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

The Monkey

The Monkey

The Freeman
Joined
Jun 5, 2004
Messages
16,317
Reaction score
16
I had a discussion about this recently. It could be considered left-wing due to its close historical ties with the socialist movement and its marxist aspects.

But it could also be considered right-wing due its resemblance of neo-liberalism and ultra-capitalism.

Discuss...
 
I'm going to have to go with neither. It's an ideology so hollow that I think it's questionable if it should even be bothered to be labeled as such.

At the core, anarchism just creates a void. An untenable anti-state that would ironically require an organization of some governmental nature to enforce it. The closest you'll get to anarchism in practice is libertarianism.
 
im waiting for solaris to comment on this
 
It makes more sense when you make it a point of a Freedom-Equality-Security triangle instead of a left-right scale.
 
The fact that anarchists are considered a group makes me lol.
 
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...
Aye.
The one dimensional left-right compass describes only economic policy. Alteratively, social policy could be represented as an extra 'up-down' dimension to the political compass, with anarchy being 'down' and totalitarianism being 'up'.
 
they are the hippie ideology

so is good!
 
Anarchism is for people that didnt live up to daddys expectations.




on-topic it is neither imo
 
you can always take a look at africa just about anywhere really and get a good look at how anarchism works itself out. Alternatively, go on 4chan's /b/

Also, libertarianism isn't anarchism, though there seems to be a small sect of it that thinks it should be.
 
Dinkleberry said:
Aye.
The one dimensional left-right compass describes only economic policy. Alteratively, social policy could be represented as an extra 'up-down' dimension to the political compass, with anarchy being 'down' and totalitarianism being 'up'.
Click to expand...
You mean like the political compass?
 
Flyingdebris said:
you can always take a look at africa just about anywhere really and get a good look at how anarchism works itself out. Alternatively, go on 4chan's /b/

Also, libertarianism isn't anarchism, though there seems to be a small sect of it that thinks it should be.
Click to expand...

I said like a more extreme version of libertarianism. I imagine most moderate Libertarians would detest anarchism.
 
The terms "left-wing" and "right-wing" are too ambiguous to be applied here.

Anarchism is simply fighting any system of societal control. Like Absinthe said, libertarianism is the closest, although it's still a far cry away.
 
I believe utopian socialism is closer to anarchism than libertarianism.
 
I believe stupidity is closer, actually. Besides, socialism requires some sort of central control.
 
the funny thing about anarchism, is that that those that propose it are usually the least likely to survive it.

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.
 
and dont you have to wear black clothes to believe in that stuff? :):):)
 
Anarchism is more of a left-wing philosophy even though it's the polar opposite of socialism, and despite that libertarianism, its closest relative, is traditionally conservative.

This is because a perfect socialist society would eventually evolve (or devolve) into an anarchist society, whereas going the libertarian route is a dead-end.
 
Anarchism can be seen as being the 'State of Nature' that Hobbes and Locke (politcal theorists) talked about in Leviathon and other books.

Gonna grab a Uni book for this :dork:
 
Accoding to Andrew Heywood in this bookp Anarchism draws from both liberalism and socialism. This leads to two different groups in the theory of Anarchism, those who believe in individualism (the libertarians) and in collectivism (socialists).

Both 'strands' of Anarchism accept the goal of a state-less society - they just follow different methods to get to their goal.

Heywood mentions that Anarchism is simply the point where liberalist and socialism both reach anti-statist theories. Thus it is a mix of ultra-liberalist and ultra-socialists. There is a lovely Image depicting how Socialism and Anarchism overlap to form Anarchism.

Regardless of what 'wing' or 'ideology' you chose to label Anarchism as it is important to note that it holds several key theories.

- Anti-Statism
- Natural Order
- Anti-Clericalism
- Economic Freedom

However Anarchism is very utopian in my view as it is not an ideology that can ever gain power as the very requirement of gaining power in a state is to have a state system, this is what Anarchists are vehmentally against so it is hard to judge whether it is a viable political Ideology or just a utopian political theory.

Just to mention (from my previous post) both Hobbes and Locke held a very negative view on the 'State of Nature' viewing it a place of constant conflict, the 'War of all against all'. So we can say that Anarchism is an extension of the 'State of Nature' but takes it from a different perspective viewing it as a highly positive thing rather than a negative thing.

Simply Anarchism is a mix of the extremes of liberalism and socialism viewing the world as a place that is inheritantly good rather than inheritantly bad when there is no State.
 
And when the state is there, you have to throw bricks, paint, and anything you can at your fellow human beings untill the global dissolution of any form of government is complete. You know, I wouldn't mind Anarchism if it was a theory or an ideal instead of the way of life for little Johnny who goes to live in a house with no windows and a stench of urine with his fellow clones that all look the same, all in order to prove to his mom and dad that he's "not a robot!!!!1111one". Sorry, I've seen Anarchists, and I hope that the next time they come around to destroy the fabric of the society that has elevated them and their parents to the level at which they are allowed to act like total screwups, people will throw bricks at them.

You know what's sad? Seeing a 9-year-old being dragged to a squatter house full of leftist-anarchists by his sister who's only about 13. Yeah, I've seen it.
Come to think of it, it would be pretty nice if all governments were disbanded, because then we could all bash the former Anarchists faces in. But then again, they would be the first ones to parish when there's no state to give them welfare benefits.
 
The way I remember Gov't is devided into 5 categories.

s050_050.gif



so anarchy, is LACK of govt, so it is nowhere on the scale.:thumbs:
 
Anarchism is a Zero-Wing ideology, FOR GREAT JUSTICE!
 
Nemesis6 said:
And when the state is there, you have to throw bricks, paint, and anything you can at your fellow human beings untill the global dissolution of any form of government is complete. You know, I wouldn't mind Anarchism if it was a theory or an ideal instead of the way of life for little Johnny who goes to live in a house with no windows and a stench of urine with his fellow clones that all look the same, all in order to prove to his mom and dad that he's "not a robot!!!!1111one". Sorry, I've seen Anarchists, and I hope that the next time they come around to destroy the fabric of the society that has elevated them and their parents to the level at which they are allowed to act like total screwups, people will throw bricks at them.

You know what's sad? Seeing a 9-year-old being dragged to a squatter house full of leftist-anarchists by his sister who's only about 13. Yeah, I've seen it.
Come to think of it, it would be pretty nice if all governments were disbanded, because then we could all bash the former Anarchists faces in. But then again, they would be the first ones to parish when there's no state to give them welfare benefits.
Click to expand...
They're not real anarchists and are therefore not pertinent to this discussion. That's like judging the entire conservative ideology based off of the actions of some idiot redneck who doesn't know what he's talking about but still calls himself conservative. In other words it's stupid.

I'm an anarchist. It's idealism, but that does not mean that one day it cannot come to fruition. I do not live in a squatter house, nor do I break things and spraypaint anarchy symbols. That is not the way, seriously.
 
Ennui said:
They're not real anarchists and are therefore not pertinent to this discussion. That's like judging the entire conservative ideology based off of the actions of some idiot redneck who doesn't know what he's talking about but still calls himself conservative. In other words it's stupid.

I'm an anarchist. It's idealism, but that does not mean that one day it cannot come to fruition. I do not live in a squatter house, nor do I break things and spraypaint anarchy symbols. That is not the way, seriously.
Click to expand...

I know quite a few anarchist and the are completely normal.
 
Yeah, because it's just a philosophy. An anarchist society won't come about through revolution or in any abrupt manner, it's just something to work towards.
 
I see what you're getting at. But the prominent form of Anarchism today is destruction, and to be completely honest with no bullshit, this is the situation in which I would prefer an Anarchist be in: http://www.esromff.dk/images/Ungdomshuset Rydning_001a.jpg

If you really believe yourself an Anarchist, read up about "Ungdomshuset" on google. And if you find something talking about "ownership", that's a lie. Have a look at the fine product of modern Anarchism: http://video.google.com/videoplay?d...520&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

I feel I can share this little pearl of logic with you: I live outside a place called "Christiania". It's an old relic from the 70s, the people who live there now are decendants from the old hippies who "took" a military base for themselves. Now this place is seen as a place of freedom and opposition to the state, etc, but I won't go into that. Point is, in many ways, it's a symbol mainly to the left. Here's the interesting thing: There is a place nearby called "Ungdomshuset". It was a squatter-house lent to Anarchists back in the 80s, and when all attempts at dialog about relocation were met with violent smashings of everything in the raging mobs way, the Police decided to clear it by force. What followed is only partly shown in the video above. I lived right outside a place where the shithead-anarchists decided to make 3 bonfires all along the narrow road, throw bricks at police, and generally destroy anything they could find, including that with they could throw out of the windows of buildings they could raze.

I'm not gonna go into describing the smell and effects of teargas and actual military-made training bombs placed in the bonfires, but I can say that there's a reason they're referred to as 500 Stenkastende Autonome Voldspsykopater fra Helvede - 500 stone-throwing Anarchist violent psychos from hell. I can rightfully say that I have more reason to be opposed to this than you have to be for it. In other words, you haven't seen it in effect.
 
Anarchism using violence is not the sort of anarchism I support, like I said. I will not change my own stances and ideology based off of the actions of misinterpreting idiots like those in the links you described. Christinia is in Denmark, right? I think an exchange student from Denmark told me about it a while ago.
 
Think about this: When the Earth has no more governments, and the sort of Anarchism you support is in place, these very same people you accuse of "misinterpreting" Anarchism will still exist, and they won't just "stop". As you said, they misinterpret it. What will you do when these people organize and start "culling" who they refer to as "capitalists"? Nothing. One of two things can happen: 1 - You are led to slaughter and all who do not "misinterpret" Anarchism will die or imprisoned. 2 - You organize and you are now split into various factions again. Think post-apocalyptic Earth society-wise. So either you die if you don't conform or you revert to how things were before, but engage in armed conflict to defend yourself from being slaughtered.

To me, it seems like this ideology would effectively render itself inert if implemented because it doesn't into account that everyone's different. Hey, that's the same inescapable conclusion of communism, what do you know? :)
 
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
755
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