Anarchy is actually far right

[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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

please define free speech then

 

[Coywolf]

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]

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)