Anarchism is left. Anarcho-capitalism is a meme ideology that is mostly an offshoot of liberalism, while actual anarchism has a rich history on the left, as the other major umbrella of leftist thought compared to Marxism.
This is a pretty biased way of putting it. The concept of anarchy predates the interpretation used by modern left-leaning self-identified anarchists by a couple of thousand years. In online circles such anarchists often seek to monopolize the term (like you are doing right now), but they factually weren’t the ones to coin it; when it was originally coined by Plato, nobody had any idea what the fuck capitalism or socialism even are, and in fact Plato used it as a cautionary example.
I am guessing your gut reaction will be to recoil at this grave attack on your ideology. I implore you to stop and consider that most people are not in fact at all familiar with left-wing anarchism as defined by Proudhon etc., but are vaguely familiar with the concept from many other sources. Therefore when you talk about anarchism without a qualifier to mean anarchic socialism, most people will assume you are talking about some Mad Max law of the jungle nonsense and then summarily dismiss anything you say as insane rambling.
What? It’s possible for both modern democracy and Athenian democracy to be democracy, because it is an umbrella term that covers many different implementations of rule by the people.
The exact same thing applies to anarchy. It is possible for both The Culture and Lord of the Flies to be anarchy, because anarchy is an umbrella term that covers many different situations of “no rulers”.
I’m not an anarchist, I’m a Marxist-Leninist. Not sure where you got the idea that I’m an anarchist from. Secondly, I’m not referring to what the random person thinks anarchy is, but what actual anarchists believe, and among anarchists anarcho-capitalism is fringe, and an offshoot of liberalism. Plato having talked about anarchy at one point doesn’t suddenly mean that the entirety of anarchist history suddenly doesn’t matter.
Secondly, I’m not referring to what the random person thinks anarchy is, but what actual anarchists believe, and among anarchists anarcho-capitalism is fringe, and an offshoot of liberalism.
You’re doing the monopoly thing here again. When by “anarchist” you refer exclusively to left-leaning anarchists, of course anarcho-capitalism is going to be fringe among them.
Not to mention the fact that free-market anarchism is a distinct ideology from anarcho-capitalism and, to my understanding, much less fringe among self-described anarchists. The primary distinction seems to be that anarcho-capitalism exists at a lower energy state, a sort of a decay product that free-market anarchism would likely almost immediately decay into upon contact with the real world.
Plato having talked about anarchy at one point doesn’t suddenly mean that the entirety of anarchist history suddenly doesn’t matter.
One ideology misappropriating the term also doesn’t mean that all other meanings of the word suddenly don’t matter. Don’t get me wrong, I sympathize with many of the ideas of left-leaning anarchists, but they do suck at naming things. When the same concept covers both extreme right-wing libertarianism and extreme socialism, you really should be qualifying it with something to avoid confusion.
I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make here? But to go along with what I assume your analog is, if you’re talking about height then you need to say you’re talking about height regardless of what unit you’re using. “Two metre box” means constrains only one dimension, much the same as the word anarchy by itself does.
the phase space of vague stuff like political ideology would have an arbitrary large number of parameters, not whatever 2 you see in memes.
Weird to hear this from the person who moments ago was arguing that there’s no problem projecting this concept on an even smaller number of dimensions.
Isn’t anarcho capitalism just extremely radical liberalism? In which case people do take it very seriously. I know someone who is flying to some island in the pacific soon to get away from taxes and the government.
Sorta, its the belief that capitalism can (and should) exist without the state, which is what makes me call it an unserious ideology. Seeing as the state arises from class contradiction and capitalism cannot exist without class. There are people who seriously believe this but that doesn’t make it coherent.
Anarchy is more of a fundamental method of ruling/source of power/social policy. It’s neither left or right; and so different types of anarchy exist such as capitalist anarchy.
Anarchist communism is what you’re technically referring to. Economic ideologies seem like the mixup here.
As Wikipedia succinctly (and loosely) put it, anarchy is society without rulers - a society without authority or hierarchy. Authority and hierarchy would definitely be present in anarcho-capitalism. Wealth, power, and influence would likely still concentrate into the hands of the few (i.e. rulers).
It’s essentially just capitalism without an official state and practices like regulation or reigning in corporate power. Corporations would function effectively as states in such a scenario.
Could you elaborate? My understanding of anarchism is the goal of eliminating government. That won’t eliminate an economic system that originated organically.
My understanding of anarchism is the goal of eliminating government
The finer details will always change depending who you ask, but yes, it’s generally either the elimination of government, or of all ‘unjust hierarchies’ (which includes state government).
As someone else mentioned, ideological anarchists tend to be socialists, and in this context ‘anarchism’ is assumed to be that socialist strain, but not everyone calling themselves an anarchist is also a socialist. It’s a broad school of thought.
That won’t eliminate an economic system that originated organically.
Capitalism isn’t organic. I can’t think of a case where it has developed outside of a revolution (like the anti-monarchist revolutions) and/or imperial suppression. It requires the enclosure of the commons and development of private property security forces like a police, neither of those are an organic phenomenon.
Yep. I love the idea of anarchism but the reality is power comes from the barrel of a gun and without a strong unified government of the proletariat, the capitalists will eat you.
I don’t really think you can meaningfully consider anarchism to be more left than Marxism, more just leftism taken in the direction of communalism rather than collectivization.
anarchism is definitely left. however, this Left right spectrum is bs and definitely cant handle things like the differences between categorically different leftists ideologies.
that’s like having a scale of solid to gas, putting water and milk in the middle because they are both liquid,. but arguing which one is more liquid or gas of the two.
not denying it, just that it is very oversimplified.
Like if you can only compare things by big and small and you are trying to differentiate things by weight or shape. it’s a good rule of thumb in general, just very oversimplified.
True, but is the A for anarchists? Anarchists are not left.
Edit: oh, I’m on .ml. I didn’t know yous had a thing going for anarchism as well, now I know.
Anarchism is left. Anarcho-capitalism is a meme ideology that is mostly an offshoot of liberalism, while actual anarchism has a rich history on the left, as the other major umbrella of leftist thought compared to Marxism.
This is a pretty biased way of putting it. The concept of anarchy predates the interpretation used by modern left-leaning self-identified anarchists by a couple of thousand years. In online circles such anarchists often seek to monopolize the term (like you are doing right now), but they factually weren’t the ones to coin it; when it was originally coined by Plato, nobody had any idea what the fuck capitalism or socialism even are, and in fact Plato used it as a cautionary example.
I am guessing your gut reaction will be to recoil at this grave attack on your ideology. I implore you to stop and consider that most people are not in fact at all familiar with left-wing anarchism as defined by Proudhon etc., but are vaguely familiar with the concept from many other sources. Therefore when you talk about anarchism without a qualifier to mean anarchic socialism, most people will assume you are talking about some Mad Max law of the jungle nonsense and then summarily dismiss anything you say as insane rambling.
Following this to its logical conclusion, we don’t have democracy because only Athenian democracy is democracy, they articulated it first.
What? It’s possible for both modern democracy and Athenian democracy to be democracy, because it is an umbrella term that covers many different implementations of rule by the people.
The exact same thing applies to anarchy. It is possible for both The Culture and Lord of the Flies to be anarchy, because anarchy is an umbrella term that covers many different situations of “no rulers”.
I’m not an anarchist, I’m a Marxist-Leninist. Not sure where you got the idea that I’m an anarchist from. Secondly, I’m not referring to what the random person thinks anarchy is, but what actual anarchists believe, and among anarchists anarcho-capitalism is fringe, and an offshoot of liberalism. Plato having talked about anarchy at one point doesn’t suddenly mean that the entirety of anarchist history suddenly doesn’t matter.
You’re doing the monopoly thing here again. When by “anarchist” you refer exclusively to left-leaning anarchists, of course anarcho-capitalism is going to be fringe among them.
Not to mention the fact that free-market anarchism is a distinct ideology from anarcho-capitalism and, to my understanding, much less fringe among self-described anarchists. The primary distinction seems to be that anarcho-capitalism exists at a lower energy state, a sort of a decay product that free-market anarchism would likely almost immediately decay into upon contact with the real world.
One ideology misappropriating the term also doesn’t mean that all other meanings of the word suddenly don’t matter. Don’t get me wrong, I sympathize with many of the ideas of left-leaning anarchists, but they do suck at naming things. When the same concept covers both extreme right-wing libertarianism and extreme socialism, you really should be qualifying it with something to avoid confusion.
and the concept of height predates the metric system. does that mean you cannot measure height in metres?
I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make here? But to go along with what I assume your analog is, if you’re talking about height then you need to say you’re talking about height regardless of what unit you’re using. “Two metre box” means constrains only one dimension, much the same as the word anarchy by itself does.
just because an ideology predates the left right spectrum (quite flawed as it is but this isn’t the problem), doesn’t mean it can be put in there.
fascism and democracies predated the left-right spectrum, would you say they can’t be there
The political compass has both an X and a Y dimension, you know. As it happens, the Y dimension exists almost specifically because of anarchy.
oh god, don’t bring even more BS into here.
oh god, don’t bring even more arbitrary BS into here.
the phase space of vague stuff like political ideology would have an arbitrary large number of parameters, not whatever 2 you see in memes.
Is the society so painfully brainrotted that people genuinely think memes are realities?
Weird to hear this from the person who moments ago was arguing that there’s no problem projecting this concept on an even smaller number of dimensions.
They most certainly are?
Maybe you are thinking of anarcho-capitalism which is not a serious ideology
Isn’t anarcho capitalism just extremely radical liberalism? In which case people do take it very seriously. I know someone who is flying to some island in the pacific soon to get away from taxes and the government.
Sorta, its the belief that capitalism can (and should) exist without the state, which is what makes me call it an unserious ideology. Seeing as the state arises from class contradiction and capitalism cannot exist without class. There are people who seriously believe this but that doesn’t make it coherent.
Anarchists are left. Anything to the left of capitalism is left. Anarchists want to get rid of capitalism.
Anarchy is more of a fundamental method of ruling/source of power/social policy. It’s neither left or right; and so different types of anarchy exist such as capitalist anarchy.
Anarchist communism is what you’re technically referring to. Economic ideologies seem like the mixup here.
Anarcho-capitalism is an oxymoron.
As Wikipedia succinctly (and loosely) put it, anarchy is society without rulers - a society without authority or hierarchy. Authority and hierarchy would definitely be present in anarcho-capitalism. Wealth, power, and influence would likely still concentrate into the hands of the few (i.e. rulers).
It’s essentially just capitalism without an official state and practices like regulation or reigning in corporate power. Corporations would function effectively as states in such a scenario.
The oxymoron definitely checks out after verification. So essentially anarcho-capitalism is a corporatocracy.
Read a book pls
Could you elaborate? My understanding of anarchism is the goal of eliminating government. That won’t eliminate an economic system that originated organically.
The finer details will always change depending who you ask, but yes, it’s generally either the elimination of government, or of all ‘unjust hierarchies’ (which includes state government).
As someone else mentioned, ideological anarchists tend to be socialists, and in this context ‘anarchism’ is assumed to be that socialist strain, but not everyone calling themselves an anarchist is also a socialist. It’s a broad school of thought.
Capitalism isn’t organic. I can’t think of a case where it has developed outside of a revolution (like the anti-monarchist revolutions) and/or imperial suppression. It requires the enclosure of the commons and development of private property security forces like a police, neither of those are an organic phenomenon.
If anything, I would assume anarchism is more organic, since it could be found in many hunter-gatherer gift economies. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primitive_communism#Example_societies
Now, I’m personally not convinced that this makes anarchism appropriate for our industrial/post-industrial societies, but it’s not inorganic.
No its the idea that authority/power is bad and we shouldn’t have it.
Including cops, oligarchs, presidents, kings, popes, and sometimes even bed times.
Anarchists are usually leftists… though not all of them are, some can be quite selfish
I think it’s a beautiful ideology, but one that can’t really stand up to imperialistic powers in the real world
Which is why I am communist and not anarchist. To fight capitalism one must organize much more than anarchy movements could .
Yep. I love the idea of anarchism but the reality is power comes from the barrel of a gun and without a strong unified government of the proletariat, the capitalists will eat you.
Exactly
Bruh
Anarchy is the left at its apex, read a book pls
I don’t really think you can meaningfully consider anarchism to be more left than Marxism, more just leftism taken in the direction of communalism rather than collectivization.
Communism wants to achieve anarchy.
anarchism is definitely left. however, this Left right spectrum is bs and definitely cant handle things like the differences between categorically different leftists ideologies.
that’s like having a scale of solid to gas, putting water and milk in the middle because they are both liquid,. but arguing which one is more liquid or gas of the two.
I’m curious to read your arguments about the denial of the political spectrum.
not denying it, just that it is very oversimplified.
Like if you can only compare things by big and small and you are trying to differentiate things by weight or shape. it’s a good rule of thumb in general, just very oversimplified.