Is the far right and anarchism violent?

[GLDF]

As far as history goes, we've had militant groups who evade the law and seek to radically alter society. Once such group were the anarchists. In modern history, anarchists have been synonymous with threats to the government. If you seemed to be plotting against the government, you were possibly assumed an anarchists. They became enemies of the state and continued to be persecuted. Today, many anarchist circles are more suspicious that mainstream political groups.

On the other side of the spectrum, there are right wing extremists. This brings up an image of Nazis now, but earlier other nationalist and reactionary fringe groups killed to maintain strength. From the KKK to historical fanatic racists, they've caused many problems for political enemies.

But how are these groups related? Well, they are both associated with radicalism and political violence despite the ideological divide. And they hate rivals strongly. This topic seeks to answer it they are really violent or just misrepresented. So, NS, do you believe that anarchism should be associated with violence? What about the far right?

IMO, both ideologies can be suspicious. But we should reserve judgement of legality based on an individual's action. There is no way to certify either will commit a crime, even if I hate them. What do you believe?

[Nouveau Quebecois]

I think violent people are violent but that's just my opinion.

[Rojava Free State]

Anarchism is not an inherently violent ideology. In fact, some anarchists such as the punk rock band crass are devout pacifists who abhor any and all violence and favor peaceful resistance such as civil disobedience, hacktivism and picketing.

Anarchy and anarchism are not the same thing. Anarchy is when lawlessness and disorder take root and society goes south. Anarchism is the belief that the state and class systems are inherently oppressive and that a stateless society based around direct democracy is a positive alternative to the state. Anarchists are basically extreme liberterians, and desire to maximize freedom.

Fascists on the other hand are inherently violent because fascism seeks to minimize freedom and place all power in the hands of a strongman. Fascism encourages tribalism and hysteria in the name of national (and sometimes racial) unity and explicitly supports violence as a means to an end.

Am I myself an anarchist? Maybe. I debate whether anarchism could work or not, but I'm definitely either a libertarian or anarchist and nothing else. I don't like having the government intrude into my life or tell me what to think or believe and I think all people should be treated equally. Am I a pacifist? no. I'm a non aggressor. I don't condone preemptive violence against people, but I do support self defense. Is fascism and anarchism equivalent? Hell no. If you want a left wing equivalent of fascists, the maoists and Joseph Stalin will fit the bill

[United Muscovite Nations]

Imo Anarchism cannot be established by violence, because any violence will inevitably result in the recreation of the state and unnatural hierarchy. Instead anarchism must take a radically pacifist approach of dropping out of society to such a degree that the state cannot enforce its rule.

[Israeli Totalitariat]

Fascists on the other hand are inherently violent because fascism seeks to minimize freedom and place all power in the hands of a strongman.

That's not violence, chief.

Fascism encourages tribalism and hysteria in the name of national (and sometimes racial) unity

That's not violence, chief.

and explicitly supports violence as a means to an end.

Almost any ideology can support violence as a means to an end, including anarchism.

[Rojava Free State]

Fascists on the other hand are inherently violent because fascism seeks to minimize freedom and place all power in the hands of a strongman.

That's not violence, chief.

Fascism encourages tribalism and hysteria in the name of national (and sometimes racial) unity

That's not violence, chief.

and explicitly supports violence as a means to an end.

Almost any ideology can support violence as a means to an end, including anarchism.

#1 yes it is violence
#2 yes it is violence
#3 yes it is violence

How the actual hell do you expect them to keep power? When you minimize freedom, it always involved imprisoning or killing people who don't agree with you. As for the second point I made, that wasn't about violence as much as just what fascism stood for

Fascism is indeed violent. You can't name a single fascist state that didn't use violence and terror to keep its government in power. Plenty of anarchists are pacifists though and reject all violence. These two ideologies are not equal. You can attempt to draw a false equivalence all day and night but anyone who knows anything about anarchism and fascism will know they aren't the same at all

[Israeli Totalitariat]

#1 yes it is violence
#2 yes it is violence
#3 yes it is violence

How the actual hell do you expect them to keep power? When you minimize freedom, it always involved imprisoning or killing people who don't agree with you. As for the second point I made, that wasn't about violence as much as just what fascism stood for

Fascism is indeed violent. You can't name a single fascist state that didn't use violence and terror to keep its government in power. Plenty of anarchists are pacifists though and reject all violence. These two ideologies are not equal. You can attempt to draw a false equivalence all day and night but anyone who knows anything about anarchism and fascism will know they aren't the same at all

Actually, I can name exactly zero states that didn't use violence and terror to keep its government in power. Does that make every applied ideology violent? No.

Edit: Literally even Sealand has used violence to keep it's government in power.

[Kubra]

Who isn't violent?

[Repubblica Fascista Sociale Italiana]

That's not violence, chief.


That's not violence, chief.


Almost any ideology can support violence as a means to an end, including anarchism.

#1 yes it is violence
#2 yes it is violence
#3 yes it is violence

How the actual hell do you expect them to keep power? When you minimize freedom, it always involved imprisoning or killing people who don't agree with you. As for the second point I made, that wasn't about violence as much as just what fascism stood for

Fascism is indeed violent. You can't name a single fascist state that didn't use violence and terror to keep its government in power. Plenty of anarchists are pacifists though and reject all violence. These two ideologies are not equal. You can attempt to draw a false equivalence all day and night but anyone who knows anything about anarchism and fascism will know they aren't the same at all

They’re opposites

Fascism is the belief that a state and command economy is needed to keep the populace and country thriving, anarchism is the opposite

[Israeli Totalitariat]

They’re opposites

Fascism is the belief that a state and command economy is needed to keep the populace and country thriving, anarchism is the opposite

Nobody said they were the same. He is attacking a strawman so I ignored that part of their argument.

[Repubblica Fascista Sociale Italiana]

They’re opposites

Fascism is the belief that a state and command economy is needed to keep the populace and country thriving, anarchism is the opposite

Nobody said they were the same. He is attacking a strawman so I ignored that part of their argument.

I see that. Funny enough the closest thing to an anarchy we have, Somalia, is one of the worst places on Earth. Meanwhile “neighboring” Somaliland, which maintains an authoritarian rule over its land is one of the safest places in Africa

[Gagium]

Fascists on the other hand are inherently violent because fascism seeks to minimize freedom and place all power in the hands of a strongman.

That's not violence, chief.

Fascism encourages tribalism and hysteria in the name of national (and sometimes racial) unity

That's not violence, chief.

and explicitly supports violence as a means to an end.

Almost any ideology can support violence as a means to an end, including anarchism.

Hey Nouveau Quebecois

[GLDF]

Imo Anarchism cannot be established by violence, because any violence will inevitably result in the recreation of the state and unnatural hierarchy. Instead anarchism must take a radically pacifist approach of dropping out of society to such a degree that the state cannot enforce its rule.

Anarchism cannot be established, but that doesn't stop people from trying. Someone will always win.

[Antityranicals]

Anarchism may be violent, but it is not aggressively violent, but more defensively violent, as it fights the state, which is generally the aggressor. The KKK and other such groups, however, are aggressively violent, because they believe in controlling people's lives through force in an aggressive manner. So while both are often violent, what really matters when deciding whether or not to condemn is whether or not this violence is defensive or aggressive.

[Israeli Totalitariat]

Hey Nouveau Quebecois

Whatcha want, chief? Why'd you tag NvQ?

[Israeli Totalitariat]

Anarchism may be violent, but it is not aggressively violent, but more defensively violent, as it fights the state, which is generally the aggressor.

Violence is violence, and I don't think 'fighting the state' constitutes self-defense.

[Roskian Federation]

in its truest form, all government systems are violent because they rely on monopoly of force to enforce their governance

however, they are not inherently violent per say, even if they are unkind.

Anarchism isn't a real ideology because it's completely unenforceable, and thusly it cannot be violent (it has no monopoly of force), and it can't be unviolent (as your claims would have to be defended with violence)

[Israeli Totalitariat]

Anarchism isn't a real ideology because it's completely unenforceable, and thusly it cannot be violent (it has no monopoly of force), and it can't be unviolent (as your claims would have to be defended with violence)

Woke as hell. Plebians can argue for all eternity whether or not Anarchism is a good or bad ideal. This chad-madlad has ascended the mortal plains of debate.

[Antityranicals]

Anarchism may be violent, but it is not aggressively violent, but more defensively violent, as it fights the state, which is generally the aggressor.

Violence is violence, and I don't think 'fighting the state' constitutes self-defense.

The state is by definition aggressive. If it weren't, it wouldn't be a state, but simply an NGO like any other. A state by nature monopolizes its position through aggression. Fighting the state might not technically be self-defense, but it may well be the defense of another who would be the next victim of the state's aggression.

[Antityranicals]

in its truest form, all government systems are violent because they rely on monopoly of force to enforce their governance

however, they are not inherently violent per say, even if they are unkind.

Anarchism isn't a real ideology because it's completely unenforceable, and thusly it cannot be violent (it has no monopoly of force), and it can't be unviolent (as your claims would have to be defended with violence)

An anarchist (Or at least an anarcho-Capitalist, I don't know about other types...) believes that violence should be minimized to only defense, and definitely not be monopolized by a state. I have never heard of an anarchist who believes that violence shouldn't be an option for defense or some extent of redress by the victim. They just don't like that being done by a monopoly.

[Israeli Totalitariat]

Violence is violence, and I don't think 'fighting the state' constitutes self-defense.

The state is by definition aggressive. If it weren't, it wouldn't be a state, but simply an NGO like any other. A state by nature monopolizes its position through aggression. Fighting the state might not technically be self-defense, but it may well be the defense of another who would be the next victim of the state's aggression.

And Anarchism threatens those who are protected by the state. Who is the agressor now? Don't you see the circle of violence you are perpetuating? It's hypocrisy.

[Ayytaly]

Anarchism being violent is a stereotype perpetually pushed by bootlickers. The right-wing in general share an admirance towards authoritariamism.

[Israeli Totalitariat]

Anarchism being violent is a stereotype perpetually pushed by bootlickers.

You sure?

The right-wing in general share an admirance towards authoritariamism.

That ain't violence, chief.

[Chernoslavia]

Fascists on the other hand are inherently violent because fascism seeks to minimize freedom and place all power in the hands of a strongman.

That's not violence, chief.

Fascism encourages tribalism and hysteria in the name of national (and sometimes racial) unity

That's not violence, chief.

and explicitly supports violence as a means to an end.

Almost any ideology can support violence as a means to an end, including anarchism.

It inevitably leads to violence. What it always is however is oppressive and authoritarian like Communism.

[True Refuge]

That's not violence, chief.


That's not violence, chief.


Almost any ideology can support violence as a means to an end, including anarchism.

It inevitably leads to violence. What it always is however is oppressive and authoritarian like Communism.

The second sentence is true if you ignore anarcho-communism and most other communist sub-ideologies that aren't far authoritarian like DemSoc or anarcho-syndicalism.