Are "anarchists" on the left side of the political aisle?

[Geoist]

Anarchists are generally but not exclusively leftists.

Libertarians are generally but not exclusively right-wing.

...in the USA. In Europe, libertarians are generally of the left variety. Libertarianism was considered a leftist ideology until the mid-20th century when forces on the right decided to adopt the term.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

So it would fall under harassment? So calling someone a he instead of a she is harassment? That a pretty big stretch.

I'm not even sure why you mention threats since that has zero chance of applying to the situation.

This is not an adult conversation, your argument is childishly putting straw into my mouth.

 

[Henrin]

We feel the same about the neo-feudalists known as right-libertarians/anarcho-capitalists

I suppose, but it's a bit hard to argue that communism or socialism is not authoritarian. It's far to structured and controlled to be anything but really.

 

[Henrin]

This is not an adult conversation, your argument is childishly putting straw into my mouth.

What straw? Is ignoring requests generally harassment? Yes or no.

 

[Goshin]

Not so much a political line as a circle...

 

[Henrin]

I do not know if it is just one subreddit, but Anarchists seem to openly support violence. I have read that in Berkley it was Anarchists who were violent. Is it true?

Don't know and I honestly don't care much who exactly was violent. To me the protest was built on a faulty premise and the violence that happened there was wrong. As for anarchists supporting violence, well, like most other groups they have their violent members, but to the most part they are peaceful.

 

[Geoist]

That would be true anarchists, what I was referring to is the mindset of most of those today who call themselves anarchists.

Those with the loudest bullhorn get all the attention. The public has always associated anarchism with violence/chaos. Almost no one can reference a single work on anarchist theory.

 

[SCitizen]

As for anarchists supporting violence, well, like most other groups they have their violent members, but to the most part they are peaceful.

I am not sure. Are there subgroups among Anarchists which consider violence ideologically justified?

 

[Henrin]

I am not sure. Are there subgroups among Anarchists which consider violence ideologically justified?

Historically? Sadly, yes.

Currently? I don't know, but it's likely.

 

[Geoist]

Well too bad humans are involved, since it would quickly devolve into warlord feudalism.


This is why libertarianism (real libertarianism), is a good thing.

If anarchism rejects private property in land then how does it quickly devolve into feudalism?

Right-libertarianism, on the other hand, fully embraces landlordism. Some, like Hoppe, fully advocate feudalism.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

Not so much a political line as a circle...

Yer mixing in economics, the question was political/social.

 

[Geoist]

Lets also point out that they support private property and that the founder of the ideology rejected the claim for pretty much the reason that it runs counter to everything anarchists stand for.

If you are referring to Proudhon, he rejected property, particularly in land, because its existence is dependent on the state ("Property is Theft!") But property, in the sense of private possession... what one has created with his/her own hands is perfectly legitimate ("Property is Liberty!") Most anarchists would agree with this concept.

 

[ThoughtEx.]

In one month, the right claims the left only wants big government, and restrictive laws on all freedoms. And in the next month, they claim that the left are anarchists. An anarchist, wants no government. They want chaos. Ladies and Gentle, make up your goddam mind on what kind of boogeyman you think the left is. It's not a insult of of the month kind of thing.

Anarchists are closest to Libertarians. The difference is Anarchists want to achieve their goals through any means including violence, and propaganda. Libertarians want a basic rule of law, and only employ violence in defense, or proactive defense. Otherwise, they want nobody telling them wtf to do.

Anarchists do not care about social issues, they care about personal freedom. They are on the right.

 

[Geoist]

I suppose, but it's a bit hard to argue that communism or socialism is not authoritarian. It's far to structured and controlled to be anything but really.

I think most anarchists would argue that non-state socialism is the natural state of humans. When we observe hunter gatherer societies, for example, they are almost always socialist/communist.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

They want chaos.

false, an overused trope.

 

[Goshin]

I think most anarchists would argue that non-state socialism is the natural state of humans. When we observe hunter gatherer societies, for example, they are almost always socialist/communist.

Because they have so little and have no choice but to engage in cooperation and sharing to survive. Not a good model for society.


Many things that work fine on a family/tribal/community level may not scale up to a national level effectively... such as communism, which history teaches leads to tyranny when implemented nationally.

 

[Geoist]

The difference is Anarchists want to achieve their goals through any means including violence, and propaganda.

Simply not true.
https://libcom.org/library/what-is-anarchism-alexander-berkman-19

 

[DifferentDrummr]

Because they have so little and have no choice but to engage in cooperation and sharing to survive. Not a good model for society.

What society doesn't depend at least partly on cooperation and sharing to survive?

 

[Geoist]

Because they have so little and have no choice but to engage in cooperation and sharing to survive. Not a good model for society.

Scarcity does not end just because a society becomes capitalist. It is why there is rampant poverty amongst tremendous wealth.

Anyways, my point was that while socialism can be forced through a nation-state, under natural conditions (with no state) socialism is the norm.

Many things that work fine on a family/tribal/community level may not scale up to a national level effectively... such as communism, which history teaches leads to tyranny when implemented nationally.

But that's the thing, anarchists do not want an expansive state. They understand socialism works best decentralized and democratized.

 

[Goshin]

Scarcity does not end just because a society becomes capitalist. It is why there is rampant poverty amongst tremendous wealth.

Anyways, my point was that socialism can be forced, but under natural conditions (with no state) socialism is the norm.




But that's the thing, anarchists do not want an expansive state. They understand socialism works best decentralized and democratized.

It's never been successfully done on a large scale for very long, and there's a reason for that.

 

[Henrin]

Scarcity does not end just because a society becomes capitalist. It is why there is rampant poverty amongst tremendous wealth.

Anyways, my point was that while socialism can be forced through a nation-state, under natural conditions (with no state) socialism is the norm.

Socialism is only the norm when the people are dependent and underdeveloped. Once things improve the people grow out of it.

 

[Henrin]

It's never been successfully done on a large scale for very long, and there's a reason for that.

It's really only works when the people need it to survive. Otherwise, it's just seen as undesirable and oppressive.

 

[Goshin]

What society doesn't depend at least partly on cooperation and sharing to survive?

Partly, yes.


Doing so as a primary building block of society tends to lead to lowered productivity and mediocrity. If there is little or no incentive to work harder, find a better way, invent a new thing... then these things tend not to happen.

Cooperation and sharing are fine things in their place and on a certain scale. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" works fairly well for a family or a small tribe... not so well for a society at large. Witness history.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

Partly, yes.


Doing so as a primary building block of society tends to lead to lowered productivity and mediocrity. If there is little or no incentive to work harder, find a better way, invent a new thing... then these things tend not to happen.

Cooperation and sharing are fine things in their place and on a certain scale. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" works fairly well for a family or a small tribe... not so well for a society at large. Witness history.

You keep referencing history, yet you cannot cite examples to back these claims. Show us where in history cooperation withing society lead to lower productivity.

 

[Geoist]

It's never been successfully done on a large scale for very long, and there's a reason for that.

Ignoring the anarchist societies that existed for eons, far longer than any empire, yes, in the modern world it is very difficult for anarchist societies to exist for long, especially when surrounded by militaristic states. Rojava is struggling to survive while being attacked by ISIS and Syrian military forces.

While idealistically I am an anarchist, I also understand the world is not yet ready for anarchism. Pragmatically, I am simply a small 'd' democrat who supports gradual geoist/mutualist reforms.