# Anarchy is actually far right



## Cracker

I see the attack on free speech in the US coming from the left and true liberalism moving to the right. There's a weird shift going on in america. College campuses are brainwashing the youth and it's crazy because I see a lot of socialist claiming to be anarchist. The whole thing is crazy to me because I see them toting the anarchy flag and then spewing socialist communist ideology. Anarchy is actually far right on the political spectrum, no government involvement, am I right?


----------



## iONik

well im not gonna bother with the political cesspool but i knew this girl from Sydney that called herself an anarchist but she live off the dole and got a government apartment in kirribilli right next to the Sydney harbour bridge were the median house price is three and a half million. 

so yeah people have a tendency to misrepresent certain things.


----------



## WanderLost Radical

Anarchism is the furthest left you can go, dude...

And most anarchists have socialist ideologies, because yes, revolution sounds great and all, but socialism is a more attainable goal for the moment


----------



## Cracker

WanderLost Radical said:


> Anarchism is the furthest left you can go, dude...
> 
> And most anarchists have socialist ideologies, because yes, revolution sounds great and all, but socialism is a more attainable goal for the moment



I've heard this many times, could you tell me why anarchism is the furthest left you can go? I value your opinion


----------



## Cracker

I just think anarchism would focus more on the liberation of the individual rather than the collective. But I know there is a wide array of views.


----------



## AAAutin

It depends on whether you're describing collectivist anarchism or lassiez-faire anarchism.


----------



## Cracker

AAAutin said:


> It depends on whether you're describing collectivist anarchism or lassiez-faire anarchism.



Cool thanks for your reply. Another thing I wanna say is how much I hate identity politics. Like because someone is gay they must be leftist or because someone is christian they must be conservative so on. Fuck all that. Political parties are dangerous in my view.


----------



## Tadaa

Wooow.. are you serious or just provoking..

Anarchism is a wide spectrum. Going from far left ideologies to far right ones.

On the left side we have have socio / comunist /syndical anarchism,
On the right there is libertarianism ( think the whole tea party movement) to anarcho-nazis..

And then there is a bunch in between that doenst fall in the socio left-right category. (Like eco/anarchism, queer anarchism , christian anarchism..

Also.. being gay has nothing to do with political idiologies. Its a sexuality. But peronally i still dont understand people who are gay and vote conservative right wing.. as it votes against their own interest


----------



## Tadaa

And..may i ask.. 
What do you mean by "the attack on free speech" ?


----------



## Tadaa

That last one i am saying is because i am from europe.. dont know if you ever read a book or went to a history class, but we had some fucking fucked up wars in europe.. and i do not wantthis to happen again. I will stand my ground against partiotism, nationalism, fascism..


----------



## Cracker

Tadaa said:


> Wooow.. are you serious or just provoking..



Yes to both, provoking people to think is not a bad thing. I'm not angry with anyone and I hope others would have the same respect for me.

Let me be clear this is from an american point of view and the terms left and right are actually economic terms not sociological. All of these terms might have different connotations to different folks. 

Be careful watching the media as it is bias and they have been known to report false info.

There is a gay immigrant american man by the name of Milo Yianopolous who is definitely provocative but who was banned from twitter and CNN refuses to interview. When he went to speak at Berkeley a riot in sewed and so they cancelled his speech. This is an attack on his right to speak. There are many of examples of this and most of the violence and intolerance is coming from the so-called left in america contrary to popular belief.



Tadaa said:


> That last one i am saying is because i am from europe.. dont know if you ever read a book or went to a history class, but we had some fucking fucked up wars in europe.. and i do not wantthis to happen again. I will stand my ground against partiotism, nationalism, fascism..



Are you insinuating that I am dumb or uneducated? That's kind of rude don't you think? But that is also typical of people who don't like another persons opinion. That same thing is going on tenfold here in America so called Anti-fa attack a maul people when they hear something they don't agree with, and they wave the Anarchist flag while doing it. I'm anti-fascist as well but I will let people speak and respect there opinions, and I definitely not get violent.

Thank you for reply I value your opinion. Thank you in advance for your open-mindedness and respect.


----------



## OmFish

Cracker said:


> I've heard this many times, could you tell me why anarchism is the furthest left you can go? I value your opinion


Noam Chomsky wrote some essays on the spectrum of anarchism and the phenomena of some anarchists holding socialist views in 2017 calling it "practical anarchism" basically he says ppl do this because it's like taking steps slowly toward no govt. so if we removed govt entirely from the equation right now a lot of ppl would be screwed but if we slowly work toward it then the transition would be smoother and less detrimental to the populous. 
It's worth reading if you're wondering why ppl confuse and/or interchange anarchism with other political ideologies and platforms. 
Anarchism & its supporters often fall on a scale rather than the black & white.


----------



## QueerCoyote

Anarchy is an umbrella term for a range of people... But most of the ones I know are far leftists or socialists, with some individualists thrown in.

Check out the anarchist library if you want a lot of texts to look at, authors' opinions are all over different spectrums as far as politics, statism, individualism, etc go.

https://theanarchistlibrary.org/


----------



## paiche

I find it somewhat irritating that we need to classify it all into these neat little definitions. I appreciate scholars putting much thought into classifications and definitions and ironically I love to engage in the study of botany but we get too caught up in all that jive to make assumptions and judgements about one another which ultimately limits our ability to do constructive work together. Anarchy definitely is some far left and some far right and much in between. It is the delicate balance between order and chaos. More so its a lifestyle rather than a political ideology for me personally. I dig the concept of mutual aid as a greater aspect of human nature rather than competition and I emanate that in my lifestyle as much as I am able.


----------



## star el

Cracker said:


> Yes to both, provoking people to think is not a bad thing. I'm not angry with anyone and I hope others would have the same respect for me.
> 
> Let me be clear this is from an american point of view and the terms left and right are actually economic terms not sociological. All of these terms might have different connotations to different folks.
> 
> Be careful watching the media as it is bias and they have been known to report false info.
> 
> There is a gay immigrant american man by the name of Milo Yianopolous who is definitely provocative but who was banned from twitter and CNN refuses to interview. When he went to speak at Berkeley a riot in sewed and so they cancelled his speech. This is an attack on his right to speak. There are many of examples of this and most of the violence and intolerance is coming from the so-called left in america contrary to popular belief.
> 
> 
> 
> Are you insinuating that I am dumb or uneducated? That's kind of rude don't you think? But that is also typical of people who don't like another persons opinion. That same thing is going on tenfold here in America so called Anti-fa attack a maul people when they hear something they don't agree with, and they wave the Anarchist flag while doing it. I'm anti-fascist as well but I will let people speak and respect there opinions, and I definitely not get violent.
> 
> Thank you for reply I value your opinion. Thank you in advance for your open-mindedness and respect.



I'm not interested in trying to establish where anarchy falls on a rhetorical spectrum of "left" and "right." But to engage with your example: Milo is a nazi. Buzzfeed recently obtained a number of his private e-mails which demonstrate that he collaborates with white supremacists and considers hardcore neo-nazis supporters of his movement and his allies. I'd link you but I think since I just recently joined I can't post links yet? Just google it. He was banned from twitter for inciting his followers to harass Leslie Jones with a slew of racist messages, images, etc., which is in violation of their terms of service. Cable outlets don't want to give him a platform because he has given interviews seemingly endorsing pedophilia. 

At his speeches he has released the personal information of undocumented and transgender persons, putting them at risk of being either attacked/trolled by his minions or by law enforcement. This, in combination with his facist politics, is the basis for the black bloc showing up at his speech, because what he is trying to create is a facist ethnostate through genocide. Giving him a platform is itself an attack on free speech, since his eventual goal is to deprive millions of their rights. One could argue against his innate right to free speech in order organize white supremacists under the idea of the harm principle of classic liberal thought, but I don't want to get into an abstract philosophical discussion here. 

When you say that "most of the violence and intolerance is coming from the left," and targeted at "people they don't agree with," that is a serious understatement. Specifically they seem to be targeting nazis, white supremacists, and facists. Someone whose entire political project is to kill you and millions more people is not someone that you simply have a minor disagreement with. This also inherently necessitates the practice of identity politics, as they would not be needed were there not the historical and present existence of persistent structural discrimination in the United States. Hopefully this can give you some additional perspective.


----------



## Tadaa

Cracker said:


> Let me be clear this is from an american point of view and the terms left and right are actually economic terms not sociological. All of these terms might have different connotations to different folks.


Your initial question was "Is anarchism far right?" So i told you no and explained why.

If you would have asked if anarchism like to have a minimum amount of "state" influence i would have answered yes. But when you are talking politics. Left vs right. you have more factors involved then one. You create a two axis model. Or even a three axis one.. . 
And since you re talking anarchism we have already established one axis. (Govermental axis) so i put a second axis on yours (the socio one) and explained how you have left and right there. And you can put in a third one if you want (economical).


----------



## Cracker

Thank you for your reply. 


star el said:


> I'm not interested in trying to establish where anarchy falls on a rhetorical spectrum of "left" and "right." But to engage with your example: Milo is a nazi. Buzzfeed recently obtained a number of his private e-mails which demonstrate that he collaborates with white supremacists and considers hardcore neo-nazis supporters of his movement and his allies. I'd link you but I think since I just recently joined I can't post links yet? Just google it. He was banned from twitter for inciting his followers to harass Leslie Jones with a slew of racist messages, images, etc., which is in violation of their terms of service. Cable outlets don't want to give him a platform because he has given interviews seemingly endorsing pedophilia.
> 
> At his speeches he has released the personal information of undocumented and transgender persons, putting them at risk of being either attacked/trolled by his minions or by law enforcement. This, in combination with his facist politics, is the basis for the black bloc showing up at his speech, because what he is trying to create is a facist ethnostate through genocide. Giving him a platform is itself an attack on free speech, since his eventual goal is to deprive millions of their rights. One could argue against his innate right to free speech in order organize white supremacists under the idea of the harm principle of classic liberal thought, but I don't want to get into an abstract philosophical discussion here.
> 
> When you say that "most of the violence and intolerance is coming from the left," and targeted at "people they don't agree with," that is a serious understatement. Specifically they seem to be targeting nazis, white supremacists, and facists. Someone whose entire political project is to kill you and millions more people is not someone that you simply have a minor disagreement with. This also inherently necessitates the practice of identity politics, as they would not be needed were there not the historical and present existence of persistent structural discrimination in the United States. Hopefully this can give you some additional perspective.



Thank you for your response. I do not agree obviously but I appreciate you. 

I don't think Milo's black husband thinks he is a nazi and buzzfeed is an obviously biased outlet. Not saying I agree with Milo. The same people call Ben Shapiro (an orthodox jew) a nazi as well. it seems like it's the go to insult when one does not agree. The funny thing is that CNN has interviewed Mugabe (who committed mass genocide btw) and also al-Assad but Milo is too much. It just rubs me the wrong way when people throw the "white-supremacist" label on those who don't agree with them and that's exactly what I mean by the "attack on free speech". It's not right, just because someone is not as progressive as someone else doesn't make them a nazi. I'm not siding with the left or the right, I'm siding with free speech.

Anyway a cool side note on something I found online: https://news.bitcoin.com/crypto-anarchist-cody-wilson-launches-3d-printed-m1911-handgun-software/


----------



## Tadaa

Isnt going on the streets and blocking these speeches on campus free speech? And isnt if a rector cancels an event for security reasons a victory in the free speech debate ? And just saying. His latest berkley rally got cancelled cause he himself didnt file proper paper work.


----------



## Tadaa

Cracker said:


> I'm not siding with the left or the right, I'm siding with free speech.


The other day i was debating about what is so great about the usa.

He said " the right to bear arms and freedom of speech"
I said" the rockies, the pacific north west, the prairies, .."
His reply " thats so european of you"


----------



## star el

Cracker said:


> Thank you for your reply.
> 
> 
> Thank you for your response. I do not agree obviously but I appreciate you.
> 
> I don't think Milo's black husband thinks he is a nazi and buzzfeed is an obviously biased outlet. Not saying I agree with Milo. The same people call Ben Shapiro (an orthodox jew) a nazi as well. it seems like it's the go to insult when one does not agree. The funny thing is that CNN has interviewed Mugabe (who committed mass genocide btw) and also al-Assad but Milo is too much. It just rubs me the wrong way when people throw the "white-supremacist" label on those who don't agree with them and that's exactly what I mean by the "attack on free speech". It's not right, just because someone is not as progressive as someone else doesn't make them a nazi. I'm not siding with the left or the right, I'm siding with free speech.
> 
> Anyway a cool side note on something I found online: https://news.bitcoin.com/crypto-anarchist-cody-wilson-launches-3d-printed-m1911-handgun-software/



Ah, I see. I appreciate your desire for nuance. So you'd prefer if he were instead called "white supremacist-adjacent," or perhaps described as a "nazi collaborator" given his well established connections and collaborative communications with high profile members of both groups? Is that fair? Personally I don't associate with people who throw up seig heils, walk around with torches shouting Richard Walther Darré quotes, and murder women with their cars, but maybe there's some additional nuance to that I'm missing too--feel free to enlighten. ::hilarious::::joyful:: In any case I'll see myself out of here and not derail your thread any further. If you want to continue just message me.


----------



## Coywolf

Cracker said:


> There is a gay immigrant american man by the name of Milo Yianopolous who is definitely provocative but who was banned from twitter and CNN refuses to interview. When he went to speak at Berkeley a riot in sewed and so they cancelled his speech. This is an attack on his right to speak. There are many of examples of this and most of the violence and intolerance is coming from the so-called left in america contrary to popular belief.



Ok this is where I have to stop you. Milo Yianopolous is a fucking scum on the face of this earth.

That fucktard is one of the main causes of hate speech in this country. Fuck that guy.

And I am not sure you understand what "free speech" is in the country.

Free speech means you can say what every you want, but that doesnt mean anyone else has to listen to it, or host you to be able to promote it.







And I, for one, coming from a more of a leftist background will say FUCK Nazis, FUCK hate speech, and FUCK anyone who thinks they can regulate what one can do with their bodies, sexuality, religion, race, or personal decisions. Seriously.


----------



## AlwaysLost

Its illegal to use solar power in certain parts of the country punishable by imprisonment. Enjoy your free speech while it lasts lol. I dont agree with NAZIs, my grandpa killed quite a few, but unfortunately as long as no crime is committed they do have the right to speak.


----------



## Drengor

Cracker said:


> Another thing I wanna say is how much I hate identity politics.





Cracker said:


> I don't think Milo's black husband thinks he is a nazi



Following it up with off topic directions for how to 3D print your own unserialized AR-15 components...?


----------



## paiche

I've had the misfortune of being caught up in this attack on free speech debate. I've come out of it with the perspective that it is a strategy that white supremacists are using to normalize their platform which is a danger and I think that is the fundamental reason the far left is shouting them down. I will admit though the whole thing is confusing and messed up and they are finding themselves putting far too much effort in fighting soft targets for an easy 'win'. Also i'm skeptical and thinking it may be another tactic the elite is using to push us peasants into us vs. them mini battles so that we will never have the energy to actually organize to do anything productive and make any real positive social changes. (If you dismiss that as a crazy conspiracy theory first check out the cointelpro papers) This URL is to a video of one person's perspective on it. I agree with much of it, you may find it worth your while to watch, especially if you don't understand the issue, it's 9 minutes long:


----------



## Hillbilly Castro

Anarchism is neither left nor right. Anarchism is, as Renzo Novatore put it after WWI, "the eternal struggle of an aristocratic minority of outsiders against every society.."
One would think, by how the vast majority of "anarchists" today talk, that anarchism has always been composed of rabid collectivists, impotent whiners, and bourgeois pseudo-intellectuals. A great deal of anarchist history was made by individualists and egoists, and at one time, these wings of anarchism were large enough to overshadow the stultifying collectivism that infected anarchism at the turn of the century. 

On the right private property is worshipped.
On the left private property is hated.
To the anarchist, what one has the force or cunning to seize or control is their property. All ethical systems implying the contrary - that is, both left and right - fail to understand how rights work: rights are social fictions invented by the weak to attempt to obtain by guilt what they could not by force. The whining leftist says "we have a right to the means of production" but is afraid to shoot, has never stolen much, or subverted anything, and so his talk about rights is an aesthetic talk designed to display his tribal affiliation with other high-minded weaklings. At least he belongs somewhere. But these people are irrelevant in the winds of history.. the ones who alter history's course are generally solitaries with a penchant for subversion and tactics, who arm their high aesthetic values with gunpowder and brilliant schemes. 
Who, left or right, manages this? All follow their herds and engage in their outrage like birds of a feather...


----------



## Cracker

Hillbilly Castro said:


> Anarchism is neither left nor right. Anarchism is, as Renzo Novatore put it after WWI, "the eternal struggle of an aristocratic minority of outsiders against every society.."
> One would think, by how the vast majority of "anarchists" today talk, that anarchism has always been composed of rabid collectivists, impotent whiners, and bourgeois pseudo-intellectuals. A great deal of anarchist history was made by individualists and egoists, and at one time, these wings of anarchism were large enough to overshadow the stultifying collectivism that infected anarchism at the turn of the century.
> 
> On the right private property is worshipped.
> On the left private property is hated.
> To the anarchist, what one has the force or cunning to seize or control is their property. All ethical systems implying the contrary - that is, both left and right - fail to understand how rights work: rights are social fictions invented by the weak to attempt to obtain by guilt what they could not by force. The whining leftist says "we have a right to the means of production" but is afraid to shoot, has never stolen much, or subverted anything, and so his talk about rights is an aesthetic talk designed to display his tribal affiliation with other high-minded weaklings. At least he belongs somewhere. But these people are irrelevant in the winds of history.. the ones who alter history's course are generally solitaries with a penchant for subversion and tactics, who arm their high aesthetic values with gunpowder and brilliant schemes.
> Who, left or right, manages this? All follow their herds and engage in their outrage like birds of a feather...



Dude that was amazing, thank you for your input. I totally agree


----------



## Cracker

Coywolf said:


> And I, for one, coming from a more of a leftist background will say FUCK Nazis, FUCK hate speech, and FUCK anyone who thinks they can regulate what one can do with their bodies, sexuality, religion, race, or personal decisions. Seriously.



I do actually agree with you, but aren't Leftist doing that very same thing when they say that a religious institution must marry gay couples, and they are using the federal government to do it. Isn't calling someone a Nazi or white-supremacist kind of hateful speech (when in fact they are not)? There are working class people in america who have been marginalized and told by BLM that they are a bunch of privileged racists and that's not okay. The left is actually responsible for Trump becoming president for this very reason good job now we all have to deal with his dumb-ass. 

And I also think it's funny how the very first response was that Anarchism is on the left and made it seem like that was a given and I was dumb for asking. I'm here to learn and I'm trying to stay humble and open-minded even if others won't. I'm trying my best to show respect for everyone's views and my own views are not set in stone. Life is a journey and I am always looking to grow. But please people don't bash someone walking the journey like they are less-than.


----------



## Cracker

Oh and that article I posted about the 3d printed guns is fucken bad ass you should check it out, and it is relevant because the guy considers himself a crypto-anarchist and gun control is big on the lefts agenda.


----------



## Tadaa

@Cracker 
1st Question: can you define free speech as how you see it? 
Cause you disagree with my view on protesters shutting down events. 

2nd. I understand that you use 'leftist' as a general term for people disagreeing with the ruling 'rightwing'. And sure, i understand using the term somehow. But i hope you know that they are way more diverse and even divided. 
For example BLM . Its a group protesting to make a point on racial issues happening in the usa. 
Antifa is a doing the same with the extreme right gaining power. 
Does this mean they are all leftist and could work together ruling a leftist goverment? No.. they are adressing problems happening in society. 

When you say leftist are demanding religous institutions to marry gay people. Those are idiots. Find a differwnt church. Or change the church from within. But this has nothing to do with the 'left side' demanding rights from the goverment.
I believe people have to keep their mouth shut about others peoples lives and bodies. Everybody has the right to marry whomever they want, end their lives when sick, get an abortion,.. and yes. We should fight till every person in the world has these rights. Meaning if you are conservative and against any of these.. sure, speak once, then keep your mouth shut and let everybody live their lives. But you will not rule my body and life.

3th. Me being a white male with a european passport does make me privileged in my opinion. 

4th. Also.. can you explain how the left put trump in power? 



Kind of wish we can just sit at a bar and have this discusion with some beers..


----------



## Hillbilly Castro

Cracker said:


> I do actually agree with you, but aren't Leftist doing that very same thing when they say that a religious institution must marry gay couples, and they are using the federal government to do it. Isn't calling someone a Nazi or white-supremacist kind of hateful speech (when in fact they are not)? There are working class people in america who have been marginalized and told by BLM that they are a bunch of privileged racists and that's not okay. The left is actually responsible for Trump becoming president for this very reason good job now we all have to deal with his dumb-ass.
> 
> And I also think it's funny how the very first response was that Anarchism is on the left and made it seem like that was a given and I was dumb for asking. I'm here to learn and I'm trying to stay humble and open-minded even if others won't. I'm trying my best to show respect for everyone's views and my own views are not set in stone. Life is a journey and I am always looking to grow. But please people don't bash someone walking the journey like they are less-than.



Here's why you are being poorly received: Most of politics is, as I said above, basically a form of tribal aesthetics. You are speaking like Trump supporters speak, using similar buzzwords and similar nodes of outrage, and as such, regardless of the content of what you are saying, those who are committed anti-Trump folks must oppose you first and foremost in form - the content of your speech is irrelevant. 
That said, this doesn't make you the victim of leftist rabble-rousing here, because beyond simply speaking like a rightwinger, you've actually apparently taken the bait by indulging distinctly rightwing fantasies. BLM is not "racist", they are misguided. They diagnose actual problems (at least insofar as they discuss _material_ elements of how the present system is racist) but employ idiotic tools like identity politics to address these problems. And so it is much more complicated than simple "reverse racism" or whatever. 
Again, my focus on the particular problems that surround race focuses on material struggle. Offense and outrage are only relevant insofar as they are a gauge for material suffering - poverty, death, shortened life expectancy, physical injury, etc. Generally, the offense that the left takes is indicative of real material struggle. Women are raped more than men, enough to indicate that their material struggle is systemic. Blacks are more likely to be poor, not because of their own stupidity, but because in the five-hundred-year race for American wealth, they were chattel for the first 300 years, thus giving bourgeois anglo-whites a 300-year head start - it takes money to make money, and when you've been born with more, you'll make more. So while much of the outrage culture that the left has created is, I agree with you, idiotic, it is mostly rooted in actual material struggle. Thus, I reject their goals and means, but find more comraderie with them in the origins of their anger than those on the right.
Conversely, rightwing rage is generally not rooted in material struggle. Those on the right have, for the most part, nothing but _manufactured_ grievances that serve the elite. They are mad about things like taxes (mad? don't pay them) immigrants stealing jobs and being criminals (jobs you don't want and crimes that are blown out of proportion to stoke race war as a means to break working-class solidarity), free speech "rights" (again, "rights" do not exist unless you take them by force - stop bitching and carry a gun) and similar grievances that revolve around rights. Whites were never lynched, men are seldom raped, and Nixon-style "squares" only get the shaft because they are dumb enough to continue participating in a system that doesn't work anymore. The appropriate response is to become self-sufficient, practice self-defense, be humble and generous, understand the root of your political antagonists rage, and stop giving bait to trolls, as well as stop offering yourself as cannon fodder for the state-corporate complex. 

_That said_, there are legitimate non-material grievances of the right that are valid and are, to a large extent, why Trump is currently in power - because the left won't consider these grievances or adjust to them. This is mostly because, for all their altruistic care for the oppressed, they simply have a fear and loathing of poor whites. Most liberals, if they go enough generations back, have country roots their ancestors forsook for a city life, and as such, shudder to look back at what was formerly their own ignorance. They'd rather tell poor white people to shut the fuck up, move to the city, and start drinking lattes like they did. In reality, the libs don't want to look at the facts about the history of poor white America, nor do they want to speak the language of us poor white trash here and now. Most of us came here in the 17th and 18th centuries against our will, kicked out of Ireland and Scotland, and forcibly placed in "indentured servitude" which never really ended until we said "fuck this" and headed to Appalachia. At one point, we led multi-ethnic slave rebellions alongside blacks and indians, and lived together in rebel slave and runaway indentured servant communities, interbreeding and protecting one another. It was only later that the ruling class made an effort to sow the seeds of white supremacy among the rural poor in order to serve Federalism, and later the Union, over and against multi-ethnic working class resistance. Now, both tendencies - racism / conservatism and a fierce anti-establishment sentiment - exist alongside one another in poor whites as a walking contradiction. History is glazed over to make it seem as though these two tendencies are one in the same, when in fact, one was manufactured by the largely urban, largely northern liberal culture of the rich. 

This history is too complex for our political Twitter culture and its short attention span, and as such, all sides glaze it over completely and act smug about idiotic half-truths. The left says to poor whites - shut up and be like us because you're racist, and that's all there is to the story, and the right sells them a cheap and half-assed picture of their own history as an attempt to fuel sentiments that will only further entrench them in the very exclusion and disenfranchisement they currently suffer. 

The anarchist says, "fuck _all of this_", looks at the real history, listens to the voices of everyone skeptically and finds the kernel of truth that drives every loon in the pond to say what they are saying. They distinguish themselves from the horde, hone in on what disgusts them, and subvert and make war upon it. This process tends, again, toward the origins of leftist sympathies, but generally does not contain the means and the ends of the left. They get their means and ends from the right: subsistence, self-defense, and old-fashioned neighbors-helping-neighbors community. 

All this is to say: Some of what you're saying is right, but you need to look deeper to begin to grapple with the sorts of things you're talking about. Look beyond BLM toward the Black Panthers, beyond complaining about taxes and welfare to tax resistance and local, community-based welfare systems, and beyond all the short-attention-span shenanigans of politics today toward real education and real discussion of the issues and their history.


----------



## Coywolf

Cracker said:


> but aren't Leftist doing that very same thing when they say that a religious institution must marry gay couples



Yes, you are correct, and I think it is a terrible idea to force people to go against their religious beliefs, no matter how effed up they may be.



Cracker said:


> Isn't calling someone a Nazi or white-supremacist kind of hateful speech (when in fact they are not)?



Haha! No, because most Nazis and white supremacists will be the first one to admit they are one. I am not sure why anyone would call someone else a Nazi if they werent displaying Nazi-like behavior. 

Also, have we not established that Milo Yiannopoulos is quite Nazi-like in his behavior?



Cracker said:


> The left is actually responsible for Trump becoming president for this very reason good job now we all have to deal with his dumb-ass.



Correction, DEMOCRATS are one of the main reasons Trump was elected (The DNC in particular) (Not leftists, no leftist wanted that guy in office) . Bernie Sanders should have won that primary.

But there are still a whole bunch of un-educated conservatives who voted for that asshole. In all reality, it is the Right's fault he is in office


----------



## Coywolf

Hillbilly Castro said:


> Conversely, rightwing rage is generally not rooted in material struggle. Those on the right have, for the most part, nothing but _manufactured_ grievances that serve the elite. They are mad about things like taxes (mad? don't pay them) immigrants stealing jobs and being criminals (jobs you don't want and crimes that are blown out of proportion to stoke race war as a means to break working-class solidarity), free speech "rights" (again, "rights" do not exist unless you take them by force - stop bitching and carry a gun) and similar grievances that revolve around rights. Whites were never lynched, men are seldom raped, and Nixon-style "squares" only get the shaft because they are dumb enough to continue participating in a system that doesn't work anymore. The appropriate response is to become self-sufficient, practice self-defense, be humble and generous, understand the root of your political antagonists rage, and stop giving bait to trolls, as well as stop offering yourself as cannon fodder for the state-corporate complex.



A-F***ing-men

Damn @Hillbilly Castro that conversation got deep real quick, I appreciate your input on this conversation.


----------



## William Howard 2

Cracker said:


> I see the attack on free speech in the US coming from the left and true liberalism moving to the right...


Though both sides are guilty, I would think suppression of speech comes more from the already established conservative majority. I would imagine the push back we are seeing from the left is a counter movement. 

There was a random quote from Dune, "that every movement sows the seeds to its own demise". I think what was meant is that we adopt the strategies of those we are fighting. By "using the masters tools to dismantle the masters house" I think it leaves a mark on us, and changes our character to resemble the very ideas we have been fighting all along. Its very much what Nietzsche must have meant when he said "when we stare into the abyss it stares back at us". 

I remember reading a phycology study done a few years ago on a Neo - Nazi group. They concluded that the members see themselves as not instigating hate, but as a reaction to what they saw as "oppressive new norms". 

I been hearing this a lot that the left is being oppressive. But considering all this that I said, the only thing that ever keeps popping in my mind is that one group, the left, is more compassionate then the right. I just think Western politics has had this problem of looking at people and the issues as robotic and technical. I don't think I ever heard of "love" being in any political theorists work since Rousseau waaaay back in the day. 

I know it sounds dumb. But I just always go back to Augustine, that there are just some people who are gifted with the sight of some heavenly form and try to fly up to the heavens, while others see the "impracticality" of it and pull them down to the Earthly realm. This very much, I think, is that "double movement" I referred to in the beginning played out in a older language. 

I know that's really abstract. I'm sorry.


----------



## Cracker




----------



## Hillbilly Castro

now are you just trolling?


----------



## Cracker

Sorry I had a thought of how punk rock Milo kinda is, and I remember Sid lol


----------



## Cracker

Too tired to commit to a long post right now, just got a job assembling boats, been working 12 hr days past couple days, I'm beat. @Hillbilly Castro I think you thought I was calling BLM racist but I didn't say that actually, but some probably are, just like some white people are privileged. Fuck generalized statements that's what racism basically is right? I think you're right though about the talking points that I brought up, and Milo was not a good example. But really there are very few if any good examples in the media. Fuck hollywood fuck cnn fox news everybody. Library here I come and all you young generation people I suggest you do the same because the media, and technology and even the interent is gonna shape young peoples view of history, spirituality, politcs, the whole lot, and I think not for the better.


----------



## vannevar

star el said:


> I'm not interested in trying to establish where anarchy falls on a rhetorical spectrum of "left" and "right." But to engage with your example: Milo is a nazi. Buzzfeed recently obtained a number of his private e-mails which demonstrate that he collaborates with white supremacists and considers hardcore neo-nazis supporters of his movement and his allies. I'd link you but I think since I just recently joined I can't post links yet? Just google it. He was banned from twitter for inciting his followers to harass Leslie Jones with a slew of racist messages, images, etc., which is in violation of their terms of service. Cable outlets don't want to give him a platform because he has given interviews seemingly endorsing pedophilia.
> 
> At his speeches he has released the personal information of undocumented and transgender persons, putting them at risk of being either attacked/trolled by his minions or by law enforcement. This, in combination with his facist politics, is the basis for the black bloc showing up at his speech, because what he is trying to create is a facist ethnostate through genocide. Giving him a platform is itself an attack on free speech, since his eventual goal is to deprive millions of their rights. One could argue against his innate right to free speech in order organize white supremacists under the idea of the harm principle of classic liberal thought, but I don't want to get into an abstract philosophical discussion here.
> 
> When you say that "most of the violence and intolerance is coming from the left," and targeted at "people they don't agree with," that is a serious understatement. Specifically they seem to be targeting nazis, white supremacists, and facists. Someone whose entire political project is to kill you and millions more people is not someone that you simply have a minor disagreement with. This also inherently necessitates the practice of identity politics, as they would not be needed were there not the historical and present existence of persistent structural discrimination in the United States. Hopefully this can give you some additional perspective.



milo...is a whore. And a monkey, just like the rest of his ilk: the pundits, kardashians, ann coulters, perez hiltons, and alex joneses. opinions mean nothing. Value systems and beliefs mean nothing. Ethics can only be expressed through action, and without action ethics are meaningless.


----------



## vannevar

Cracker said:


> Thank you for your reply.
> 
> 
> Thank you for your response. I do not agree obviously but I appreciate you.
> 
> I don't think Milo's black husband thinks he is a nazi and buzzfeed is an obviously biased outlet. Not saying I agree with Milo. The same people call Ben Shapiro (an orthodox jew) a nazi as well. it seems like it's the go to insult when one does not agree. The funny thing is that CNN has interviewed Mugabe (who committed mass genocide btw) and also al-Assad but Milo is too much. It just rubs me the wrong way when people throw the "white-supremacist" label on those who don't agree with them and that's exactly what I mean by the "attack on free speech". It's not right, just because someone is not as progressive as someone else doesn't make them a nazi. I'm not siding with the left or the right, I'm siding with free speech.
> 
> Anyway a cool side note on something I found online: https://news.bitcoin.com/crypto-anarchist-cody-wilson-launches-3d-printed-m1911-handgun-software/



think in terms of obscenity. One SCOTUS geezer said of obscenity “ i know it when i see it”.... Fascism and race politics are similar in that everyones tastes vary: to some tribalism is an elixir, to others (usually the capital O Others,) its obscenity. So can anyone provide an objective critique of the Us/them tribalistic paradigm? Its not going away anytime soon until its edited out of the gene pool. PS If you root for a sports team...any sports team...dont comment.


----------



## DreaderDread

Anarchism isn't on the left or right spectrum. Simply don't want to live under any type of organization. Whatever ideologies ONE has doesn't affect the definition of Anarchy which is definitely not an organization but a way to live your life.


----------



## Ajax

Lmao!! Please tell me this is a troll post . Omg so much to say..for starters, no one is silencing free speech. We are stopping the hate spewing from the right. The Constitution only protects you from government like police or other government workers, not citizens. Also, far right is Nazism, Racism, Fascism, sexism, homophobia, etc... nothing like anarchy. Anarchy is the notion of freedom and equality.. anarchy is love no matter race, sexual orientation, gender, etc.


----------



## roughsleeper

god i hate fuckers that say dumb shit like this. how about reading about the history of anarchist thought and action before open your useless trap?


----------



## RobHASboots

Cracker said:


> I see the attack on free speech in the US coming from the left and true liberalism moving to the right. There's a weird shift going on in america. College campuses are brainwashing the youth and it's crazy because I see a lot of socialist claiming to be anarchist. The whole thing is crazy to me because I see them toting the anarchy flag and then spewing socialist communist ideology. Anarchy is actually far right on the political spectrum, no government involvement, am I right?


---> Anarchism, in the philosophical sense, could be seen as drifting into the spectrum of right-wing politics at times. It appears this way because Anarchism promotes (and in many ways, demands) independence and self-reliance. Often Anarchist theory resembles Nietzsche-esque principles, 'survival of the fittest', 'carry yourself', and allowing natural selection to continue strengthening our species.
Because it is an alien announcement to tell people "Now we're on our own again! We are free from all institutionalized social control! Financial, political, and judiciary systems are no more!" Good luck, weaklings. 
Because we are social creatures by nature, we would develop organizations, large and small, based strictly on FREE ASSOCIATION (as all forms of state coercion or punishment have been utterly erased from our lives and future existence). 
The man who values/uses roads or infrastructure will join a group of like-minded individuals who share his values, so that when there is a damaged bridge, or potholes to be filled, that group will take direct action; they will mix cement and manifest their need. Otherwise, there will be no road, as clearly the road's importance is not equal to a need for direct action. Necessity will be the mother of invention and maintenance. 
In this way, all things will carry a burden of justification, or fall by the wayside. 
And so, the human race is grasped by the scruff of the neck and faced toward their future:
What is important? Food. Clean water, shelter, work? Security? - Is equality important? Does one man in a community work from sun-up to sundown, providing necessary provisions to his community storehouse, only to realize each day that his neighbors do not contribute? What is his motivation to labor to support others? When does his compassion expire?
Under -or rather WITHIN- Anarchism (as it is as much a school of philosophy as it is a political ideology) there is no state regulation:
The Nanny State is dissolved; DNR officers no longer enforce clean water acts. Will there be more humans polluting? Will there be less industrial NEED for production, consumption, and reason TO pollute? What exactly do we need to survive, to thrive, to be content?
Factionalism occurs, splintering once 'structured' (free association) communities; walls are built around communal compounds to keep thieves and shirkers-of-labor out.
A productive network of syndicalism could form, wherein communities producing surpluses enter symbiotic trade agreements: food for lumber, footwear for hammocks, medical supplies for daycare, engineering projects for machinery, etc.
Or, humanity slips back into some form of feudalism; the starving unwashed masses beating on the gates of those who reconstructed the old human hives of the past, and once again the poor sell their labor in return for those necessities that the social revolution sought to provide all, universally, or at least give people the chance of a brave new world, unrestricted by society's oppression, in all ways visible or ostensible.
Ultimately, Anarchism is an idea...
Noam Chomsky summed it up in a way I enjoy pondering: He says to think of Anarchism more of a theory that we must put into action, that the anarchist, when confronted by authority (in whatever means), must question the legitimacy of that authority; we must expose blind powers to the light and demand that they justify themselves, not because we have always had this law or that, this institution, that political system, or a certain mode of operation, but, TODAY, RIGHT NOW, why am I being coerced as a sentient human being with one life to live on Earth. 
I, and you, and anyone alive, has the right to be left alone by coercive powers that patrol our communities looking for trouble.
We have your #: it's 911. I'll call you if I need you. But you've betrayed me. So, I won't make that mistake again.
I don't like having to explain myself.


----------



## Deleted member 20683

IMO anarchists should stay off the left-right political spectrum altogether. Even as someone who describes myself vaguely as “left-of-center”, I think of this as an orientation from a more complicated space, rather than a position on a one-dimensional line. 

I don’t think the distinction even holds up particularly well. Although it is plain enough to see the embrace of racism and chauvinism (etc.) as characteristically right wing, plenty of leftists embrace nationalism (as “national liberation/self-determination/anti-imperialism”/etc) as effective politics (and now the alt-right quotes it right back to them). Antisemitism gets a big pass these days - yeah, the Israeli state is pretty messed up in a lot of ways, but proclaiming solidarity with Hamas and Hezbollah is no less fucked; but that’s where a binary-opposition mentality gets you. Meanwhile the far-right now embraces allegedly leftist notions of populism, free speech, and so on - actually not a new thing at all but it goes right back to national socialism itself. 

Modern politics are all products of modernity; they’re all pretty much rearranging deck chairs on the titanic. I look to indigenous cultures, philosophy and ecology to inspire a more multifaceted perspective.


----------



## RobHASboots

'Politics is bunk'


----------



## roughdraft

@oak moth I'm ridin with you on this one 

far right, far left, the distinction is irrelevant


----------



## phantomcat

Think of political alignments as a circle rather than a binary. Anarchy is actually the place where the left goes beyond left and the right behind right. And try to think less about what the left and right should mean and what is actually perpetuated by the two party system in America. Liberals and republicans both are centrists based on corporate goals/lobbyists whereas the real "left" are antifa socialists and anarcho-communists, with the far right being the alt-right fascists including self proclaimed nazis and white supremacists. Anarchy is more about fighting systems of oppression rather than the simple idea of no government (which is entirely idealistic and unrealistic at this point in human history).


----------



## Deleted member 20683

...then again maybe the problem with anarchism isn't that it's "unrealistic" (what is realistic, who or what sets your expectations?) but that it's kind of content-less, letting people apply it to all sorts of different variant ideologies like primitivism, socialism, nationalism and capitalism which have little in common, by offering different definitions of the "archies" that they are against. then being an anarchist seems to entail a lot of arguing with other anarchists about what you're all supposed to believe and/or do which just really doesn't seem all that fulfilling.

i like to clarify that i'm a critic of capitalism and the state "from the left" because i think talk of "going beyond left and right" often conceals some very sketchy (or at least naive) shit which is usually what i would consider far right (like "pan-secessionism"). fascism is almost always a mix of elements considered far left and far right as i mentioned above, but i don't think this means that far left and right are the same or that a horseshoe or circle are any more accurate than any other one-dimensional "spectrum".

to me, having an anarchist orientation means (if anything these days) a way of labeling my personal disgust toward systems of control; but if i had to say what i think is an ideal form of society it would be some kind of primitive communism modeled on indigenous cultures - i.e., there is a positive content and a kind of order, not simply a "power vacuum" or "chaos". idk if that's "realistic", i'm pessimistic to think it will come about within my lifetime, but i can try to live true to my values as much as possible in this shitty hellscape of capitalist civilization, which i don't think is "realistic" either in the long run. and both the left and right are very involved in upholding that.


----------



## pewpew

Tadaa said:


> Isnt going on the streets and blocking these speeches on campus free speech? And isnt if a rector cancels an event for security reasons a victory in the free speech debate ? And just saying. His latest berkley rally got cancelled cause he himself didnt file proper paper work.


 Ummm... Blocking someone from speaking is not free speech...its bring an ignorant douche that is scared of facts.


----------



## pewpew

Communism has always worked lol....


----------



## pewpew

Coywolf said:


> Ok this is where I have to stop you. Milo Yianopolous is a fucking scum on the face of this earth.
> 
> That fucktard is one of the main causes of hate speech in this country. Fuck that guy.
> 
> And I am not sure you understand what "free speech" is in the country.
> 
> Free speech means you can say what every you want, but that doesnt mean anyone else has to listen to it, or host you to be able to promote it.
> 
> View attachment 39322
> 
> 
> And I, for one, coming from a more of a leftist background will say FUCK Nazis, FUCK hate speech, and FUCK anyone who thinks they can regulate what one can do with their bodies, sexuality, religion, race, or personal decisions. Seriously.




Could you provide examples pretty plesse?


----------



## Coywolf

pewpew said:


> Could you provide examples pretty plesse?



Examples of what? Milo being a racist douche?

The examples are easy enough toGoogle. Type in his name.


----------



## ApolloUniverse

I love this question but its logic is a bit misguided. I mean, I see people on the right emphasizing feeding and helping the poor, but would that mean social welfare is rightist and leftism is about personal enrichment? obviously not. So anarchism isn't right because there are people on the left who oppose its precepts.

Anarchy is neither left nor right. It's opposite is state control/totalitarianism. Left anarchy would be anarchy whose practitioners aim for socialist rights and ends through an anarchist process (voluntary cooperative action) where right anarchy would look more like today's libertarianism, with an emphasis on individualist rights and ends. Anarchy proposes that voluntary political action is inherently good with good ends while totalitarianism claims that control is the way towards achieving the best end-state. In this sense, you can come to think of anarchy/totalitarianism as a process and left/right as a priority.


----------



## pewpew

Coywolf said:


> Examples of what? Milo being a racist douche?
> 
> The examples are easy enough toGoogle. Type in his name.




Thought so...sit down


----------



## roughdraft

this may be stoneresque or invalid I'll admit, then again maybe not -

i was once having the thought that...if everything in this reality is 'circular not linear' then yes ultimately 'far left' ideology and 'far right' ideology would begin to resemble each other


----------



## Coywolf

First of all, thanks for the douchy comment, douche.

Secondly:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milo_Yiannopoulos

do your own damn research it's not my fault you are so underinformed.

-Supports Alt Right
-An openly gay man who belittles LGBTQ movements
-Contovercial statements condoning peadophilia and statutory rape
-works for Breitbart
-Anti Muslim


Should I go on? Or are you ready to.......Sit down?


----------



## Tadaa

pewpew said:


> Ummm... Blocking someone from speaking is not free speech..


please define free speech then


----------



## Coywolf

Tadaa said:


> please define free speech then



I will say that the left is not going about this 'college demonstrations' the right way.

They are threatening these far right groups, and not allowing them to speak, while at the same time calling for "safe spaces" in public campuses.

That is far from what I believe they should be doing, which is waging a battle of information against these hate groups, and fighting to properly educate students on social issues. That is what the left USED to do, that is how you get things done.

Allowing students to be "protected" from certain speech, and saying they "should not be subjected" to certain ideas is so against the fundamental ideas of freedom in this country, its fucking ridiculous. It is almost as bad as what the right is doing to free speech, in my opinion.

If you are in college, you are in the "marketplace of ideas". You are there to make decisions on what ideas you relate to, and how you want to move forward, both socially, and economically.

Trying to 'force' students to lean one way or the other through passing laws about restricting speech, or feeding them false information (tactics from both the left, AND right) is disgusting, and it severely damages the idea of free speech.


----------



## ApolloUniverse

Coywolf said:


> I will say that the left is not going about this 'college demonstrations' the right way.
> 
> They are threatening these far right groups, and not allowing them to speak, while at the same time calling for "safe spaces" in public campuses.
> 
> That is far from what I believe they should be doing, which is waging a battle of information against these hate groups, and fighting to properly educate students on social issues. That is what the left USED to do, that is how you get things done.
> 
> Allowing students to be "protected" from certain speech, and saying they "should not be subjected" to certain ideas is so against the fundamental ideas of freedom in this country, its fucking ridiculous. It is almost as bad as what the right is doing to free speech, in my opinion.
> 
> If you are in college, you are in the "marketplace of ideas". You are there to make decisions on what ideas you relate to, and how you want to move forward, both socially, and economically.
> 
> Trying to 'force' students to lean one way or the other through passing laws about restricting speech, or feeding them false information (tactics from both the left, AND right) is disgusting, and it severely damages the idea of free speech.




It's interesting that you describe college as a "marketplace of ideas". Are you a proponent of entirely free markets, then? Interestingly, ideas could possibly be compared to commodities in their proliferation, not meant to be explored nor improved upon, but proliferated and packaged for mass consumption, stripped of their original context and quality. Like what happens with capitalism, the marketplace of ideas might be seen to centralize thought-power in very few hands (such as those who control mass-media outlets, the few successful writers who make it to the top, etc.) and the inequality of thought-capital and thought-power spreads unevenly. Those who are listened to lose the original quality of their speech and become listened to simply because there are others listening to them, because their ideas are cheap and easily accessible, ready-made and widely known about, while those without a ready audience seem to find no space to speak in a completely free zone of communication, because the market for ideas has become heavily capitalized.

In this context, view safe spaces like protected markets, and the imposition of free speech along the lines of the imposition of free market ideanomics upon a growing economy. Instead of being worried about being outdone by a better idea, safe space proponents are worried that the introduction of such would suck the creative production out of their growing community, much as a Wal-Mart sucks the economic development out of a local market economy that it displaces. Sound about right so far?

If you want to see safe spaces go away, then in my opinion you should start advocating the decentralization of speech-capital, just like if you want free market economies to rein you should probably start focusing on spreading out the wealth that has already been concentrated in a few hands to give anyone a fair shot at competing in a larger marketplace.

I could list off examples by the thousands of people choosing inferior products simply because of the reinforcing factor of social recognition, and constant affirmation of products similar to the one being introduced. Same thing with ideas. Creative factories like young university spaces are constantly sensitive to the takeover of the same system of idea-production that rules the mainstream political space, where few get to decide the lines spoken by the media outlets to the many, and the many's discussion must appeal to the priorities of the few in order to become heard.


----------



## Maxnomad

Like most of what @Hillbilly Castro says but the egoist tendency towards individualism is a fetish. The illegalists were cool and all but holding a bunch of essentially correct views about the nature of polity and the social experience currently doesnt translate necessarily into the whole "we must be self sufficient before we can be a union of egoists!" thing, its just youve probably never seen a truly healthy community living on their own terms. The tiniest seed of hatred for your parents or community because they have been dominated at yimes rather than being triumphant is a pretty heavy vibe, we anarchists havent escaped that entirely either (see also, where milo came from)


----------



## Deleted member 24782

Cause baby, I'm an anarchist and you're a spineless liberal
We marched together for the eight-hour day and held hands in the streets of Seattle
But when it came time to throw bricks through that Starbucks window
You left me all alone, all alone


----------



## Maxnomad

Great song, but liberalism in the states is a political system based on the historical appropriation of the commons by the wealthy, and the subsequent imposition of a "social contract" i.e. if you participate in a society youre obligated to follow the rules, or leave. Two ideas underpinned this logic, number one being the so called "tragedy of the commons", the classic example being one asshole farmer overgrazing the literal boston commons. Historically however, this never happened. The enclosure of the commons in england was perpetrated in england by edward th 4th or 5th, basically just to give land to the church or to his faves. The practice was extended in the states, despite the pilgrims fleeing monarchy, by john locke solely on the basis of this logical excercise. However logic is an insidious thing; it asserts itself. See your own damn squats as an example of a contemporary "tragedy of the commons". 

The second pillar supporting the logic of the social contract was the idea that there was limitless land available for free to anyone with the gumption to go west. This, of course, was simply genocide. See the writings of silvia federicci and others in the midnight oil collective for more on the subject of enclosure and incorporation of previously autonomous subjects into capital. Consider the situationist scrawl "theres a cop in your head comrade. Kill him!" If you dont understand my assertion that most of us have never seen a thoroughly healthy community, or your local walmart, or the several recent shitshows threads on this very forum

I swear, why are y'all so damn terrified of catching an education?


----------



## Maxnomad

Lol my jumping off point was supposed to be that spinelessness isnt exclusively associated w liberalism. Guess i got a little caught up in the moment


----------

