did just these things. They fought against hierarchy in a tangible way, instead of in the abstract field of politics. Rather than being concerned with reducing inequality, as the left wing does, these communities created equality with their own hands. They did not need unions, voting, or welfare, as these things can end up replacing the hierarchy they seek to eliminate. These proto-anarchists were absolutely not left-wing. They were “no-wing” in the sense that they rejected working within the system to correct the problems of the system. They were not concerned with what side of politics they stood on because they wanted to eliminate ideology and politics. If anarchists of today wish to replicate even a small amount of the success of these movements, they would be wise to reject the left-wing label just as much as they do that of the right.

[Remus Bleys]

http://www.leftcom.org/en/articles/2...ar-view-mirror good (better) critique of anarchism . Also left/right divide is bourgeois so yeah anarchists are leftists.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Anarchism as a political philosophy is indeed part of the political left.

"Anarchy" as a descriptive term for stateless systems is not left-wing.

[BIXX]

http://www.leftcom.org/en/articles/2...ar-view-mirror good (better) critique of anarchism . Also left/right divide is bourgeois so yeah anarchists are leftists.

This was clearly not a critique of anarchism, but a critique of politics, and leftism. Can't tell if you bothered reading it or not.

Anarchy has had its wings clipped by leftism, politics, etc... The true force that anarchy could bring to the table against oppression has been weakened by politics.

[exeexe]

http://theanarchistlibrary.org/libra..._17_.html#toc1

same material but better visuals:
http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/secAcon.html


There, now you can begin to read

[BIXX]

http://theanarchistlibrary.org/libra..._17_.html#toc1

same material but better visuals:
http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/secAcon.html


There, now you can begin to read

The OP has read more than you by far. You ought to actual read their post. You always jump in wig your opinions without any idea what someone is actually saying/asking. That's a bad habit and makes you look dumb.

[QueerVanguard]

Is anarchy left wing? Yeah, but so are a bunch of other infantile disorders. The trouble with anarchy is the idealist abstractions and moral hogshit that animates it. At the end of the day, I don't give a flying fuck who calls themselves Left Wing, fuckin total fascists and racist pieces of shit do it and even fly under the banner of Socialism and Communism from time to time.

[ckaihatsu]

Prior to European invasion of places such as Africa and “the Americas” there was no left or right of capital.

[The political left and right] are a false dichotomy that serves to limit discourse and confine us all to a civilized, Eurocentric paradigm.” -Bison Live Oak

'Left' and 'right', while having a particular historical instance in 18th Century France, is more about the *common progress* made by any given society regarding its own social order and its people's general relationship to the means of production (technology).

So unless an entire culture is willing to strip away all of its implements and not even use fire, it's safe to say that politics -- including the left-right spectrum -- objectively exists as a measure for *any* society, past, present, and future.

Left and right cannot exist without politics. Politics, the act of deciding what and how to produce, cannot exist without capital.

Again this is ludricrous since it ignores that there has to be a resolution between a society's norms, and its general use of technology. Politics may be seen as the resolving of a society's norms, by that society itself.

And, in recent centuries, technology has become much more centralized, meaning that it's far past the point of a more anarchic one-tool-per-person -- politics is for determining how mass productivity relates to each and every person, and how it will be administered.

Anything less is necessarily primitivist.

It is also possible that our reliance on left wing politics has eliminated our ability to act independently against the structures that oppress us. Politics has replaced our ability to do things with an ability to vote on how to do things. Instead of empowering ourselves and building a bridge, for instance, we vote for people to decide what to build the bridge out of, or who should be hired to build the bridge.

Nothing is *empirically* stopping anyone from building a bridge themselves, but, more realistically, the question is what would the *political consequences* be from such an action -- the anarchist assumption here is that only organic do-it-yourself-er initiative is lacking, when in fact the reality is that today's world is much more populous and interconnected than ever before. Hence politics.

These proto-anarchists were absolutely not left-wing. They were “no-wing” in the sense that they rejected working within the system to correct the problems of the system.

Well, sure, it's possible to be political *outside of* the bourgeois system, but then the question is about what the *basis* for that extra-bourgeois initiative would / could be....

The basis, of course, is *labor power* (against the interests of capital) -- which is left-wing.


Ideologies & Operations -- Left Centrifugalism

[Comrade Jacob]

The ideology of anarchism is about equality without the state. If your politics are about equality they are left-wing.

[Ludwig von Thatcher]

As an Anarcho-Capitalist, where would I fit in on the political spectrum?

Far-right economic views, but far-left everything else?

[Zukunftsmusik]

Can't be arsed to read through the whole thing, but just skimming through the first part there are several mistakes. I think there is little evidence to back up the claim that there were no leaders or hierarchical systems for the most of man's history. In other words, the article itself is based on a false premise. (The Marxist concept of "primitive communism" is shaky too, but at least it's based on the view that most of man's history was classless, which is a different claim than the article does).

Secondly, of course deciding what to produce and how can be decided without capital. Was there capital in this "state of anarchy"? If no, then how did they decide what to produce, how, who and when? In other words: either there was capital and politics in this state of anarchy, which would no longer make it anarchy, or there wouldn't be production of anything at all: no one would be alive. Unless this state of anarchy refers to the gazillion of years before human life appeared, this sounds contradictory.

Anarchy has had its wings clipped by leftism, politics, etc... The true force that anarchy could bring to the table against oppression has been weakened by politics.

Nice summary of the world history. Now, as someone who supports the proletarian struggle towards abolishing class society, I'd rather have politics if lacking politics leaves you with empty moral dogmas like "Egoist Anarchism" and struggling against abstracts like "oppression". Luckily for me, the movement I'm in favour for has real historical precedence, while yours seems to be simply a transhistorical "struggle" created in your mind. Marx and Engels found Hegel on his head, why not just turn him back upside down again 200 years later?

[exeexe]

The OP has read more than you by far.

Thanks for telling me you know how much i have read throughout my entire life. And thanks for judging me on posts that i hardly put any effort into.

(most useless post ever)

So where are your counter arguments? Oh right you have none, all you can spit out is attack on the persona.

[PhoenixAsh]

As an Anarcho-Capitalist, where would I fit in on the political spectrum?

Far-right economic views, but far-left everything else?

Actually you would be a walking contradiction of mutually exclusive impossibilities.

But if we assume pigs can fly then yeah pretty much.

[QueerVanguard]

As an Anarcho-Capitalist, where would I fit in on the political spectrum?

Far-right economic views, but far-left everything else?

You'd be on the batshit insane end, like every other Austrian fuckwit

[BIXX]

And thanks for judging me on posts that i hardly put any effort into.

This, class, is the sound of someone who has been caught saying dumb shit.

Please, just think before you post.

[exeexe]

As an Anarcho-Capitalist, where would I fit in on the political spectrum?

Far-right economic views, but far-left everything else?

I think the point with the political spectrum is to place certain ideologies that carry some level of consistency.

And since Anarcho-Capitalist is deeply contradictory and therefore has a lack of consistency you cant be placed on the political spectrum. You would have to pick sides.

Do you want to rule over workers as a privileged capitalist? Or do you want workers be free from any privileged ruler?
Do you want to continue the parasitical behavior of the capitalist? Or do you want the workers to enjoy the full fruit of their labor?

[theblackmask]

http://theanarchistlibrary.org/libra..._17_.html#toc1

same material but better visuals:
http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/secAcon.html


There, now you can begin to read

Great thanks. I've always wanted to begin to read. Perhaps you would like to critique this piece with something of actual substance rather than lazily posting links that you may or may not have read yourself?

[Jemdet Nasr]

/r/Anarchism discussion of the same article, if you're interested.

[Comrade #138672]

Yes. Anarchism is generally leftist.

[DigitalBluster]

I found an interesting quote, by a French philosopher called "Alain" (who I know nothing about, except this quote):

"When people ask me if the division between parties of the right and parties of the left, men of the right and men of the left, still makes sense, the first thing that comes to mind is that the person asking the question is certainly not a man of the left."

That's been true in my experience. It seems that those who are most adamant about the left-right dichotomy being unnecessarily divisive also have something to lose by that division. I seek no solidarity with oppressor groups as such. Since opposition to those groups has traditionally (since the French revolution, anyway) been considered left-wing, I consider myself a leftist, and anyone who tries to obfuscate that division is going to be suspect.