Is anarchism a right-wing or a left-wing ideology?

As I said, it would have to be a gradual evolution to that state. If we simply took the Earth as it is now and removed government, it would be chaos. It involves a further education of peoples and a lot of other stuff... long term. It's a path with things on the way.
 
And what if they don't agree? Stalin had the solution for people who didn't agree. What are you gonna do about them? You can't kill them, so you will have to "persuade" them. Or, well, you CAN kill them, and that is most likely what will happen.

Anarchism cannot be implemented at any time no matter what the circumstances because there will always be people who are not brainwashed. That is why the Soviet Union fell. Speaking of brainwash, there's your first resort to "enemies" of humanity; the non-Anarchists. Killing them being the second since there isn't all that much of a choice.

All of this discussion on HOW and WHEN Anarchism should work while omitting the simple fact that Anarchism will drag us back 2 million years from a cultural and evolutionary perspective. By the way, "state-less society"...

I can just imagine if true Anarchism reigned - "What are you doing?" - "We're taking over your fireplace and your wooden sticks." - "You can't do that!" - "CAPITALIST!!!!" *murder ensues*
 
You clearly have no idea what I'm talking about, and I can't help but feel that further effort spent explaining on my part is futile.
 
In a civilized society, there needs to be people to command and to be commanded.

Working towards anarchy..... is just simply incomprehensible. Why the hell would you want to work towards something that would destroy all of humanity's acheivments?

Disorder and chaos cannot be tolerated, and stability must reign supreme, for without stability, man cannot enjoy real freedom, nor be happy.
 
You guys still haven't gotten past your preconceived notions of riots and high school punk bands.

Working towards anarchy isn't about inducing chaos, it's about about reducing the amount of government necessary to protect basic rights. It's about encouraging individuals to take responsibility for their own actions.

less government = more freedom

So why wouldn't you want the minimum amount of government that still does it's job?

Of course the ultimate goal would be a stable, healthy society with no government.

That is, of course, not going to happen in our lifetimes, if ever. That doesn't mean the whole idea should be thrown out. As Ennui said, it's something to work towards.

Please, PLEASE don't jump into debates like this without being at least a little informed. At least read the fscking Wikipedia article first.
------------
Also, I recommend The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress by Robert Heinlein to everyone, especially if you're interested in libertarian philosophies. Very forward thinking and innovative book. Heinlein is an incredible writer. This book changed the way I look at government.

Mike is also the most badass sentient computer ever. Hal 9000 has nothing on Mike.

He has an orgasm throwing bombs at earth
 
Nemesis6 said:
And what if they don't agree? Stalin had the solution for people who didn't agree. What are you gonna do about them? You can't kill them, so you will have to "persuade" them. Or, well, you CAN kill them, and that is most likely what will happen.

Anarchism cannot be implemented at any time no matter what the circumstances because there will always be people who are not brainwashed. That is why the Soviet Union fell. Speaking of brainwash, there's your first resort to "enemies" of humanity; the non-Anarchists. Killing them being the second since there isn't all that much of a choice.

All of this discussion on HOW and WHEN Anarchism should work while omitting the simple fact that Anarchism will drag us back 2 million years from a cultural and evolutionary perspective. By the way, "state-less society"...

I can just imagine if true Anarchism reigned - "What are you doing?" - "We're taking over your fireplace and your wooden sticks." - "You can't do that!" - "CAPITALIST!!!!" *murder ensues*
Click to expand...

*rolls eyes*

You have the Hobbes/Locke view of a world without a State, that humans are inheritantly bad and evil.

Anarchists generally feel that the world can operate fine without any form of State.


Read my previous post :)
 
You don't know anything about my views on humanity. All I stated what the simple basics of the reality surrounding the little dreamworld where the smashies have their way and there's no government.

Anarchism will destroy humanity, that's how simple it is. Power will still arise when you've destroyed it, and it will subjugate you because you have no power yourself to fight back. Everyone needs to agree and if everyone did, it would work you say? That might be true, but that will never happen, so your only resort is the Stalin way, and if you do that, you're right back at square with the evil state.

If there were no governments, we would end up as semi-neanderthals that would make the Amish seem like... Well, you get my drift.

Bottom line is: You would not be able to tackle violence, etc, and your utopia would destroy itself. The ironic thing is that most Anarchists support when their fellow Anarchists go around smashing, burning, and throw objects at police. These people, including the ones who support them, make up the majority of Anarchists today, and YOU, Ennui, seem to be a minority. That's why you won't succeed. Because little Johnny is not gonna learn to appreciate his mom and dad unless people like me tell him what Anarchism really is and what the result would be, though I think he figured out the first one when he threw military-grade explosives at police. Anarchism is a dangerous ideology that, if implemented, would destroy us. You can ramble on about how what we're seeing today is not Anarchism, but your level of debate is in the exact same boat as people who argue for communism.
 
excuse me? I'm the crazy one? it's you who havent made a word of sense since you joined ..everything you say/do is tempered by irrationality
 
And what is the point then? We've already established where Anarchism is politcally. Anarchism = bad. End of discussion. Apologists for it can rant all they want(Ennui), it doesn't change the fundamental flaw in the ideology; the flaw that we're not robots. Anarchism, Communism, Trotskyism, Marxism, whatever, death has many faces.
 
Things change, good sir.

Not in the minds of people like you, but you'll be long dead by the time I'm proven right, so it's not a big deal.

I do wonder if it's very cramped in that narrow little mind of yours though.
 
You seriously believe that Anarchism will succeed? Or somehow change for the better? If that's what you meant, then you're just plain delusional! And even if it does, there will still be enlightened people who seperate and start rebuilding society, hopefully.

You cannot hope that something that is inherently a destructive force bent subjugation will play any positive role in the future.
 
when Nemesis grows up and has children of his own he's going to tell them scary stories about crazed liberals who feed on unsuspecting children


you know, you really are chicken little

"the sky is falling the sky is FAAAALLLIIING"
 
Are you familiar with the term "broken record"?
 
Well, that they "feed" on them is the correct term for sucking blood to nurture oneself.

Anyway, Ennui, there is absolutely nothing positive about dismantling the societies we live in. We would be worse off. Instead of telling me that I'm repeating myself, I'm curious: Could you offer me a reason WHY we should strive to achieve this total decadence of any form of order? What would we gain from it? I'm already fully aware of what we would lose, but what would we gain from the total collapse of all we have worked to develop and improve upon for over 2000 years?
 
Happiness. This civilization is not turning into a good one at all. Scrapping it for a new one would be optimal.
 
Scrapping it for a new one would be optimal.
Click to expand...

Wait waht?


You know what you just said could be interpreted into TERRORISM?

*calls homeland security*
 
Not through violence. Ideally. It's not possible to just 'scrap' it in any constructive way, it was just a point
 
Geogaddi said:
It makes more sense when you make it a point of a Freedom-Equality-Security triangle instead of a left-right scale.
Click to expand...
DING DING DING we have a fucking winner.

Right-wing and left-wing are generally meaningless terms when confronted with the broad spectrum of politics as it is today - at least without a qualifier like 'economically right-wing'. They originally described physical positions of representatives in the French Revolution; after two hundred years or so I think it's probably time to drop them (that said, anarchism has roots with the Madmen in France at that time, so perhaps it's appropriate even if it is inadequate).

Anarchism is, I would say, and ideology with 'Freedom' as its goal, although in the case of anarcho-collectivists there is probably a little bit of 'Equality' in there too). Actually, even under that triangle it's hard to classify because maybe it's also the ultimate 'Security', the true order of a society where everyone understands how they need to treat their fellows. But as its central tenet is the removal of all government, I would say it's more towards the liberty point, further towards the liberty point than any other political theory, and differing substantially in its methods of achieving that liberty.

Me being some kind of libertarian-socialist I don't, myself, think it would work. But then again, not having read any prolific theorists, I only understand anarchism in a crude sense, especially the supposed practical realities of it - although of course not as crude as those who think that anarchists are proponents of 'chaos' (although that may be the practical effect of their philosophy) rather than a different kind of 'order'.

Flyingdebris said:
it always seems to be overzealous suburbanite teenage boys with too much metal in their face who'd probably be the first to be beaten to death by the large and surly the second there are no longer any laws.
Click to expand...
Or, William Godwin and Mikhael Bakunin.

Enough stereotyping. All the anarchists I know are normal people with jobs; most of them are over 25.

Nemesis said:
Marxism...death has many faces
Click to expand...
What? Marxism is predominantly a tool for analysing history. Pretty useful one too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

B
The cut missions of Half-Life: Decay
Replies
2
Views
21K
Evo
Evo
Sulkdodds
Engineering Dissent: The Rise of the Political Commentator
Replies
14
Views
2K
Absinthe
Absinthe
CptStern
Thoughts from the hood: Immortal Technique writes about the election
Replies
2
Views
794
lame-o
lame-o
Hectic Glenn
With Chet Faliszek at Eurogamer Expo 2009
Replies
1
Views
2K
Operational
Operational
The Monkey
The Swedish General Election 2006
2
Replies
75
Views
3K
15357
15357
Back
Top