Results 181 to 200 of 204
Of course they are counter to other forms of anarchist thought. Just like how austrian economics is a counter to keynesian or marxian economics. That does not make them any less economic. Not all forms of anarchism are left wing. In the most basic and bare form the definition of anarchism is a ideology advocating the removal of the state or statelessness.
To define anarchy as a simple advocating statelessness is to ignore the entire history of the anarchist movement, which has always been a radical labor movement. Anything to the contrary is just political appropriation. And to legitimize this appropriation is giving ground to reactionaries.
"The people have proved that they can run it... They (the pigs) can call it what they want to, they can talk about it. They can call it communism, and think that that's gonna scare somebody, but it ain't gonna scare nobody" ― Fred Hampton
“Mao Zedong said that power grows from the barrel of a gun. He never said that power was a gun. This is why I don't need no gun to do my thing. What I need is some freedom and the power to determine my destiny” ― Huey P. Newton
To add to this, anarchy isn't about abolition of a state, but abolition of rulers. So anarcho-capitalism is def. not anarchist.
"I'm not interested in indulging whims from members of your faction."
Seeing as this is seen as acceptable by an admin, from here on out when I have a disagreement with someone I will be asking them to reference this. If you want an explanation of my views, too bad.
That comparison doesn't really follow because you're talking about three separate schools of thought within a field of study, and not branches of one school of thought. However, even you can at least trace those different schools of economics back to a common ancestor. "Anarcho-Capitalism" and "National Anarchism" don't really have any connection whatsoever with anarchist thought. Even market anarchists and mutualists were, historically, anti-capitalist.
Last edited by #FF0000; 3rd June 2015 at 21:44.
I'm on some sickle-hammer shit
Collective Bruce Banner shit
FKA: #FF0000, AKA Mistake Not My Current State Of Joshing Gentle Peevishness For The Awesome And Terrible Majesty Of The Towering Seas Of Ire That Are Themselves The Milquetoast Shallows Fringing My Vast Oceans Of Wrath
I have had to explain the concept of Libertarianism or Anarchism or whatever you wanna call it to people in north America so many times it's not funny. They are completely ignorant of the fact that Right Libertarian ideology is based upon the Austrian school of economics which if you have ever tried to read it makes no fucking sense and is based upon a Anti-Communist fever in that Liberal school of thought rather then any kind of actual ideology.
It is not derived from Anarchist Communism or any of the other actual Anarchist movements at all. Essentially Right Libertarians are sort of right wing Liberals
I don't see how they would be ignorant of that. Most I know are admirers of rothbard and personally are anti-keynesian. But then again there are many types but the mainstream libertarians in america, the right wing ones, are ignorant. Howver, the ron paul libertarians, minarchists, and anarcho-capitalists do seem to have a better grasp of right wing economics and the austrian school. If you are talking about Rand Paulians or "Conservatarians" then they probably know little and are really just laid back neo cons.
Actually, you're confused about what most Marxists think the lower phase of communism is. In addition to anarchists, all Marxists who aren't Stalinists (which is most of us Marxists) agree that the lower stage of communism is stateless; it is achieved when class and the market are abolished, along with the state, of course. The revolution isn't finished until all these things, including the state, are abolished.
Sous les paves, la merde!
Sure they are. They are enslaved by their illusion of control and power. That is their weakness. When capitalism is crushed, they will be the most helpless and vulernable. As Seneca said, their slavery is the most disgraceful. At least our slavery is not self-imposed, but rather a condition of social relations.
I am a pessimist by nature. Many people can only keep on fighting when they expect to win. I'm not like that, I always expect to lose. I fight anyway, and sometimes I win.
--rms
While corporations dominate society and write the laws, each advance in technology is an opening for them to further restrict its users.
--rms
AKA loonyleftist
Socialism is a process, with the ultimate aim being communism. However, anarchists advocate abolition of government BEFORE the process is complete - hence NOT leading to communism, but rather some kind of Conservative Libertarian hell.
It won't be centralised, far from it - no, it will be a plethora of many local gangs, rival groups, thugs, clans and mafias - each screwing over whoever they like.
A sensible and well managed socialist government is not a 'gang'.
Where you getting this nonsense from? It's obvious you don't know anything about anarchism
The notion amongst anarchists is that capitalism and the state are abolished at the same time.
Nah mutual aid, direct democracy and international federation
"Every nationalism begins with a Mazzini, but in its shadow there lurks a Mussolini" ~ R. Rocker
There is a reason he's restricted.
Most anarchists: Anarcho-Collectivists, Individualist Anarchists, Anarcho-Communism, want more equality in society, the goal of the left wing is to create more equality, boom Anarchy is left wing!
Hipster hipster on the wall, who is the hippiest of them all?
Anarchism is a left-wing political ideology calling for a non-hierarchical reorganization of society (a free association which is also the end goal of Marxism) with a focus on the state due to it being a notable mechanism of class domination.
The problem with using logic and history and explanation in cases like this, is that when chumps think 'socialism'='the state', then 'anarchism'=/='the state' and therefore 'anarchism'=/='socialism'.
Garbage in, garbage out.
Critique of the Gotha Programme, Pt IV: http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch04.htm
No War but the Class War
Destroy All Nations
Lucius Accius (170 BC - 86 BC): "A man whose life has been dishonorable is not entitled to escape disgrace in death."
I don't consider capitalists to be rulers. I think it depends on whether or not you consider their property to be legitimate. If it is then their use of force to defend their property is compatible with anarchism. I don't believe in natural property rights to begin with but I think the distinction that socialists tend to make between private property (means of production) and personal property is arbitrary.
Imagine that you have this weird medical condition that involves your needing to eat your next door neighbor's hair in order to survive. Your next door neighbor is only willing to give you his or her hair if you perform demeaning tasks for them. You're not entitled to his hair - his property - and if you don't like the arrangement you can opt out of it, he won't physically harm you in any way. He's not responsible for your needs. The hierarchy that capitalism involves isn't enforced the same way that slavery was, workers aren't threatened with physical violence if they don't choose to engage in it. They are 'coerced' by circumstances to do so but they are not being coerced by capitalists or other moral agents in the same way that slaves were coerced by slave masters. I'm not pro-capitalism, I just disagree with some of the arguments against it. I consider your next door neighbor to be morally responsible for your needs but this kind of 'exploitation' isn't an act of aggression.
I don't think anarchism has anything to do with any form of egalitarianism besides maybe in advocating for equal rights. Political egalitarianism, to me, is synonymous with democracy and democracy is inherently incompatible with anarchism. A society of anarchists could develop a voluntary gift economy where resources were distributed according to need but if they were unwilling to initiate force then there would be no way to ensure that resources would be distributed according to benefit or that the poor and disadvantaged would be cared for at all.
I won't get into why I think anarchism is completely impractical.
Very often leftists seem to advocate more for special consideration for groups with perceived underdog status than genuine 'equality'. There are different kinds of equality and the only one I support for it's own sake is equal consideration of every one's welfare (not political equality, literal economic equality or even equality of well-being per se).
Well, technically capital rules but the capitalist is its representative.
Appeals to etymology are irrelevant anyway. Anarchists oppose capitalism.
No its not. the use of force to destroy private property is compatible with anarchism.
You'll be wrongh then.
Anarchist organisations utilise direct democracy asa decision-making mechanism.
We're not unwilling to "initiate force"
Probably because you don;t know what the fuck you're talking about.
"Every nationalism begins with a Mazzini, but in its shadow there lurks a Mussolini" ~ R. Rocker
Uh-oh, I feel the ol' "nazis were socialist and therefore leftists" trope coming on...
The traditional left-right spectrum is useful is determining the end goals of a society, not the means. Left wingers are more often than not in favor of greater social equality, equitable economic distribution and individual rights. The right, otoh, tend to place greater emphasis on hierarchy, strict traditional societal roles, varying degrees of granted privilege and a greater emphasis on rule by a select few deemed worthy, determined by various means (royal bloodlines, religious authority or economic power/wealth).
Where things get confusing for many is how these goals are achieved, which is not represented very well by that spectrum (or any spectrum, I would argue).
Anarchists/communists/socialists are left wing because they are meant to be organizational systems designed to achieve the goals of equality and liberty for ALL. Nazism, fascism, theocracy and, arguably, capitalism, fall on the right becasue they are hierarchical systems, with a few on top ruling those below. Obviously, there are shades of grey within those, and varying degrees of social/economic liberty amongst them (capitalism, for instance, usually comes with a healthy does of social freedom for most, and often a [limited] amount of political freedom. Anarcho-capitalists, for instance, want to maximize these areas, while strictly maintaining a economic hierarchy through property, which makes them right-wing).
Left-wing anarchists are definitely left-wing; they argue for a horizontal society is which all people are liberated from hierarchical systems; religion, capitalism, state violence and oppression, etc. They advocate for total ownership of society by the people in it. This is why, referencing the left-right spectrum, they are left wing.
Less Rothbard, more Bookchin
I might address the rest of this later but how is the willingness to initiate physical force not an expression of authority? There are no objectively correct definitions for words but you seem to be defining anarchism in a way that is either inconsistent with what you advocate and/or completely removed from the etymology of 'anarchism' and the basic idea that's always been attached to it.
What if the minority vote does not comply with at least some of the decisions that are favored by the majority. How will this be enforced?
How can property rule over people by itself? How can a thing rule you against your will?
As long as at least some people are willing to behave violently and infringe upon the rights of other people how will they be dealt with in an anarchist society. How will you deal with people suspected of committing certain crimes, and even when it's relatively certain that they are a threat and deterrence is needed who determines what punishment fits what crime? I won't get into why I think a privatized police force or prison system won't work because I don't think it applies here, we might agree on that.
I said more than I planned to but I won't go into detail. I'm out of time.
"Initiation of force" is what American right-wing liberals obsess over. It has nothing to do with socialism, including anarchism, which is one of its branches. (So your statement about "the basic idea that's always been attached to it" is wrong. Anarchism is part of the socialist tradition, no matter what weird Randroids on the Internet think.)
And etymology is a pretty bad way of understanding the meaning of the term. Etymologically, a chancellor is an usher. Someone tell Angela Merkel that.
