Left-Wing Discussion Thread

[Bogdanov Vishniac]

Really? Wow that's news to us anarchists.

umm anarchy is a right-wing view.

So anarcho-communism, anarcho-syndicalism, social anarchism, collectivist anarchism and mutualism are all right wing ideologies? You really are just a font of knowledge! Why have you not told us this before?!

[Heidisteinian Fempire]

Finally, a echo chamber. Hello fellow lefties

[The newfound islands]

umm anarchy is a right-wing view.

So anarcho-communism, anarcho-syndicalism, social anarchism, collectivist anarchism and mutualism are all right wing ideologies? You really are just a font of knowledge! Why have you not told us this before?!

n I mean like straight up anarchy like no government.

[Bogdanov Vishniac]

So anarcho-communism, anarcho-syndicalism, social anarchism, collectivist anarchism and mutualism are all right wing ideologies? You really are just a font of knowledge! Why have you not told us this before?!

n I mean like straight up anarchy like no government.

You mean like any of the above ideologies?

[The newfound islands]

n I mean like straight up anarchy like no government.

You mean like any of the above ideologies?

yeah exactly.

[Ganonsyoni]

n I mean like straight up anarchy like no government.

You mean like any of the above ideologies?

Anarchy is no state, not government. Anarchy is all about community governance where the people directly govern themselves.

[Bogdanov Vishniac]

You mean like any of the above ideologies?

yeah exactly.

So again, you're perfectly alright with calling anarcho-communism a right wing ideology?

You mean like any of the above ideologies?

Anarchy is no state, not government. Anarchy is all about community governance where the people directly govern themselves.

Methinks the distinction between the state and governance is ever so slightly beyond our young American friend here.

[The newfound islands]

yeah exactly.

So again, you're perfectly alright with calling anarcho-communism a right wing ideology?

Anarchy is no state, not government. Anarchy is all about community governance where the people directly govern themselves.

Methinks the distinction between the state and governance is ever so slightly beyond our young American friend here.

no I was not talking about anarcho-communism I was talking about plain straight up anarchy.

[Bogdanov Vishniac]

So again, you're perfectly alright with calling anarcho-communism a right wing ideology?



Methinks the distinction between the state and governance is ever so slightly beyond our young American friend here.

no I was not talking about anarcho-communism I was talking about plain straight up anarchy.

An anarcho-communist society is an anarchy. All anarchist schools of thought (save anarcho-capitalism which one can argue isn't really anarchistic) are 'left wing' by way of their historical development and collective opposition to hierarchy.

[Northern Davincia]

So anarcho-communism, anarcho-syndicalism, social anarchism, collectivist anarchism and mutualism are all right wing ideologies? You really are just a font of knowledge! Why have you not told us this before?!

n I mean like straight up anarchy like no government.

Anarcho-capitalism (the only right-wing deviant) is not the entirety of anarchy.

[The newfound islands]

n I mean like straight up anarchy like no government.

Anarcho-capitalism (the only right-wing deviant) is not the entirety of anarchy.

wait there's Anarcho-capitalism I did not know that.

[Northern Davincia]

Anarcho-capitalism (the only right-wing deviant) is not the entirety of anarchy.

wait there's Anarcho-capitalism I did not know that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism
It's an ideology for madmen, but read as you please.

[The newfound islands]

wait there's Anarcho-capitalism I did not know that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism
It's an ideology for madmen, but read as you please.

well i'm not a madman but i'll take a peek and i'm not an anarchist just so we are clear.

[Ganonsyoni]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism
It's an ideology for madmen, but read as you please.

well i'm not a madman but i'll take a peek and i'm not an anarchist just so we are clear.

Just to let you know, anarcho-capitalist isn't anarchist at all. Anarchism is all about destroying unjust hierarchy. The most prominent hierarchy of the modern age is the class system that capitalism fosters. That the bourgeoisie, the ones who own the means of production, and the proletariat, the ones who use said production to create value. Anarchism is all about destroying the class system and capitalism. So therefore, anarcho-capitalism is not possible as it desires to preserve capitalism and class but pretend it's not oppressive because "its anarchist!"

If an anarcho-capitalist tries to set up a commune, nobody would work for him because the workers could freely choose to work elsewhere/set their own business and not be exploited. The only way capitalism works is if there is a state (something that hold the monopoly on violence) in order to force workers to work for said anarcho-capitalist (work or die from starvation/homelessness). But if it gets to that point, its not anarchist at all.

[The newfound islands]

hey everyone y'all got to hear this beautiful beautiful song https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nDhNujF8zY

[The New Sea Territory]

Really? Wow that's news to us anarchists.

umm anarchy is a right-wing view.

Kek.

[Arkolon]

Anarchocapitalism fits the literal definition of anarchism, which is essentially statelessness, and doesn't see class hierarchy or private capital accumulation as injustice. If an acquisition or exchange of property is just, essentially in that it is voluntary, and that all injustices have been rectified (by many various processes), then that acquisition or exchange is just; even if you repeat the process a million times, and it turns out one person has more property than another, the process is still just, and so - logically - the outcome is also necessarily just since there was no injustice involved anywhere in the process.

[The New Sea Territory]

wait there's Anarcho-capitalism I did not know that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism
It's an ideology for madmen, but read as you please.

It's also been effectively co-opted by NRx. At least, if the subreddit and Youtube are still accurate depictions of the movement (they were when I was an ancap).

[Northern Davincia]

well i'm not a madman but i'll take a peek and i'm not an anarchist just so we are clear.

Just to let you know, anarcho-capitalist isn't anarchist at all. Anarchism is all about destroying unjust hierarchy. The most prominent hierarchy of the modern age is the class system that capitalism fosters. That the bourgeoisie, the ones who own the means of production, and the proletariat, the ones who use said production to create value. Anarchism is all about destroying the class system and capitalism. So therefore, anarcho-capitalism is not possible as it desires to preserve capitalism and class but pretend it's not oppressive because "its anarchist!"

If an anarcho-capitalist tries to set up a commune, nobody would work for him because the workers could freely choose to work elsewhere/set their own business and not be exploited. The only way capitalism works is if there is a state (something that hold the monopoly on violence) in order to force workers to work for said anarcho-capitalist (work or die from starvation/homelessness). But if it gets to that point, its not anarchist at all.

Apparently you've neglected the possibility of the bourgeois giving his employees worthwhile benefits, as Henry Ford did.
Technically anything can be anarchistic as long as it rejects the state.

[The New Sea Territory]

Anarchocapitalism fits the literal definition of anarchism, which is essentially statelessness, and doesn't see class hierarchy or private capital accumulation as injustice.

The "literal" definition is irrelevant to the actual philosophy, which has always been more than statelessness. This assumption is what leads people to anarcho-capitalism in the first place.

Anarchists don't see a class hierarchy as an injustice, but as an unnecessary social structure...one that requires a state to exist. Furthermore, class society restricts my will, therefore I seek its abolition.

If an acquisition or exchange of property is just, essentially in that it is voluntary, and that all injustices have been rectified (by many various processes), then that acquisition or exchange is just; even if you repeat the process a million times, and it turns out one person has more property than another, the process is still just, and so - logically - the outcome is also necessarily just since there was no injustice involved anywhere in the process.

The initial acquisition of property, and maintaining control of said property, is not voluntary. It requires force.

Ancap fetishization of "voluntary" turns voluntary association into a spook. It's an abstraction, a label thrown onto anything the ancap enjoys or wishes to defend, despite the obviously involuntary situation capitalism puts workers into, or how property requires force to defend. The "voluntary" society is one divorced from any real, concrete, tangible voluntary association....largely because anarcho-capitalism is a purely theoretical movement, with little to no real world presence.

[The New Sea Territory]

Just to let you know, anarcho-capitalist isn't anarchist at all. Anarchism is all about destroying unjust hierarchy. The most prominent hierarchy of the modern age is the class system that capitalism fosters. That the bourgeoisie, the ones who own the means of production, and the proletariat, the ones who use said production to create value. Anarchism is all about destroying the class system and capitalism. So therefore, anarcho-capitalism is not possible as it desires to preserve capitalism and class but pretend it's not oppressive because "its anarchist!"

If an anarcho-capitalist tries to set up a commune, nobody would work for him because the workers could freely choose to work elsewhere/set their own business and not be exploited. The only way capitalism works is if there is a state (something that hold the monopoly on violence) in order to force workers to work for said anarcho-capitalist (work or die from starvation/homelessness). But if it gets to that point, its not anarchist at all.

Apparently you've neglected the possibility of the bourgeois giving his employees worthwhile benefits, as Henry Ford did.

"Worthwhile benefits" don't negate the exploitation of wage labor. They just make the pill easier to swallow.

Technically anything can be anarchistic as long as it rejects the state.

Swing and a miss. Anti-state ethnic neotribalism (National "anarchism"), something growing within third positionist/fascist circles, isn't anarchistic.

[Arkolon]

Anarchocapitalism fits the literal definition of anarchism, which is essentially statelessness, and doesn't see class hierarchy or private capital accumulation as injustice.

The "literal" definition is irrelevant to the actual philosophy, which has always been more than statelessness. This assumption is what leads people to anarcho-capitalism in the first place.

Anarchists don't see a class hierarchy as an injustice, but as an unnecessary social structure...one that requires a state to exist. Furthermore, class society restricts my will, therefore I seek its abolition.

This is just semantics: it isn't capital-A Anarchism because it fundamentally disagrees with Anarchists, but it is small-a anarchism because it is, in a Weberian sense, stateless. Rothbard used the alternative "nonarchism" since he knew using "anarcho-" would be an appropriation of a tradition that isn't his. He's not incorrect to have ended up using the word - impolite, maybe, but not incorrect.

If an acquisition or exchange of property is just, essentially in that it is voluntary, and that all injustices have been rectified (by many various processes), then that acquisition or exchange is just; even if you repeat the process a million times, and it turns out one person has more property than another, the process is still just, and so - logically - the outcome is also necessarily just since there was no injustice involved anywhere in the process.

The initial acquisition of property, and maintaining control of said property, is not voluntary. It requires force.

Ancap fetishization of "voluntary" turns voluntary association into a spook. It's an abstraction, a label thrown onto anything the ancap enjoys or wishes to defend, despite the obviously involuntary situation capitalism puts workers into, or how property requires force to defend. The "voluntary" society is one divorced from any real, concrete, tangible voluntary association....largely because anarcho-capitalism is a purely theoretical movement, with little to no real world presence.

Making property that was once common a private asset does indeed make everyone else, who used to be able to appropriate and/or use common property, worse off - which is indeed injustice. That's why it is supposed to be rectified.

[Ganonsyoni]

Apparently you've neglected the possibility of the bourgeois giving his employees worthwhile benefits, as Henry Ford did.

"Worthwhile benefits" don't negate the exploitation of wage labor. They just make the pill easier to swallow.

Technically anything can be anarchistic as long as it rejects the state.

Swing and a miss. Anti-state ethnic neotribalism (National "anarchism"), something growing within third positionist/fascist circles, isn't anarchistic.

The slaver treating his slaves well doesn't change the fact that the slaves are being exploited for their labour.

Same thing with wage labour. Its slavery of a different form.

[Northern Davincia]

Apparently you've neglected the possibility of the bourgeois giving his employees worthwhile benefits, as Henry Ford did.

"Worthwhile benefits" don't negate the exploitation of wage labor. They just make the pill easier to swallow.

Technically anything can be anarchistic as long as it rejects the state.

Swing and a miss. Anti-state ethnic neotribalism (National "anarchism"), something growing within third positionist/fascist circles, isn't anarchistic.

National anarchism would most certainly build a state for itself upon implementation.
Also, I have my disagreements with the idea of wage slavery.
https://rudd-o.com/archives/on-wage-slavery
https://notesonliberty.com/2013/11/25/d ... very-myth/

[The New Sea Territory]

This is just semantics: it isn't capital-A Anarchism because it fundamentally disagrees with Anarchists, but it is small-a anarchism because it is, in a Weberian sense, stateless. Rothbard used the alternative "nonarchism" since he knew using "anarcho-" would be an appropriation of a tradition that isn't his. He's not incorrect to have ended up using the word - impolite, maybe, but not incorrect.

Weber didn't define anarchism or Anarchism, nor does anarcho-capitalism even abolish the Weberian state (if it did, we socialists would have a field day, expropriating whatever we pleased without consequence, ignoring bosses and democratically managing our own workplaces). It decentralizes the Weberian state by privatizing it...which would likely re-centralize eventually.

Making property that was once common a private asset does indeed make everyone else, who used to be able to appropriate and/or use common property, worse off - which is indeed injustice. That's why it is supposed to be rectified.

All land was once held in common (or unowned altogether). I don't see how this can be rectified without abolishing private property. Mixing one's labor with land doesn't rectify anything.