Anarchism, Arguments For and Against

[Suriyanakhon]

This argument is particularly dumb because every political-economic system we've experienced in history was an impossible pipe dream until the day it wasn't. 200 years ago, the idea of a completely liberal democratic Europe constructed on national lines was a complete and utter fantasy - now it's our reality.

Anarchism has been attempted more than once, and each time it wasn't sustainable.

That our current society works doesn't mean your pipe dream will.

Given the fact that non-state societies have remained existent since the dawn of man, this is really silly to say.

[Concejos Unidos]

Surely you realize the similarities these ideologies, some of them not appearing to be left-wing, have? Regardless of what comes after anarcho-: anarcho-capitalism, anarcho-communism, anarcho-fascism, anarcho-primitivism, etc, they all call for the abolition of the state. Is that not what anarchism strives to achieve?

Plus, making anarchism out to be a purely left-wing ideology makes it seem like statism is the default position for all right-wingers, which is not the case.

This isn't even mentioning the inherent apoliticalness of anarchism in of itself. Because there is no government to enforce any ideology, moral principle, or value, those ideas are left up to each individual in the society to decide upon. This is why the different forms of anarchism exist, they all are created by the same people who all share a hatred of the state, yet their personal beliefs are extremely different.

By that standard, democracy is inherently apolitical, since save for limits at the extremes, democracy is supposed to allow for a multitude of voices and opinions and ideologies without fear or favor.

[Heloin]

Anarchism is a purely left wing political ideology, if it's not left wing then it's expressly not anarchist.

Surely you realize the similarities these ideologies, some of them not appearing to be left-wing, have? Regardless of what comes after anarcho-: anarcho-capitalism, anarcho-communism, anarcho-fascism, anarcho-primitivism, etc, they all call for the abolition of the state. Is that not what anarchism strives to achieve?

No. Anarchism is the abolition of authority and involuntary hierarchy. Capitalism seeks to see power in capital thus can not be anarchist. Fascism is an ideology purely about power certialised in a single point and can never be anarchist. Anarcho-communism is a branch of the long reaching but purely left wing ideology that is anarchism.

Anarcho-primitivism is the closest point you have to make a real point and it's failure to your argument is that the anarcho part implies it is left wing primitivism.

Plus, making anarchism out to be a purely left-wing ideology makes it seem like statism is the default position for all right-wingers, which is not the case.

Not all authority is the state, the state is just the primary source of authority in our current world.

This isn't even mentioning the inherent apoliticalness of anarchism in of itself. Because there is no government to enforce any ideology, moral principle, or value, those ideas are left up to each individual in the society to decide upon. This is why the different forms of anarchism exist, they all are created by the same people who all share a hatred of the state, yet their personal beliefs are extremely different.

Anarchism is only apolitical if your understanding of anarchism extends no further then you think anarchism=chaos. If you are right wing you are at your core opposed to the beliefs and attitudes of anarchism. In a purely anarchist society it is your choice and prerogative to do that but you cease to be an anarchist, you have become an advocate for some kind of authority.

[Infected Mushroom]

According to Wikipedia:

Left-wing politics is the support of social equality and egalitarianism, often in opposition to social hierarchy.[1][2][3][4] Left-wing politics typically involve a concern for those in society whom its adherents perceive as disadvantaged relative to others as well as a belief that there are unjustified inequalities that need to be reduced or abolished.[1]

As opposed to:

Right-wing politics is generally defined by support of the view that certain social orders and hierarchies are inevitable, natural, normal, or desirable,[1][2][3] typically supporting this position on the basis of natural law, economics, authority or tradition.[4]: 693, 721 [5][6][7][8][9] Hierarchy and inequality may be seen as natural results of traditional social differences[10][11] or competition in market economies.[12][13][14]

---

Based on the above, it seems that anarchism is better characterized as a form of left wing ideology. In terms of the rhetoric, it seems more anti-traditional and anti-hierarchical under the current climate (with states existing for thousands of years).

[Kubra]

Anarchism is a purely left wing political ideology, if it's not left wing then it's expressly not anarchist.

Surely you realize the similarities these ideologies, some of them not appearing to be left-wing, have? Regardless of what comes after anarcho-: anarcho-capitalism, anarcho-communism, anarcho-fascism, anarcho-primitivism, etc, they all call for the abolition of the state. Is that not what anarchism strives to achieve?

Plus, making anarchism out to be a purely left-wing ideology makes it seem like statism is the default position for all right-wingers, which is not the case.

This isn't even mentioning the inherent apoliticalness of anarchism in of itself. Because there is no government to enforce any ideology, moral principle, or value, those ideas are left up to each individual in the society to decide upon. This is why the different forms of anarchism exist, they all are created by the same people who all share a hatred of the state, yet their personal beliefs are extremely different.

"the state" is peculiar to 19th century left wing parlance of such, not beholden to more 20th century attempts of a neutral definition. That is, of course, why anarchism is almost entirely left wing.

[Kubra]

If you're looking at it from that very narrow lens, then yes. But no such ideology has ever been practiced. All anarchist societies today and in history have achieved what most people would consider anarchism, which is the complete nonexistence of the State^TM (a term separate from government, but similar).

The funniest part about modern anarchism is that anarchists either espouse extremely stupid ideas about how modern institutions that obviously benefit society can be made anarchist (anarchists saying "anarchy means no rulers, not no rules" to try to argue that anarchist laws are not oxymorons) or ideas that are somehow even dumber, like the classic "if disabled people get assaulted and there's nobody to avenge them, then that's their problem" theory of morality.

The only issue is that, as you mention in your post, they never completely abolished hierarchies, as the cultural/social ones seem to persist. The note about capitalism is subjective and/or debatable.

Abolition of all hierarchy as an idea is theoretically and practically impossible, and is also a bad idea in general.

What, and you suppose anarchism previous to modern was some different beast? Enlighten us, herr professor.

[Page]

This argument is particularly dumb because every political-economic system we've experienced in history was an impossible pipe dream until the day it wasn't. 200 years ago, the idea of a completely liberal democratic Europe constructed on national lines was a complete and utter fantasy - now it's our reality.

Anarchism has been attempted more than once, and each time it wasn't sustainable.

That our current society works doesn't mean your pipe dream will.

The anarchist communities throughout history have been destroyed by neighboring states, they didn't collapse of their own accord.

[Comemierdas]

I think I belong to the faction believing that anarchy goes against human nature. Whatever group people might form, some kind of hierarchy will shape up sooner or later. If you institutionalize it, you made your first step away from anarchy. If you don't, you still have hierarchies, but more susceptible to arbitrariness. By the way, the bigger a group gets, the more people will actually prefer to be ruled rather than rule themselves. That's not to say they shouldn't have a say, but many can totally live with giving some general consent to the decisions of others every once in a while. So I voted for "anarchy is cringe".

'm not one to defend anarchists but the "human nature" argument kinda sucks? it implies a static and unchanging human nature but that's very obviously not true

I beg to differ. First of all, there might be evolutionary changes in the long run, but they'll take too long for any human being to realize during their lifetime. Secondly, there is only so much culture can shape in the short or the medium run, by which I mean the span of only a few generations. This is leading into the same old discussion about nature vs. nurture, which can get quite tiring if ideologues take part in it. So just in a nutshell:
- There is nobody who seriously argues for some kind of "biological determinism" if it's that what you meant by "static and unchanging".
- This does not mean that there is no human nature.
- Culture is part of human nature, but human nature limits the possible variety of culture.
- This means, among millions of other things, that not every political system you can come up with actually works in reality.
- This does NOT mean that different political systems cannot work equally well.

[Sordhau]

Fascism is an ideology purely about power certialised in a single point and can never be anarchist.

On this point I'd like to point out that "Anarcho-Fascism" is fucking bizarre as Hell. It's basically the exact same as regular Fascism, but instead of ethnostates everybody's divided into literal tribes or some shit like it's the Wasteland from Fallout. It's highly eyebrow-raising.

[Suriyanakhon]

Fascism is an ideology purely about power certialised in a single point and can never be anarchist.

On this point I'd like to point out that "Anarcho-Fascism" is fucking bizarre as Hell. It's basically the exact same as regular Fascism, but instead of ethnostates everybody's divided into literal tribes or some shit like it's the Wasteland from Fallout. It's highly eyebrow-raising.

It has nothing to do with the actual definition of fascism, and doesn't seem to be used at all except by people on the internet (presumably as a meme).

[Washington Resistance Army]

On this point I'd like to point out that "Anarcho-Fascism" is fucking bizarre as Hell. It's basically the exact same as regular Fascism, but instead of ethnostates everybody's divided into literal tribes or some shit like it's the Wasteland from Fallout. It's highly eyebrow-raising.

It has nothing to do with the actual definition of fascism, and doesn't seem to be used at all except by people on the internet (presumably as a meme).

Na there are some real world groups who adhere to it. There's a few in the US and iirc Russia has been a hotbed for them as well.

[The Reformed American Republic]

Fascism is an ideology purely about power certialised in a single point and can never be anarchist.

On this point I'd like to point out that "Anarcho-Fascism" is fucking bizarre as Hell. It's basically the exact same as regular Fascism, but instead of ethnostates everybody's divided into literal tribes or some shit like it's the Wasteland from Fallout. It's highly eyebrow-raising.

I'm going to assume it's because they have an affinity for the Germanic tribes (and their relatives) that existed during the era of the Roman Empire.

[Salus Maior]

On this point I'd like to point out that "Anarcho-Fascism" is fucking bizarre as Hell. It's basically the exact same as regular Fascism, but instead of ethnostates everybody's divided into literal tribes or some shit like it's the Wasteland from Fallout. It's highly eyebrow-raising.

I'm going to assume it's because they have an affinity for the Germanic tribes (and their relatives) that existed during the era of the Roman Empire.

I mean, I wouldn't call tribal societies stateless. There are entrenched hierarchies.

[The Reformed American Republic]

I'm going to assume it's because they have an affinity for the Germanic tribes (and their relatives) that existed during the era of the Roman Empire.

I mean, I wouldn't call tribal societies stateless. There are entrenched hierarchies.

They weren't exactly modern states either.

[Salus Maior]

I mean, I wouldn't call tribal societies stateless. There are entrenched hierarchies.

They weren't exactly modern states either.

Sure?

[The Reformed American Republic]

They weren't exactly modern states either.

Sure?

That's probably why they consider themselves "Anarchists" as a group of tribes don't have a large central authority over the entire nation. That being said, Anarchism in general, is a flawed concept anyway.

[Esternial]

I've always seen Anarchism as a quaint thought experiment that can lend valuable insights into more practical applications. To be able to find a proper middle ground rooted in reality you need to explore all thoughts and ideas to the extreme, and this is one of those extremes.

People that believe it can be implemented on a large scale with some longevity are dreamers, but ultimately there's nothing wrong with that (provided it's not accompanied by violence).

[Prima Scriptura]

Anarchism has been attempted more than once, and each time it wasn't sustainable.

That our current society works doesn't mean your pipe dream will.

Some Austrian guy in 1826: 'Democracy has been attempted more than once, and each time it wasn't sustainable. Just look at what happened in France. That our current society works doesn't mean your pipe dream of liberal nation-states will. Now let's all raise a toast to the health and long reign of Charles X, and the return of the natural order of things'

Keep cope alive, brother! Lol

[Prima Scriptura]

Anarchism has been attempted more than once, and each time it wasn't sustainable.

That our current society works doesn't mean your pipe dream will.

The anarchist communities throughout history have been destroyed by neighboring states, they didn't collapse of their own accord.

You don’t say, that communities without a formal and developed army couldn’t defend itself? I’m shocked!

[Hamidiye]

The problem is: how to prevent anyone from establishing power once it's gone. What will stop someone from forming a gang and becoming essentially fallout-style raiders? The only thing that can prevent it is - power, thus defeating the process. Anarchism is a fallacy.

[Adamede]

I'm going to assume it's because they have an affinity for the Germanic tribes (and their relatives) that existed during the era of the Roman Empire.

I mean, I wouldn't call tribal societies stateless. There are entrenched hierarchies.

Don't think that makes them states either.

[Comemierdas]

The problem is: how to prevent anyone from establishing power once it's gone. What will stop someone from forming a gang and becoming essentially fallout-style raiders? The only thing that can prevent it is - power, thus defeating the process. Anarchism is a fallacy.

I think so, too. Power vacuums fill up, one way or another.

[Comemierdas]

I mean, I wouldn't call tribal societies stateless. There are entrenched hierarchies.

Don't think that makes them states either.

I think there are features of states a tribal society surely doesn't have. An administration of a certain complexity and the red tape that comes with it would be an example, a society of a size that exceeds kinship by various dimensions would be another.

[The Human Confederation]

I like the idea of anarcho-primitivism. Sometimes I really do wish the agricultural revolution never happened & history never started

[Heloin]

I like the idea of anarcho-primitivism. Sometimes I really do wish the agricultural revolution never happened & history never started

I like glasses, beer, and a low child mortality rate personally.