Anarchism is 'no-wing' - ideally socialist, but like all Libertarian ideologies the consequences will be unbridled Right-wing nightmare!
Results 161 to 180 of 204
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?
"I have declared war on the rich who prosper on our poverty, the politicians who lie to us with smiling faces, and all the mindless, heartless robots who protect them and their property." - Assata Shakur
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).
"I have declared war on the rich who prosper on our poverty, the politicians who lie to us with smiling faces, and all the mindless, heartless robots who protect them and their property." - Assata Shakur
Lol, did you know anarchy and communism and socialism are tautologies of each other? Anarchy and communism are the same thing.
"But here steps in Satan, the eternal rebel, the first free-thinker and emancipator of worlds. He makes man ashamed of his bestial ignorance and obedience; he emancipates him, stamps upon his brow the seal of liberty and humanity, in urging him to disobey and eat of the fruit of knowledge." ~Mikhail Bakunin
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.
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.
Dragging Marxists into the modern age, kicking and screaming, one pointless argument at a time.
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.
It is all the more clear what we have to accomplish at present: I am referring to ruthless criticism of all that exists.
-Karl Marx
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.
"We have seen: a social revolution possesses a total point of view because – even if it is confined to only one factory district – it represents a protest by man against a dehumanized life" - Marx
"But to push ahead to the victory of socialism we need a strong, activist, educated proletariat, and masses whose power lies in intellectual culture as well as numbers." - Luxemburg
fka the greatest Czech player of all time, aka Pavel Nedved
In theory, you're right. In practice, it has yet to work out that way. But that's another discussion.
Dragging Marxists into the modern age, kicking and screaming, one pointless argument at a time.
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 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
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.
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
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.
"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
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".
"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
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.
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
