I'm tired of reading about "right-wing anarchisms"

The fantasy-story of right-wing anarchy is creating misinformation, someone thinks that something like "anarcho-capitalism" is real philosophy, instead of the linguistic distortion of fascist-capitalism that it is.

Should people even specify that they are left-wing anarchists now? Do we really want to put a stop to this propagandistic joke? Anarchy will always be the extreme left into the political pendulum.

And I will tell you more: anarchism is by its nature also pacifism, as it aims to prevent any form of uncontrolled power on others. This is to silence even centrists: another fake group, people who think that it's not "extremist" in its own abstinence, in delegating violence.

40 comments

The fantasy-story of right-wing anarchy is creating misinformation, someone thinks that something like "anarcho-capitalism" is real philosophy, instead of the linguistic distortion of fascist-capitalism that it is.
100% agree, right wing "anarchism" is authoritarianism with extra steps. It'll always end up with a few people holding the most power.
Should people even specify that they are left-wing anarchists now?
I call myself a libertarian socialist, while not technically the same it's clearer than just saying anarchist.
We shouldn't let the "an"caps claim anarchism, be proud of it
And I will tell you more: anarchism is by its nature also pacifism, as it aims to prevent any form of uncontrolled power on others. This is to silence even centrists: another fake group, people who thinks that it's not extremist in its own abstinence, in delegating violence.
Anarchism is an ideology that promotes peace, equality and i'm not sure if we can reach this type of world without some amount of violence. I myself am a pacifist to my ideology, but that is only ideally. Seeing people especially excited about the violence part is a little weird to me (i.e. thinking revolutions have to be bloody and civil war like, when it could be just as effective as syndicalism puts it)
You can't argue with tyrants. You can't tell the Sauds to peacefully resign, you need action and violence as disheartening as it may be. People will die, but it's better than millions suffering in silence for decades, even centuries.
- I do think it is often possible to force despots to resign through nonviolent conflict. Their power ultimately stems from obedience of others—if that obedience is removed they are just as powerless as any of us.
  So the question is: can that obedience be undermined through nonviolent resistance? I think the answer is often yes, and we have seen such things before in history.
  On the other hand, even many pacifists acknowledge the righteousness of self defense. So if nonviolent efforts fail and the tyrant comes for you and yours and you have to fight back I won’t fault anyone for this. On the other hand, you can’t and shouldn’t want to engage overwhelming military force on its own terms. That’s not a fight we can ever win head on.
  
  I do think it is often possible to force despots to resign through nonviolent conflict. Their power ultimately stems from obedience of others—if that obedience is removed they are just as powerless as any of us.
  Their power comes from us, and it is possible to force them to resign without violence.
  So the question is: can that obedience be undermined through nonviolent resistance? I think the answer is often yes, and we have seen such things before in history.
  Yes, i think so. But this heavily depends on if the people can even organize or not. In the french revolution the people revolted due to mass poverty. We don't have that now, tyrants have gotten smarter. They know if they condition us to the horrible lives we live then increase our wealth ever so slightly it'll discourage revolution, because who'd revolt against their benefactors?
  On the other hand, even many pacifists acknowledge the righteousness of self defense. So if nonviolent efforts fail and the tyrant comes for you and yours and you have to fight back I won’t fault anyone for this. On the other hand, you can’t and shouldn’t want to engage overwhelming military force on its own terms. That’s not a fight we can ever win head on.
  You must understand, i do not come from the west where, despite all its faults you can at least criticize it. I live in Saudi Arabia; all forms of protest are dealt with brutally and swiftly, and criticizing the ruling family can get you executed or jailed for decades.
  It's practically suicide to try to revolt in any way. You'd need the mass approval of the people while doing it in private. The military is a joke but the real scare is the SANG, the national guard. The sauds are paranoid of a coup or revolution, so they fund the national guard way more than the military. When i read animal farm, i was spooked by the similarities between the Sauds and Napoleon.
  We have tried to overthrown our oppressive governments before but...
- How and when morally acceptable is the use of violence has always been the subject of deep debate mostly among anarchists. Pacifism is often misunderstood on this point: pacifism can precede forms of self-defense - and therefore violence - when it comes to self-preservation.
  Liberalism is another thought to dismantle, as it has long moved historically on the right side of the political pendulum. Today's democracies show that either you reduce it at least to bring some socialism or you create the inconveniences that we see daily from its inefficiency.
  
  How and when morally acceptable is the use of violence has always been the subject of deep debate mostly among anarchists. Pacifism is often misunderstood on this point: pacifism can precede forms of self-defense - and therefore violence - when it comes to self-preservation.
  I agree, but some of our "peers" think it's necessary to cause a mass revolution that'll cause thousands of death. When i think of revolution i think of something along the lines of syndicalism. We have the power of the workers, why not use it? why would we have to construct an entire military and fight a powerful one?
  Liberalism is another thought to dismantle, as it has long moved historically on the right side of the political pendulum. Today's democracies show that either you reduce it at least to bring some socialism or you create the inconveniences that we see daily from its inefficiency.
  Liberalism has infected modern political debates. While it is better than ultraconservatism that is not a high bar. And decades of red scare propaganda from the US and the failures of ""AES"" have completely tarnished our reputation. People see socialism as this scary thing when at its basis it is literally just the workers owning the means of production. I find people are less uncomfortable when you mention Market Socialism, and show them how it's not too radical.

And I will tell you more: anarchism is by its nature also pacifism, as it aims to prevent any form of uncontrolled power on others.
If by pacifism you mean a peaceful society I agree, however if you are talking about achiving said society with no violent means whatsoever I must say that it seems like a nice utopian vison but not a practical one.
- Paris Commune was well designed principle. Failed to have sufficient security, because external assholes wanted it destroyed.

Even the Nazi party had "socialist" in their name...
I started defining words and meanings whenever I am talking on the subject. It is annoying but otherwise whenever you mention anarchism people imagine indiscriminate bombings.

I was told the other day by a tankie on here that all anarchists support violent revolutions and that I wasn’t an anarchist because I didn’t 🙄
- Tankies have wet dreams about violent revolutions, while they wouldn't be able to last 5 minutes in it.
  Even the russian revolution was heavily exaggerated, but that wouldn't fit their larping fantasies i guess lmao
- How exactly do you expect to achieve and maintain anarchy without violence? Do you expect the bourgeoisie will just go "Oh shit you're right!" and give up their power willingly?
  
  Non violent evolution through class consciousness. Parallel counter economic systems that erode the states power. Strong co-operative networks like Proudhon envisioned.
  Peace can only come from peace, not violence.
  Basically what the tech fascists are trying to do without the centralisation, oligarchy and white supremacy.
  https://www.vcinfodocs.com/what-is-the-network-state
  
  Democracy theoretically permits voting for someone who will reduce government power. Media telling you who you are allowed to vote for is an obstacle.

Then stop reading about them?
I mean, look at what the conservatives call communism, wokeness, socialism, censorship... You really don't want to take their definitions seriously. You can't if you want to talk seriously about these matters.

Yeah nothing says “my political views comes only from nothing but podcasts and YouTube videos but I consider myself well read and super informed” like people who try to liken anarchism with any form of right wing ideology.

Anarcho Capitalism is an astro turfing funded (Kochs in early 2000-2010s) movement to support low taxes. Monopoly on violence replaced with mafias. NAP is recipe for war/violence more than peace.
That said, mainstream leftist anarchism is extremely dogmatic in regards to feminist/queer supremacy/purity, and purity tests for "freedom lovers".
There are centrist paths to anarchy, minarchy, and government disempowerment. UBI is the obvious personal freedom that can replace all government except for IRS. Market anarchism, socialist libertarianism is inclusive of UBI/freedom dividends, in that fair markets can be promoted, and poverty eliminated. Centrist anarchy/UBI has no "freeloader problem".

I prefer ancap as a term to avoid acknowledging any affinity with real anarchism.
That said, I don’t think they’re necessarily all fascists and there are some points of agreement between us so I’m not afraid to cooperate in limited ways when it’s appropriate. Right now there are worse enemies to reckon with.
- i've never seen an ancap who doesn't want to be king of his own however-small kingdom, and most are straight up frustrated warlords. be very careful

I understand what you say and I agree. Still I would like to add something:
I have noticed that in the english speaking world when people talk about the left they often include anarchy in this term. For me, this is highly problematic too, since the left has hierarchical structures and anarchy has horizontal ones.
- "The left" is nebulous but it usually means "trending towards socialism". As anarchism is a socialist movement, it makes sense.
  
  I am not denying there is a historical reference to the use of this term. I just think it also makes sense - especially if we take into consideration the last 100 years or so - for this term to shift from its initial meaning. Or to put it differently, in other languages this shift has taken place for decades now.
- "The left" is relative to the political scenario, for example in the States we can see a big right-wing advantage so even liberists are left for them, while in the historical scenario they aren't. Hierarchy is still contemplated in the left but more you go on that and less hierarchy you have in a proportional gradualism.
- The term leftist is considered to come from the fact that people sitting on the "Left" in the Estates General in France. Generally, liberals, (Jacobins, Third Estate). There is very poor sourcing for this online, but Wikipedia cites some untranslated difficult to source french book.
  In mainstream discourse, "left" takes on a number of meanings, but to the extent that left is meant to mean anti-capitalist, and/or, Marxist, anarchism has left wing currents, hence, left wing anarchism.

There are definitely "right-wing" anarchist currents that are popular and not as unhinged as how "anarcho-capitalism" is generally characterized, as in, anarchism that espouses the use of capitalism, but I have not really seen any genuinely "socially conservative", anarchists. Pacifism is reactionary and emboldens the status quo.

40 comments