what's with all these right-wing anarchists?

[plagueship]

that's cool how you call anyone you disagree with or don't understand a troll though, that's a really good debating tactic.

 

[acrata4ever]

i cant believe theres people who put up flags and think anarchy means no laws no police no military and no government. it means no rulers. every anarchist society has been sucessful and has rules laws a military and elected leaders.

 

[CXR1037]

plagueship, you made an over-generalization that's on the same level as saying something like, "all democrats are communists."

Troll! Troll! Troll!

Also, you make me irrevocably sad. Congratulations.

 

[plagueship]

well, i guess i'm glad i achieved that then? i seriously still don't know what generalization you think you're talking about...

anyway i'm sure you and gudj will both be pleased that this is officially my last attempt to discuss politics on this board. fare thee well, idiocracy.

 

[flashinglights]

I'm going to make a (possibly futile) attempt to save this topic by pointing out the little-known tradition of Agorism. Here is a quote that sums up Agorism pretty nicely:

Agorism is revolutionary market anarchism. In a market anarchist society, law and security will be provided by market institutions, not political institutions. Agorists recognize, therefore, that those institutions can not develop through political reform. Instead, they will come about as a result of market processes. As government is banditry, revolution culminates in the suppression of government by market providers of security and law. Market demand for such service providers is what will lead to their emergence. Development of that demand will come from economic growth in the sector of the economy that explicitly shuns state involvement (and therefore can not turn to the state in its role as monopoly provider of security and law). That sector of the economy is the counter-economy – black and grey markets.

— Brad Spangler, Agorist Revolution in a Nutshell​

I think a lot of the philosophy the OP was trying to refer to can be summed up by Agorism, and it resonates pretty well with my own personal beliefs. As I see it, in our current situation (where cities and industry have already spoiled the land, land already stolen which is now crying out for responsible stewardship and return to natural processes) the act of buying and selling and caretaking property is not innately evil - it's force, greed and usury that spoils the whole thing by constantly demanding more output with no concern for the human and environmental costs.

In that sense, casting off allegiance to the authoritarians and bankers is most of what is required to solve the current mess - with no bankers demanding ever-increasing returns, we are no longer forced to yield up ever-increasing amounts of social and environmental wealth. Without crying out for protection from brutal overlords, we can still find ways to defend ourselves and the natural commons from profit-motivated attacks from all angles.

Agorism is unashamed about both non-participation in those aspects of the market economy which are detrimental to humanity and the earth as a whole, as well as participation in those aspects which yield greater good for humanity and the earth. I see it as a realistic blueprint for moving forward out of this centrally planned nightmare we are waking up from.

 

[acrata4ever]

paypal is an electric bank

 

[codeth]

what is coercive about protecting something you worked hard for with a gun? how is that a right wing ideal? does that mean the left wing equivalent would be to just take a bow and let em have at it? its not like you would have to stand on your porch pointing a gun at everyone that walks by, but unfortunately it takes armed citizens to be a free people, else there's nothing stopping the people who want to come in and run shit/take whats yours.

 

[codeth]

I'm going to make a (possibly futile) attempt to save this topic by pointing out the little-known tradition of Agorism. Here is a quote that sums up Agorism pretty nicely:

Agorism is revolutionary market anarchism. In a market anarchist society, law and security will be provided by market institutions, not political institutions. Agorists recognize, therefore, that those institutions can not develop through political reform. Instead, they will come about as a result of market processes. As government is banditry, revolution culminates in the suppression of government by market providers of security and law. Market demand for such service providers is what will lead to their emergence. Development of that demand will come from economic growth in the sector of the economy that explicitly shuns state involvement (and therefore can not turn to the state in its role as monopoly provider of security and law). That sector of the economy is the counter-economy – black and grey markets.​

— Brad Spangler, Agorist Revolution in a Nutshell​

I think a lot of the philosophy the OP was trying to refer to can be summed up by Agorism, and it resonates pretty well with my own personal beliefs. As I see it, in our current situation (where cities and industry have already spoiled the land, land already stolen which is now crying out for responsible stewardship and return to natural processes) the act of buying and selling and caretaking property is not innately evil - it's force, greed and usury that spoils the whole thing by constantly demanding more output with no concern for the human and environmental costs.

In that sense, casting off allegiance to the authoritarians and bankers is most of what is required to solve the current mess - with no bankers demanding ever-increasing returns, we are no longer forced to yield up ever-increasing amounts of social and environmental wealth. Without crying out for protection from brutal overlords, we can still find ways to defend ourselves and the natural commons from profit-motivated attacks from all angles.

Agorism is unashamed about both non-participation in those aspects of the market economy which are detrimental to humanity and the earth as a whole, as well as participation in those aspects which yield greater good for humanity and the earth. I see it as a realistic blueprint for moving forward out of this centrally planned nightmare we are waking up from.

i agree. at the top of this mess is the globalist bankers and before the world can change they need to be removed. look up the rothschild's. at this point people wanna ask you where your tin foil hat is, but history is the proof.

 

[RVLG]

I've stopped trying to reason with right-wing 'anarchists'. It really doesn't work well. You may as well try reasoning with an ultra-authoritarian like Stalin. For an An-Com or other actual anarchist, their ideas are simply too different from yours to change with rational discussion.

 

[Earth]

I've read the opening statement and since I'm a lowly factory worker without the required education to understand all the verbage used, I'm gonna do my sincere best with a proper response:
DISCLAIMER: I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT THE POINT IS THAT IS TRYING TO BE MADE OR BROUGHT ACROSS

ok, here I go in no particular order:
First, I LOVE CT because we have laws on the books which give us the power to use 'up to and including deadly force' as a means of self defence OR to protect our property / business.
Next, around Feb/ Mar of 2003, lied up with an 'as much as possible' broken ankle, I learned that in this country - the ultra rich control our puppet governments strings.
I watched Colin Powell try his best to lie about why we needed to invade Iraq, and I wasn't buying it because I saw from my hospital be how he wasn't buying it. (Next thing we knew, he was forced to retire) so I have no faith in any political party.
Since 1983 until about two years ago, I've been involved and held memberships in more than one can shake a stick at (NYC: 1983 - 1985 Republican, 1985 - 1988 Conservative - now thats back way before the party became trendy...
CT 1988 Republican, 1989 Independent, 1990(?) till 2003 Republican; 2004 - about 2008 or 9: Green, thanks to "W"...)

At present I have no interest in politics as I see it as only as more Meet The New Boss, Same As The Old Boss.

In fact, I set out to review all domestic and foriegn policies from say 1976 on, and was surprised at which adminsitrations supposedly (per the media) were the good guys vs bad.
Came to find out that everything said today (meaning the last 10 years) was a lie.
By 2009, I saw no reason to play anymore, game over... no more voting for me as I have no desire to have my intelligence insulted by picking who's gonna goven me.

As far as Anarchy goes, I still like to believe in the Crass model of do what you want to do, be who you want to be as long as no being is being harmed or caused any harm, but lately Manson's "One World Order" has be hooked...

When I was in E.Berlin (I'm from W.Germany originally) in 1981, I got a good dose of what Communism was like.
I remember being 16 and in a strange way thinking it was not such a bad idea.
Interesting thing: Once the wall came down, many in the East wondered what would happen next since they no longer had their factory jobs... but last time I checked, all was goods.

Defending Property??
My neighbor asked me if I would ever consider moving.
I thought about it and said no.
We then spoke about Emminant Domain, and agreed that when the bulldozers would come (should they) that guns would be blazing.
Last time I checked, property ownership was protected by law, but today - who knows.... either way - we do have the right (here anyway) to legally defend our turf by any means necessary....

Something was mentioned about the tea party...
I liked them for about 5 minutes, then when they had to pay drill baby drill sexy sarah a $100k to speak at a ralley, that was it for me.
No, finding out that the Koch Brothers are behind the tea party was the end of it for me...

Capitalism is cool as long as it's ethical.
Meaning, don't close your US factory and open one up in India so you can go from a multi millionare to a billionare as the cost of putting workers out on the street.
Fuck Rich Pigs!! (or as Lemmie would say Comon Baby, Eat The Rich!!)
I recoginze the need for wealth when it comes to invest in business, etc... but I feel that there should be some sort of ethical natural boundries which prohibit oppression / exploitation of workers for the sake of stockholders / the brass at the top...

Right Wing Capitalists who believe in Anarchy??
No such thing.... that's something invented either on N.P.R. or rhetroic from a college thesis some nut came up with...

Hmmmm. Maybe that last line is my response.

PS: Funny what happens once something becomes trendy.

Respect.....................

 

[Vonuist]

what do y'all think - are you seeing a lot of this BS out there in your travels across the US?

I've encountered a lot of this. There seems to be a rightist inflitration of the anti-globalist movement through rightist front groups like "we are change" that claim to be "beyond left and right" but advance a solidly paeloconservative agenda as well as the usual tiresome old far-right conspiracy theories about a communist/satanist/reptile/Jewish takeover.

It is also disturbing to note that most of these groups are climate-change deniers too, so people are being recruited from the anti-globalisation movement and end up pushing propaganda about climate change for the oil industry instead.

It's a worrying trend and it looks like it's spreading throughout the English speaking world. But then, when schools are no more than assembly lines producing workers, how are people expected to develop the critical thinking skills that help them to avoid crypto-fascists, conspiracy theorists and other reactionaries?

 

[Vonuist]

Last time I checked, property ownership was protected by law, but today - who knows....

There are very few places on earth where one can truly own property.
In the US, as well as most other industrialised countries, the system of land "ownership" is called fee-simple, in which one purchases the right to use and enjoy the property and any buildings on it. You do not own the land, the state owns it, that's how emiment domain works, they are obliging you to end your tenancy and they are taking back their land. If you look on the deed to someone's property it will describe them as "tenant" rather than "owner" for exactly that reason.

The opposite system would be actual physical ownership of land, known as an "allodial property" or an "allodium", almost all of this is gone as governments tend to put in enormous bids for such properties.

This situation is occuring on the Shetland Islands in the UK, where the UK crown has been buying up allodial "Udal" properties and reclassifying them before selling them on as fee-simple.

Land and property "ownership" is no more than another tall tale told by the ruling class to pacify us proles. When you dig a little deeper into property laws and commercial licensing it quickly becomes clear that, in raw legal terms at least, we "own" very little.

 

[Nelco]

i used to know some left-anarchists who thought they could dialogue with tea party/anarcho-capitalist/free state/etc types in such a way to draw them further into anti-authoritarianism as opposed to mere anti-statism. as much as i think a lot of the things that a lot of left anarchists are about are idiotic, it kind of almost makes my head explode when people won't stop talking about "liberty" and "freedom" and "voluntary societies" without "coercion", then turn around and say that property rights and the "free market" will make it all possible. what??? without police who will protect your property rights? you and your gun, i would imagine... but if so then you should stop kidding yourself that you're not practicing a form of coercion on anyone...

i would assume that like most other political activist groups/tendencies they like to make a lot of noise and give the impression they are more numerous and significant than they really are... still, when you think about how powerful the "tea party" is now (whether it's staying or not), and how any kind of radical leftist critique has dwindled away from mainstream society, shit gets creepy... these people are wicked dumb, they're all wound up about something or other, a lot of them seem to have guns, and their half-baked ideas seem to be spreading into all levels of american politics. or are they?

what do y'all think - are you seeing a lot of this BS out there in your travels across the US?

I don't think people should "own" parts of land.
I think it's wrong.
I don't think this is the land of the free. It's more like the land of volunteering slaves in my eye's.
I don't care about the market. Useless junk is just useless junk.
Just my personal opinions.
Ppl that think like that are confused and most likely are trying to figure it out.
Other wise, everyone reaps what they sow.

 

[Nelco]

It doesn't matter what group of people you are talking about republicans, democrats, anarchists, or traveler type. The majority of these people are just talk. They never do anything worth wild other then go on and on about thing.

Talk is cheap.

StP is no exception to that rule.

you pretty much said it like it is.

 

[rezmutts]

I myself and Navajo culture have such same related ideas of co working together, getting exiled hating on other clans, stealing from family, addiction, diseases, who has property, Domesticated Livestock. same old shit in every society. hate.. Glad i live in the wood works, travel and meet good people along the way.. family is the core of all struggles. work together and share ideas and glue together the spaces of surviving.1519 years of resistances...

 

[oki]

this whole rightwing anarchist bullshit is simply harcore capitalism. screw that.
these people think they are smart but are really catering to elitists and repressers. most of them simply have no clue what is to be done after they destroy all central power, usually something about waving about guns and protecting your own shit and screw the rest.
its just a hateful childish non-ideology.

 

[fr33rang3r]

i would guess that these folks are ayn rand fans or have been 'educated' by her followers. amongst conservatives, and boy was i one, there is what the lowly plebes, like myself believed the conservative movement stood for, and what the elites in control actually stood for.

these are technically called paleoconservatism and neoconservatism, by conservatives in the know. i would imagine the appeal of anarchism is to the paleocons, who want less govt interference in their lives, what they believe are the relief of oppressive taxes, and for the US to quit playing worldwide cop. the neocons simply coopt these people and i believe the Teabaggers began as a response to this and were quickly re-coopted back into the fold.

sadly, the appeal, as it has been since the civil war and reconstruction, is by the elites to their white, typically, underlings is to fear the other, fear the government, fear everything really. thus you find that many, like myself, who came from rather poverty stricken backgrounds, clinging to some kind of ideal that conservatives represent real working class americans. then the nightmare ends and you wake up to the desert of the real. there you realize that they've been using you and your ancestors for 400 years (yes, that's how long my family has been in North America), to build financial empires that stretch further and control more than the Romans ever dreamed of achieving.

/endresponse to OP

anyone who thinks that agorism is not an open door to allow corporations to run everything with absolutely no one with the power to put them in check, is dreaming and needs to read a little more of the history of capitalist-industrial worker experience from the late 1700s on into the first third of the 1900s. the only difference between that child working for 25cents an hour in Malaysia and industrialism in the 19th century West is history.

this is why only a grassroots democracy, from the bottom up, worker's movement is the only way of achieving something even remotely resembling the heartfelt ideals at the center of agorism, or leftist anarchosyndicalism, <insert random political title here>, etc. those ideals are what Lincoln described, even if he didn't understand it all: government, real government, can only be By, Of, and For the people. we need to quit thinking of the government as some third entity out of our control and begin acting like its ours. take some responsibility for it and begin to demand that it obey its masters, we the people.

the more disenfranchised you are the more you will have to complain about, trust me. and if you think that last paragraph was all BS tell that to Rosa Parks or the boys who died in Mississippi for registering black voters or the countless others who have stood up and demanded that the government come to heel and do what its told. this takes consciousness raising of a kind not capable by any party, politico, or ideological dogmatist.

it takes small acts of everyday revolution, the kind i imagine all of you are doing in your own way. this is building on the small acts that came before us. Marx argues very clearly that any real changing revolution can and will only occur after the people wake up and make the changes in society itself. that's where we live, work, eat, sleep, and fuck. the real world. after that he argues, and i tend to believe this is a possibility, that a society changed only need then 'remind' its government of who's really in charge. on a small scale example this has been happening with the GLBT movement here in the US through fits and starts and violence and failures and victories, this society *is* changing how it views members of the GLBT community. and as it does note that it is the more localized forms of government that are responding first, states and cities in their marriage laws. then it moves upward.

as for property rights. those are great as long as you have the money to actually outright own your own property and support yourself. the origin of this defend your property with guns idea in the US comes directly from John Locke. and at the time, he was right. given enough land for everyone to own and support themselves on it, this was feasible. it isn't feasible anymore. an industrial society, or even post industrial, is not capable of opening up large parcels of land anymore to the general public for them to colonize. and thank goodness for it. im sure aboriginals everywhere would breathe a sigh of relief every time they realized this.

40 acres and a mule is gone. sorry, just a fact. in some ways a good one, some ways a bad one. either way its the fact we live with. there's no room for this Jeffersonian ideal anymore (who btw considered the budding 'shares market' in England to be an abomination of gambling on the labor and suffering of others and that he hoped would never reach our country). since there isn't room anymore, what can we do next should be the question and i think anarchist cooperative types are stumbling their way toward an answer.

sorry for the wall of text but this convo got me stirred up. if you made it this far my apologies