"Anarchists" = Far right wing

[Very_Boring_Name]

They take "government is the problem" to the extreme

[SidDithers]

1. I believe there are left-wing anarchists too...nt

Sid

[ZombieHorde]

2. This would be true if the right wing actually believed "government is the problem."

The right wing loves government as much as the left. They love cops bashing hippies. They love the war on drugs. They love the war in Iraq. They love the war in Afghanistan. They love their own medicaid. They love their own social security. They love gay marriage being illegal. They love the government controlling women's reproductive choices. They absolutely love big government, they just hate helping other people.

[joshcryer]

28. Most importantly, they want to privatize the government.

Anarchists wish to abolish it completely, the right wing "anti-state" idiots merely want to replace tax paid police with privately paid police. It's voluntary, you see (as if). Basically they want a mafia state. We see how Somalia is dealing with their kind of nasty (indeed, back in the mid oughts (00's) there were a lot of articles by these right wingers talking about how wonderful Somalia was.

[ZombieHorde]

32. Excellent point. nt

[Odin2005]

3. Calling the 'baggers "Anarchists" is an insult to fiolks like Emma Goldman.

[villager]

7. ... and many of us are *still* waiting to find a danceable revolution!

;-)

[marmar]

4. Bull. Noam Chomsky considers himself an anarchist. Would you call him far right wing?

nt

[ElboRuum]

5. Anarchist, just like every other political charged word...

...takes on the meaning the speaker intends to imbue it with, so you can pretty much leave the dictionaries at home. What would be of interest to me is to see the Chomsky definition of anarchist and to see a comparison to commonly held beliefs about its meaning.

[joshcryer]

26. He hasn't talked anarchism in decades, he mostly critiques US foreign policy.

It's a somewhat valuable critique but in the end it has become rather jumbled these days and he's doing it to leave his kids a nest egg as opposed to actually using it to combat capitalism (it doesn't help that radicalism has declined since the early 2000s).

[Dokkie]

27. Remember Chomsky

also considers himself to be a socilaist libertarian. Confused? me too.

[joshcryer]

31. All anarchists are libertarian socialists but not all libertarian socialists are anarchists.

Not confusing at all.

[Dokkie]

33. if socialism means what I think it does

ie the opposite of libertarianism then you cannot be both. One has the goal of dismantling govt and the other to maintain govt safetly net and possible build on it.

[joshcryer]

34. Socialism is an economic system without private property.

There are various ways to implement such a system but anarchists believe it can only be implemented through the abolishment of the state, otherwise the state is the holder of private property and is no different from a corporation holding private property in capitalism.

[Bjorn Against]

68. I don't think libertarianism means what you think it does

Despite what some right-wingers would like you to believe libertarianism has nothing to do with economics or privatization, it is completely compatble with socialism. While many don't realize it most of DU is libertarian in the traditional sense of the word and there is a very good chance you are too. Read some European literature on libertarianism as Europeans tend to use the term correctly, while generally speaking people in the US use it the way the right-wing has defined it which has nothing to do with its real definition.

[socialist_n_TN]

40. Socialist libertarian is pretty easy.........

but just like all labels, it's subject to personal interpretation.

A socialist libertarian is one that believes in the common ownership of all of the general welfare type industries, but believes in INDIVIDUAL libertarianism for personal lifestyle choices.

[athenasatanjesus]

6. The right wing are Calculated Anarchists

They want anarchy in just enough places for them to exploit society,after that they want as much government as they can get.

[Downtown Hound]

8. Ironic statement

Given that anarchists have fought harder and risked more in opposing international capitalism and the GOP than any other group in the country. You may not like anarchist beliefs or tactics, but running through a city while riot cops chase you so you can bust the window of a Starbucks takes extreme dedication and courage, the kind many liberals with their peaceful, law abiding, non-aggressive protest can only dream of. I'm not saying all anarchists do that. I'm just saying that most of the anarchists I know are far more dedicated to their cause than most liberals I know. It's not just a weekend thing for them.

There are also many forms of anarchism. There's anarchosocialism for example, which is extremely left wing.

[BoWanZi]

16. What does busting a window of Starbucks exactly mean/accomplish?

To someone like me who is more of a realist than an idealist, that just makes no sense to me. What is to be gained by destroying someone else's private property? Do you really think that gains respect and admiration the mainstream public?

As far as the right wing version of anarchist, I considered the word to be the absence of government and the best example of a right wing anarchist are the far right libertarians. Let capitalism run amok and free and everything will sort its self out down the road with as little government intervention as possible.

As far as your extreme dedication and courage, meh. You just did something that a bunch of 12 year old boys like to do, break things. Kind of like blowing up model cars with firecrackers or smashing bottles.

[Downtown Hound]

18. First of all, I've never smashed a window or destroyed anybody's private property

I've also physically signed a statement of non-violence. Don't confuse analyzing a situation with a different viewpoint than yours as equaling that I automatically engage in such tactics.

What does it actually accomplish? Well, truth is, I'm not sure. I never said it accomplished anything. Guess what? Does peaceful protest accomplish anything? How is it so idealistic to rigidly adhere to a tactic (peaceful protest) when more people marched against the Iraq War than any other cause in history, and it didn't do shit to stop it? At this point, it almost seems like beating a dead horse. I'm at least willing to entertain the notion that when the powers that be have their shit constantly messed up, well, it's a lot more damaging to them than going to the government, politely asking for a permit, and then standing on a street corner holding a sign telling them they suck. Me thinking these things doesn't mean I necessarily engage in them.

I also remain unconvinced that non-violence by itself can be effective. MLK and Gandhi weren't the only ones resisting their oppressors. There were plenty of violent groups as well. When the government is faced with UNITED and massive opposition of ALL sorts, peaceful protest, vandalism, riots, and general unrest, then THAT'S when they actually seem willing to talk. And then they go to the non-violent movements and say, "See, this is how you do it." But I remain unconvinced that without the efforts of the violent groups, anything would ever have been accomplished. Look at Tibet. They've been practicing non-violence for decades now, and the only thing it's gotten them is their country destroyed and looted.

So for these reasons, I offer moral support and I refuse to condemn those that take part in the vandalism of corporations. At the very least, they are taking a stand and risking something huge: their freedom. If I saw anything even remotely approaching that dedication from the liberals that whine and bitch everytime a bank gets it's windows smashed, I'd be more willing to hear what they have to say. Instead, they go to a peaceful protest once in a while, march, chant, and yell, and then go home and that's it.

Bottom line is I'm on the side of those who passionately resist this extremely destructive and oppressive system. Anarchists are just that.

[joshcryer]

22. I also am against property destruction but I will not chastize those who use it as a distraction.

There are instances where property destruction has changed the police strategy, because in the end they are more about protecting property than they are citizens.

[joshcryer]

21. Please don't conflate direct action intended to distract police with some sort of philosophy.

[socialist_n_TN]

38. Well the most SURFACE thing it does...........

(for a left anarchist anyway) is show contempt FOR private property. Now remember that "private" property is NOT the same thing as personal property. You'll notice most of the time the anarchists don't go into the suburbs and deface single family dwellings. If you break the window at some storefront of a huge corporation, you're showing contempt FOR that corporation.

I don't believe in private property either, but some sort of governmental structure is needed to (supposedly) balance the wealth and power of the capitalist class. Which means I'm NOT an anarchist.

[joshcryer]

41. I don't think that the government can balance the wealth and power of the capitalist class.

As long as the capitalist class exists there will be no way of managing it.

[socialist_n_TN]

58. I agree, but some sort of government

will be needed even then to dismantle the capitalist class. So...still not an anarchist.

[Taitertots]

49. Smashing a starbucks window is worse than doing nothing

All it does is make it obvious that they are assholes who have no realistic means to achieve their goals. I guess they are dedicated to being assholes, at least they are dedicated to something.

[Very_Boring_Name]

50. Most of them enjoy doing it. The "They only do it to distract the police!!!!!" excuse is BS

[joshcryer]

54. Yes, there are hoodlums in the ranks.

And I don't advocate hoodlumism. But if you want to march against one of the IMF conferences (the cities won't grant you a license to do so unless it's far far away), you must use direct action and do it anyway, illegally. Then, when the police start tear gassing protesters who are merely trying to express their free speech rights the direct action activists can and will make the police think twice.

[Downtown Hound]

66. Even Gandhi said violence was superior to inaction

So I'm going to have to disagree with you there.

[Taitertots]

70. No he didn't

Maybe you should listen to all the other things Gandhi said before twisting his words to defend petty criminals.

[FarLeftFist]

9. Depends on what kind of Anarchy...

But I know this much is true after years of debating RW'ers: They would love nothing more than having the middle class and poor abandoned and left to kill each other like savages. They want, like one poster said above, calculated anarchy, they want a compassionless society where it's every man, women, and child for themselves. They are Anarcho-Capitalists.

[CJvR]

10. It depends on...

...what type of far right wing you compare them to.
The old style conservatism really don't have much in common with the anarchists.
The newer radical liberalism however have many things in common with anarchy, however most of those who call themselves anarchists today tend to approach anarchy from the left rather that the right.

[BOG PERSON]

11. anarchists are just liberals who really hate bourgeois

[joshcryer]

23. You're talking about Trotskyites, Anarchists do not distinguish between bourgeois...

...and petit-borgeois and the proletariat to a significant extent. Some may accept Marx's definition for those classes but all of them understand that class division is an authoritarian strategy.

[BOG PERSON]

35. that's too bad

i didn't know anarchism was a rejection of scientific socialism. it sounds like modern anarchism isn't that far away from embracing postmodernism if it hasn't already.

[joshcryer]

42. David Graeber argues that Marxism is analytical strategy, whereas anarchism is ethical practice.

Scientific socialism is in contrast to utopian socialism (as the Marxists call it). What's interesting is that Marx always argued that statelessness was always the end result of a classless society, yet, none, absolutely no attempt at implemention for the past century has, uh, achieved it. At all. Period. Full stop. The Trotskyite attempt has always led to authoritarianism.

[BOG PERSON]

44. well...

(1) there's never been a trotskyite attempt because trotskyism as a movement has never seized power

(2) abolishing one state in a world of many states is impractical. it's reasonable to assume marx meant the state should be abolished - i.e. communism would be achieved and history would end - after socialism became the universal mode of production

[joshcryer]

46. Pfft, tell that to Cuba and Chavez' "Fifth International."

Both the Cuban revolution and Chavez' "reforms" are wholly and completely supported by Trotskyites. Hell, even the anarchists at one point were pulled in to the Cuban revolution (but they learned and have some very scathing things to say about Venezuela's anti-worker tendencies). You can always say "it's never been tried." The anarchists can claim that we did try and succeeded for a short period of time, only to fall to major oppressive forces (particularly by foolishly aligning ourselves with state socialists).

[socialist_n_TN]

69. "Both the Cuban revolution and Chavez' "reforms"

are wholly and completely supported by Trotskyites."

Also incorrect, ESPECIALLY the Cuban revolution. ELEMENTS of both of these revolutions are/were supported by Trotskyists, but NEITHER is supported "wholly and completely". The biggest element in support is the bottom up, mass movement part of the revolutions because that's EXACTLY what we are in favor of.

Cuba had an opportunity at it's earliest stage to become, effectively, a "Trotskyist" style of revolution, but it blew the chance by supporting the Stalinist model of Party organization. In Che Guevera it had a chance to get out of the Soviet model (socialism in one country), but when he was killed that part of "Trotskyism" also went out the window. BOTH of the major differences between Trotskyists and Stalinist philosophies of Marxism (intraparty democratic centralism and socialism in one country) were abandoned early on by the Cuban Communists in favor of the Stalinist models. Ergo, Trotskyists could NOT wholly and completely support this revolution.

In short, these revolutions had elements that Trotskyists could support, but NOT wholly and completely.

[ixion]

12. Uh, technically anarchy is the extreme left, and totalitarin is extreme right

so....

[FarLeftFist]

13. Well, not technically

There is RW anarchism such as Anarcho-Capitalism, which in effect is kinda going on today.

[ixion]

20. Well, yes, according to the Classical Definition.

Actually Anarchy is not a violent philosophy. It was founded as an intellectual paradigm by Michael Bakunin, and it's basic tenet was that intelligent people do not need to be governed. That it in a nutshell. The rest of this violent rebellion isn't really anarchy in the classical sense, although the term has been bastardized to mean something like it.

[joshcryer]

24. "Anarcho"-capitalism has basically nothing to do with anarchism.

It was invented as an Orwellian tactic to pull in liberal youth who would have otherwise been attracted to social anarchism.

[Spider Jerusalem]

14. Also far left wing.

On the right you have "anarcho-capitalists", on the left anarcho-syndicalists. The former are Ayn Rand cultists who want to replace government with absolute laissez-faire for-profit private enterprise; the latter want government replaced with a radically egalitarian participatory direct democracy. There is an extremely large difference.

[joshcryer]

25. Let's break it down, shall we?

Anarcho-capitalism on the right.
Voluntaryist anarchism on the right.
Nationalist anarchism on the right.

The vast majority of anarchist denounce and separate themselves from these "anarchists" because historically speaking they're relatively recent (with the exception of Voluntaryism, but that term was not associated with anarchism when it came about and has only more recently been associated with it from the anarcho-capitalist homesteading camp).


Social anarchism on the left.
Collectivist anarchism on the left.
Communist anarchism on the left.
Individualist anarchism on the left (Tucker considered himself a socialist even if he had spats with left wingers).
Mutualist anarchism on the left.
Christian anarchism on the left.
Egoist anarchism on the left.
Existentialist anarchism on the left.
Green anarchism on the left.
Infoanarchism on the left.
Nihilist anarchism on the left.
Pacifist anarchism on the left.
Philosophical anarchism on the left.
Philosophical anarchism on the left.
Post-anarchist anarchism on the left.
Post-colonial anarchism on the left.
Post-left anarchism on the left (well, past the left, but there's that).
Primitivist anarchism on the left.
Queer anarchism on the left.
Buddhist anarchism on the left.
Syndicalist anarchism on the left.
Zen anarchism on the left.
Feminist anarchism on the left.
Transhumanist anarchism on the left.

Is anarchism left wing or right wing?

[ErikJ]

15. Anarchists for the rich

<>

[alcibiades_mystery]

17. Dumb

[joshcryer]

19. Wrong.

[Shagbark Hickory]

29. Pass the popcorn.

[inna]

30. ridiculous. total garbage of a post.

[krabigirl]

36. No. Nt

[Puregonzo1188]

37. Emma Goldman, the Haymarket Martyrs (gave you the 8 hour work day), the Industrial Workers of the

World, Noam Chomsky, the CNT, all of those are rightwingers? Seriously?

[The Wizard]

39. Death cult (NT)

[MadHound]

43. No, traditionally anarchists are on the far left,

Radicals and reactionaries are on the far right. They both inhabit that muddy ground where right meets left.

[Warren Stupidity]

45. anarcho-capitalists are right wing

individualist anarchists are right wing

the rest of the anarchists are very definitely left wing as they are all socialists.

[joshcryer]

47. Individualist anarchists are socialists, don't buy the hype, the "anarcho"-capitalists are liars.

They use a few choice quotes from Tucker to "prove" that anarchism is capitalist, but they fall short of proving the case.

[Warren Stupidity]

56. we must have different definitions of individualist anarchists

as in my terms they cannot, by definition be communalists of any sort, and thus certainly not socialists. Anarcho-capitalists may or may not be liars, that personality flaw is not relevant, they most certainly are anarchists, and most certainly are right-wing anarchists. If by 'liars' you mean that they conveniently ignore the fact that an anarcho-capitalist society is a corporate feudal fiefdom, with corporate mini-states replacing the nominal state, well yes they do ignore that small problem.

[Ken Burch]

48. Emma Goldman would bitchslap you for that.

A lot of anarchists actually support a kind of non-statist socialism, with the economic system run collectively but not through a state bureaucracy.

Almost all actual anarchists, unlike the Tea Party, are anti-militarist.

And they support the liberation struggles of oppressed peoples throughout the world.

You, my friend, are confusing anarchism with libertarianism or even nihilism.

Ron Paul is not an anarchist.

[Sky Llama]

51. They exist on both the right and left.

And when it comes right down to it they love government...when they're in charge.

[TheKentuckian]

52. Left wing does not equal love of government. Authoritarians love government and plenty of it too.

You are trying to over simplify to make a fairly weak point.

[white_wolf]

53. Anarchism is about as far left wing as you can get.

It originated in the Communist movements but split with the Marxists over their belief in the need for a state to help build socialism after the revolution.

[joshcryer]

55. Some early anarchists were amiable to the state, the Kronstadt rebellion changed some minds.

The soviets wanted to inact democratic socialism and the Marxists wouldn't have it (including Trotsky who famously said the party should take precedence to democracy, and who decreed the shutdown of Kronstadt).

At the Congress Trotsky rounded on the Workers' Opposition:

"They have come out with dangerous slogans. They have made a fetish of democratic principles. They have placed the workers' right to elect representatives above the Party. As if the Party were not entitled to assert its dictatorship even if that dictatorship temporarily clashed with the passing moods of the workers' democracy!"

Trotsky spoke of the "revolutionary historical birthright of the Party":

"The Party is obliged to maintain its dictatorship...regardless of temporary vacillations even in the working class...The dictatorship does not base itself at every given moment on the formal principle of a workers' democracy..."

http://www.marxists.org/archive/brinton/1970/workers-control/06.htm#h1

Oh would it be that Kronstadt survived and the Third Revolution inacted. The world would be a very different place, because unlike Marxist critique, anarchists believe that any state can become anarchist if the people are behind it. And Kronstadt was truly behind some kind of libertarian socialism (not necessarily anarchism).

Ever since then the Trotskyites have been amiable to authoritarianism, against a free press, against the right to strike, against unions, they say that they're for all these things, but when you look closely at the implementation it is far far from the truth. You can have a free press if the government regulates it, you can have a free union if you belong to the party and it operates under the auspices of the party. Striking is counter-revolutionary.

[RandomThoughts]

57. You said something that is an error of the libertarian.

You said there can not be a free press if the government regulates it.


That assumes that the method of control of who does regulate it, is just or fair, or even good for society.


In a society of obscene consolidations, government must either remove peoples abilities to consolidate control over information, or regulate that sector with an opposing civilian media with the same reach as 'owned' media.

There is a fundamental flaw that thinks being able to buy air time, is the same as free speech, that is bought speech. Free speech is a combination of the majority having its views expressed, and rebuttal and air time for minority ideas, with an accurate reflection of not only why groups think those ideas, but also how many people think them.

You are making the argument that any money, makes the decisions, however it is accumulated.


For instance give one person all the wealth of the top 10%, have him buy all the media, then we would not have free press, we would hear only what that one person wanted heard. And in the Corporate system that is effectively what happens with the conditions set by a few to be part of the media.


In a working sustainable society, government would not have to regulate, becuase no ideological faction would have control over much of the wealth, but in our society, regulation is required by the flaws in the system.



And taking over schools is just the next step of information control after media, it is an attempt to control society. It is so easy to see, if you want people to do what they are told, all those people getting them to think about what is better or what should be done, become a problem.

And those running companies, want employees, to do what they are told.

[socialist_n_TN]

62. What implementation? Where do you see a

"Trotskyist" state that has EVER been implemented? The closest was the '17 Bolshies and that was considered Leninist (of course Trotsky WAS the true Leninist) and BEFORE Stalin solidified the bureaucracy in the mid 20s. Hell one of the chief attractions OF Trotskyism, IMO, was that it was the Marxist "road not taken".

Kronstadt was a problem for the Bolshevik government, this is true. I've considered a lot of "what ifs" after reading and studying this era in Russian history and I'm convinced that if Kronstadt "survived" the world would NOT have been a different place. Because Kronstadt would have opened the door to a capitalist and possibly monarchist restoration almost immediately. IOW, the WORKER'S state would have been drowned by capitalism in it's infancy. So what you're suggesting is that these people who had given EVERYTHING, their WHOLE LIVES, to the ideal of overthrowing capitalism and instituting a worker's state should just allow the capitalist back in because people were tired of the work involved in defending a worker's state.

That's the problem for a revolution who's goal is the overthrow of an entrenched SYSTEM like capitalism. And that's the purpose behind the dictatorship of the proletariat. Until you've got TOTAL control of the OUTGOING SYSTEM, you CANNOT allow the temporary mood swings of the workers to interfere with the implementation of the new system. Otherwise, all you've done is taken power just to give it back.

[socialist_n_TN]

65. In addition........

The problem with anarchism in practical terms RE: power, is that it's TOO decentralized to survive the inevitable capitalist reaction. If you try to move to a stateless anarchist system BEFORE the capitalists are under TOTAL control of the workers, you risk losing everything that you've gained.

When you survive the reaction, rebuild the industrial base on a socialist foundation, feed, clothe, and house the population, THEN you can allow the anarchists a place to try out their philosophies. Until then, you're just letting the capitalists back in.

[Shagbark Hickory]

59. This post is what you call a "hit and run"

[cleanhippie]

60. AKA "flamebait"

[Name removed]

63. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Dreamer Tatum]

61. "Anything I don't like or am scared by" = far right wing

Asparagus = far right wing
Cold toilet seats = far right wing
Tax audits = far right wing
Hangnails = far right wing

and so on.

[Name removed]

64. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Xithras]

67. Political compasses have four points, not two.

It's rare to find someone sitting right on one of the points. Anarchists effectively occupy the entire bottom line of this graph, from the left edge to the right. You can have everything from collectivist anarchists (who believe that nobody can own anything, and therefore everything must be shared), to libertarian anarchists (who believe that no regulation can be placed on anything, meaning that one person can own everything). All anarchists, but with wildly divergent opinions.

Most people here wouldn't put Ghandi and Stalin on the same political side either, but they're both the "Left". One was a freedom loving lefty, and the other was a hardcore statist lefty.

Political pursuasions can't be narrowed down to left/right.