Is Anarchy right-wing?

Is anarchism the most extreme-right-wing ideology?
>Left wing wants big gov influence on people
>Right wing wants minimal power in gov.
Anarchy IS the smallest form of government.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=QZJuaxKPaME
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

>le all libertarians are right wing meme
Stop.

Left libertarianism exists and is absolutely nothing like what antifa preaches, protip, less state or authority is needed if family units and communal units, like church parishes, are strong and cohesive. By arguing against the family and against religion you cannot be left wing libertarian.

A 1 dimensional line doesnt capture any nuance. Anarchists are left wing.

>Libertarian
>Anarchist
Pick one.

Libertarian just means concessions to freedom are made to prevent the freedoms of one to transgress another, it's actually the entire ideology of intolerance only to the intolerant.

Anarchists are just against authority in general and the low iq anarchists are chaos seeking nihilists who haven't been fucked in this life enough, so they actually believe their hurt feelings are the only oppression in society.

>Anarchy IS the smallest form of government.
They don't believe in private possession. They think that that if we learn everyone to share, then we could just abandon the rule of law, and everyone would just get along. That is what these superior intellectuals actually believe in.

They have been given free spaces all over Europe to develop this alternative society, and every single time it degenerates into a primitive village of people that enter the city to loot trashcans.

>and every single time it degenerates into a primitive village of people that enter the city to loot trashcans.
Not to mention that these communities have a huge problem with heroin and other forms of substance abuse.

Right wing and libertarian are not the same thing

As a Gnostic Libertarian let me explain to you what Real Anarchy is. Not the Communist idea of Anarchy.

The Archons are the Rulers, Masters, Lords, Authorities or Principalities over our present darkness.

We Revolt against all these false gods.

Take away Authoritarian/Libertarian & look at role & influence of gov. in terms of Supportive/Utilitarian.

Ephesians 6:12

For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places.

Are you anglo-celtic?

Best one of these I've seen so far. Had me in stitches. :D

I think left/right is a bad dichotomy. I basically just use 'left' to describe everything I don't like - collectivism, big government, anti-theism, moral relativism.

They literally just mean white, that being said there's another study (somewhere..) that actually shows Mediterranean men are the worst off (they also get something similar to antisemitism from the right) and Indian men are best off (they're Aryans to the right and PoC to the left), they might have merged these two groups to pretend the anti white male racism isn't as bad as it is.

Regardless, what I am is of zero impact to my argument. Only white men are experiencing anything even remotely close to real oppression.

Having a culture that glorifies crime or violence is NOT oppression!

anarchy is not a political theory, it is chaos.

if you anarcho-________________ists got your wet dream fantasy, you would be the first ones in the cookpot when dindus turn to cannibalism after their EBT cards stop working.

"anarchism" is the only thing more poisonous than marxism, because it is CONCENTRATED MARXISM, now with more faggotry.

OP's digestive tract contains at least 12 loads of pozz cum.

Not having government goons pretend they rule you =/= chaos.
Your basic personal relationships happen without a government goon directing you - pretending you need those goons around or else hell itself will erupt and swallow the world is a ludicrous and moronic.

whatever you say communist slave

You're the commie here, Borg-san.

>opperate

stopped here

>ancom
Anarchy is about no government, about the non-initiation of force. Using force is an attempt at ruling, an attempt at governing others. The basis of this is self-ownership and, by extension, private property. Self ownership and private property is why imposing your views on someone else is immoral. Communism is inherently anti-anarchist.

> t. A right winger atempting to disassociate himsekf because right wing ideoligies are currently not en vogue.

You are /one of us/ whether want to admit it.

And holy kek, my Captcha was that select the helicopterc images.

No anarchist are just retarded edgy kids

what is the symbol in that pic? I saw it in a dream and can't find it anywhere.

>lf ownership and private property is why imposing your views on someone else is immoral
Nah - I think forcefully imposing yourself on others is immoral because doing so is against the commandments of the Almighty God.
But if there are people who don't believe in ownership (which I don't think in practice there are but one could entertain such a thought) at all on any level, and all live together and don't ever extend their disregard for ownership to anyone else, they cause no problems.

>libertarians unironically believe monarchism is left wing

People who don't believe in ownership are called commies and anarchism is just communism larping as le freedom

Anarchism isn't left-wing or right-wing. It's just nothing, because Anarchism isn't an actual thing that will ever actually persist among people. No matter what you do or how you slice it, people will form power groups. You can't stop it. You can't force anarchism because once people establish those power groups they can instill their influence on other people and who is going to stop them?

I feel like anarchists just don't understand this though.

anarchism is a specialist according to the anime

How does "government" magically equal communism?
By that notion you're a communist all the time until you're caught in some interaction with your government overlords.

Communism requires overreaching state, it's part of the organization.

State
People

State above the people, anarchism doesn't requires that.

>Communism requires overreaching state
No, it doesn't. People could voluntarily all be commies together. That's not logically impossible.
I don't think hardly anyone would do that, but the fact that I don't think it's a particularly plausible state of affairs doesn't mean that it's impossible.

The notions of communism and anarchism are same, you both want a society with a dictatorship of the common man, both of you want abolition of countries and stateless society, remind me whats your stance on currency

>The notions of communism and anarchism are same, you both want a society with a dictatorship of the common man, both of you want abolition of countries and stateless society
No - that's wrong. What anarchist believes in dictatorship? Anarchists want *THE OPPOSITE* - NO people pretending they rule others.

>remind me whats your stance on currency
I like currency because it makes trade more convenient...?

Right. You know only right wingers can be tyrants right? Thats something these guys will never disclose to you. Theyll say something like no true scotsman fallacy but thats the def tho.

Redistribution of resources require an overreaching state, even if you all choose authoritianism, it's still authoritianism.

>Anarchy IS the smallest form of government.
Actually, there is no government

>Redistribution of resources require an overreaching state
Or it requires people voluntarily redistributing their own resources. Which happens all the time (charity) and isn't by itself communism.
It is possible for people to be commie libertarians - it's just that hardly any people who say they are actually are.

>I like currency because it makes trade more convenient...?
Please tell me what you think makes ancom different from ancap.

You don't understand communism all that well the dictatorship of the proletarian is pretty much the same concept as anarchy

>I like currency
Whose going to issue the said currency, who decides its value

Charity isn't equalitarian, wich it's the goal of communism, you don't give in the meassure of your goodwill, but in an objective amount determined for a qualified group of people, you know like goverment.

Alot. Commies are collectivists and commit to LToV (which is demonstrably wrong) and normal human interactions like paying another person to do something for you is magically oppressive to them, and ancaps don't believe such relations are magically oppressive, but generally commit to a stupid arbitrary principle (NAP).

>You don't understand communism all that well the dictatorship of the proletarian is pretty much the same concept as anarchy
Oh fuck no.
Communism = mob rule with retards hopig the mob rule will stay leftist after the dissolution of the government
Anarchism = Without a ruling entity AKA the non-initiation of force.

>dictatorship of the proletarian is pretty much the same concept as anarchy
Majority rule is not anarchist. "Ruling" is not anarchistic. The etymology of "anarchist" is - literally - "without rulers".

All you said was
>Redistribution of resources require an overreaching state
which I pointed out is wrong. What's your point here? If you can imagine 2 commies being commies and not violating each other, then it's possible for communism to instantiate without a state. That's a brute logical fact.

I don't get it. I ask you for differences between ancom and ancap and you end up thrashing both. Why use the ancom flag if you are thrashing both?

You don't have "communism" with two commies, wich it's our issue here, it's like you tell me, "well in a vacuum this thing will work, but if we take it to any place with oxygen it will blow up".

>or it requires people voluntarily redistributing their own resources
Yup thats what the Dictatorship of the proletarian is all about
>without a ruling government
The final aim of communism
>without rulers
That's exactly what communism promises

If there was a standard anarchist symbol I'd use that. I'm a voluntarist. As it stands, the fact that mousing over the flag just reads "anarchist" has to do for now.

>You don't have "communism" with two commies
So add another commie. You now have three commies. That enough for you? How about 4? 5? At what number is it communism, and at what number is it impossible?
Jesus I hate people like you who can't reason for shit.

If you can imagine 2 commies being commies and then a third guy coming up and blowing them both away for their stuff then its impossible for a communist anarchist state to exist without a mafia forming and oppressing people. That's a brute fact.

Our political spectrum is skewed, it is largely defined by government controls, and it assumes liberalism (the dominant ideology) is the centre. But objectively speaking, the original Left/Right was defined by the pro-revolutionaries and the pro-monarchists; or progress vs. tradition.

Using this method one could reimagine the spectrum with capitalism as the far-left (lol, ancaps incoming) because it is unbridled progress at its core. However, we would have to take into account the whole of an ideology to really place it - meaning not just its economic outlook but also the philosophical, technological, theological, organisational and artistic aspects. The organisational and economic cornerstones only take precedence because liberalism is assumed to be a positive ideal, it dominates the educational system, and it is taboo to discuss theology, technology, and traditional organisational forms.

Effectively, we are caught in a time trap and politics before modernity isn't even considered within the spectrum. But if we step outside of modern politics we can immediately see that all of modernity is far-left compared to the past. Hierarchy and state control aren't very good determinants of the political spectrum, simply because there are many ways to create hierarchies and manipulate people into control without the state.

Liberalism is essentially a creation story in which political control is assumed, and people elect a government of negation, simply because the alternative is worse. The liberal citizen is collectively a master of nature, and individually a slave of himself. All tradition is isolated within the individual and made meaningless. This is aside from the natural consumption of the environment which forces the individual to abandon his traditions if he is to continue on with the social contract. In many ways, this is a much more powerful (and cruel) method of control, because the individual is expected punish himself.
cont'd

it might as well be pure centrixsm

>That's exactly what communism promises
After they kill and steal the property of anyone who dissents. Mob rule is not anarchistic.

No. However, much like your post OP, it IS incredibly retarded.

>mob rule isn't anarchy
But anarchy has a always led to mob rule, you should read into communism

>check the flag options
>there is no anarcho-communist option
>meaning the ancom flag is the default flag for anarchy
REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

Your conclusion doesn't follow from your premise, so
>That's a brute fact
is a false statement. Good try though!

A namefag AND an anarchist!?

Jesus your family must be ashamed

Nothing you'd call anarchy is what I'd call anarchy.
You literally just think anarchy means Mad Max, which is not what I or most anarchists mean AT ALL when we use the term.

I think my limit it's a working country with no state.

That still calls itself communist, they use the sickle and the hammer and all.

Otherwise no real communism.

>Jesus I hate people like you who can't reason for shit.

Says the guy who can't reason that he was trying to say you won't get enough people on board for it to ever work. The main reason it won't work is because people have different ideals of what is right and wrong, and without a centralised authority, you can't stop people from doing what they want.
Communism holds back the potential of the individual in favour for the slowest, weakest and least able for society, and so stumbles about like a gimp.
It doesn't matter how many people you add to the equation, voluntarism and communism will not every work on a large scale

Yeah it's gay.

So that's how many people? What straw breaks the camel's back? #22,880?

So provide me with a historical context, in theory communism works too

>Says the guy who can't reason that he was trying to say you won't get enough people on board for it to ever work

Anarchy isn't even on that chart.
It's on a different chart titled "Shit stupid people believe".

youtube.com/watch?v=QZJuaxKPaME
There ya go.

...

No. Fuck off shill. Saged.

Here's my logic buddy:
Communism requires people to not amass capital that would cause inequality that could cause oppression. If someone has the means and the natural human instinct to improve their chances of survival they will attempt to amass resources and power. Therefore communism is impossible unless you suppress natural human instinct and will

I think the other countries does, when they realize that you won't pay your debts and won't produce the goods they need cause you don't believe in the markets anymore.

>Communism requires people to not amass capital
That's not true - they can amass as much capital as they want so long as its use is shared by the people who use it/made it. It's a really stupid "principle" but it's not impossible.

>If someone has the means and the natural human instinct to improve their chances of survival they will attempt to amass resources and power
That's also wrong. Plenty of people have no ambition and seek essentially nothing in life. And those people have existed throughout all time. So your reasoning still sucks dick senpai.

Will you be a part of my orgiastic mushroom eating tribe ?

The one where I stop giving a familial fuck about you and yours.

If it's not voluntary, it's coercive.

So you go from the argument that a state is necessary for communism to exist - which was demonstrated to be false - to an argument that "well someone will come in and beat them up xD".
Jesus Christ.

It's not on the spectrum.

It doesn't know one side or the other, it treats them all as enemies.

Reported for breaking global rule and bumped :)

Anarchy is impossible, as explained earlier
Minarchy, on the other hand, is extreme centrist. It is a mistake at worst or at best to think of "left" and "right" in terms of size of government. "Right" means rewarding the majority or the traditional with special privileges; "left" means rewarding a coalition of minorities and/or traditionally dispossessed with special privileges. Because the far right and far left are both strongly identitarian and collectivist, they naturally both favor big government.

The cause of linguistic confusion is how the Republican and Democratic Parties (and their equivalents in many other countries) divided the populace during the 20th century, when the population was mostly centrist liberals and vaguely rightwing traditionalists. Both needed to get a piece of the first group, so Republicans took classical liberalism (most notably capitalism) and Christianity while Democrats took proper centrism and government expansion. Note that both the GOP and the Dems dropped the centrists in the pre-Trump 21st century; the GOP dropped small government and pushed neoconservative expansion while the Democrats took a hard left approach to social issues.

So no, OP, you're extreme centrist. But you needn't be a pitiful fence-sitter. If one takes the U of the horseshoe and hammers it into a single bar such the the far left and far right are right next to each other (where they belong), you've got extreme liberty versus extreme authority. We need to transcend left and right.

No.

>If it's not voluntary, it's coercive
That's a stupid dichotomy. I don't necessarily voluntarily sleep but sleep's gonna hit me anyway. There are states of affairs that are neither voluntary nor coercive.

Yes anarchy is the most right wing ideology you can possible think of.

Left = collectivist, central planning, common good (which doesn't exist) > individual good

Right = individualistic, decentralized planning, objectivism

Far left ideologies: Facism, Communism, Socialism etc.
Far right idelogies: Libertarianism, Anarchism etc.

>which was demonstrated to be false

Can you provide an example besides a hippie peanut butter commune (which even then has the state, their peanut butter corporation is that state)

I meant to say "at worst or anachronistic at best"

No. You're misinterpreting anarchy = libertarianism
Anarchy implys no one can do what they want without consequence, regardless of morality. Libertarianism punishes those who victimize and cause transgressions by putting the law in their hands. Communism seeks to punish those who defend themselves.
Barry and Hill are going to hang. They're in Canada already. And Canada is compromised.

>plenty of people have no ambition and seek essentially nothing in life

It takes everyone in a communist society to be on board for it to work. If merely "plenty" are ok with it then some will not. If that select group decides to take power in a system where there is not higher power to stop them they WILL succeed. Also I'm glad that your admitting that your principles are stupid. Your making progress to rationality

It's an a priori argument. If you can imagine 2 commies, you can imagine 3, 4, 5, and so on, and at no point can you just magically claim "NO - THAT SPECIFIC NUMBER OF COMMIES THAT WE JUST HIT IS ACTUALLY LOGICALLY IMPOSSIBLE!"
"Impossible" is a pathetically easy thing to dismiss. You want to use the word "implausible" if you want something not trivial to dismiss.

>It takes everyone in a communist society to be on board for it to work
No it doesn't. More productive commies could provide for less productive commies. That's entirely logically possible.

>your principles
I'm not a commie. I'm a radical Christian zealot who loathes government. You're the commie here, bootlicking Borg-san.

>You want to use the word "implausible" if you want something not trivial to dismiss.

The point is: it has not been demonstrated to be false.

Attacking the semantics of a poster as a knock against their logic, is not going to win an argument here.

Then what's with the anarcho-commie flag then?

cont'd
He is a schizophrenic tyrant.

In many ways, the anarchist is like the communist - caught up in the unfinished revolutions which gave birth to modern society. And in this, they are the same as liberals, determined by their negative ideology. They do not affirm an ideal society, they oppose a society, they want to push on with the revolution.

This has always been their strength, they are creative forces of destruction. But it is also their weakness, as they lack positive organisational structure and idealism.

I think that an individual like Bakunin is fairly right-wing compared to most people today: calling out both structural problems and individual groups (Jews), anti-state, extremely anti-communist, for small-group/brotherhood organisation. But there is a lack of political philosophy as a whole, and post-revolution structures, which would be the Leftist side of anarchism. Chaos/order may be a better differentiation than state intervention/non-intervention.

In this sense, anarchism is similar to national socialism as it combines elements of the Left and Right. Jacques Camatte acknowledged this in that the anarchist vision of society was in many ways similar to the Volksgemeinschaft, but unfortunately he never explored it further (probably couldn't due to backlash).

Of course, people like Camatte and Bakunin are a minority. Traditional anarchists, insurrectionists, and primitivists are at the extreme end of anarchism. Heck, the American Situationists wrote a piece called "The Right To Be Greedy" which was essentially pushing capitalist individualism to the extreme. The syndicalists and communists on the other hand tend to be quite moderate in terms of their relations to capital and hierarchy.

Another determining factor in the political spectrum that I think should be considered is the void between the current form and the ideal. If we look at primitivism it has been confronted by the Left in the same way as fascism,
cont'd

>The point is: it has not been demonstrated to be false
????
Yes it has been. The claim "it is impossible for there to not be a state" has been demonstrated as false.

see

What I am saying is that is that A some having to compensate for others is inequality and B if not everyone agrees and there is no government to put them down some people will act up and wreck your whole system.

Thats unrealistic utopian thinking. The only way I could see that working is with a small homgenous community.

Anarchy assumes that people are rational and intelligent enough to rule themselves without an external threat if they step out of bounds and do truly stupid shit.

Precisely why it, like true libertarianism, just can't work. People are fucking irrational and stupid, and most cannot police themselves.

...

Rude
Ps
That's the only kind of anarchy you can have

>What I am saying is that is that A some having to compensate for others is inequality
People being different is inequality. Marx never proposed that everyone should be equal, he proposed that stuff should be distributed in x way.

Your B I don't give a shit about. I'm not arguing for utopia, I'm arguing for the most moral state of affairs. The most moral state of affairs necessarily lacks a state, because statism is necessarily evil - statism entails that some people threaten and coerce other people.
I want a state of affairs in which people aren't threatened or coerced, and will argue for it. Me arguing for the best moral state of affairs does not magically mean I'm arguing that nothing bad will ever happen again - Jesus Christ.

Nope.

Anarchy is just another word for war.

Anarchy does not assume that.
Anarchy is a lack of people pretending they rule you or others. That's it. It assumes nothing about how people are at all.

Holy shit thats the best one yet

You voluntarily sleep every night you don't go on a massive speed and coke binge til death you fucking twat.