It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

What is the difference between a Right wing anarchist and a Left wing anarchist?

page: 6
9
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 18 2014 @ 12:34 PM
link   

LewsTherinThelamon

amfirst1
reply to post by jonnywhite
 


Exactly, why I say his chart is inaccurate.

Libertarians in my opinion are center right.


Only if you have trouble thinking 2-dimensionally.

Your shoving everything onto one axis.

left right
There's your political compass.

When I first saw amfirst1's reply I thought she was being stupid and I agreed with you Lews. However, now that I read it after a second thought, I think what she was saying is libertarians as she knows them are center-right on the chart given by political compass. She was not making an empirical statement about what libertarianism is. What she's saying is you can be libertarian while having some statist social rules, in contrast to the political compass which seems to say libertarians are primarily defined by the lack of statist social rules. She's alluding to the same thing I'm alluding to, which is the economic axis has an authoritarian dimension currently being ignored by omission on the political compass.

The authoritarian/libertarian dimension shouldn't be a dimension but a derivative going from the top-left to the bottom-right based on the two dimensions of control. The up/down axis is social controls and the left-right axis is economic controls. And I hesitate to call the bottom-right "libertarian", since it might get confused with what people popularly think of it as being (in the US). This is why I label the top-left "State Freedoms" and the bottom-right "Individual Freedoms".
edit on 18-1-2014 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 18 2014 @ 12:43 PM
link   

jonnywhite
reply to post by LewsTherinThelamon
 


Competition is an expression of the fact freedom is not free, just like war. I'm not saying it's smart to not want social controls and not want economic controls. I'm just saying if someone is on the far right then they want more economic freedom as opposed to controls (voluntary or not). They're less authoritarian than someone who's equal socially yet on the far left. This is ignored by omission on the political compass chart, and this is why I'm chatting about it here.
edit on 18-1-2014 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)


I don't understand what you are saying? Are saying that sharing as an economic model is always force? If I had a sandwich and you did not have a sandwich, and I split my sandwich with you that would be sharing.

If you wanted my sandwich, but I didn't want to share with you, so you took it from me at gunpoint then split it and gave me half--that would be forced socialism (top-left).

If I did it voluntarily that would be the opposite of force (bottom-left).

You need to clarify your point because I am not following you.
edit on 18-1-2014 by LewsTherinThelamon because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 18 2014 @ 12:54 PM
link   
reply to post by jonnywhite
 



When I first saw his reply (amfirst1) I thought he/she was being stupid and I agreed with you Lews. However, now that I read it after a second thought, I think what he was saying is libertarians as he knows them are center-right on the chart given by political compass. He was not making an empirical statement about what libertarianism is, just the shape it popularly takes. What he's saying is you can be libertarian while having some statist social rules, in contrast to the political compass which seems to say libertarians are primarily defined by the lack of statist social rules. He's alluding to the same thing I'm alluding to, which is the economic axis has an authoritarian dimension currently being ignored by omission on the political compass.

The authoritarian/libertarian dimension shouldn't be a dimension but a derivative going from the top-left to the bottom-right based on the two dimensions of control. And I hesitate to call the bottom-right "libertarian", since it might get confused with what people popularly think of it as being (in the US). This is why I label the top-left "State Freedoms" and the bottom-right "Individual Freedoms".


The bottom left would also have to be "individual freedoms", though. That is why the bottom is libertarian.

Socialism is a tool, it is not authoritarian any more than capitalism is.

A hammer cannot be authoritarian, it is neutral. A screwdriver cannot be libertarian, it is neutral.

Are you saying that socialism is inherently authoritarian?



posted on Jan, 18 2014 @ 01:01 PM
link   
Anyway so my take on the OP is the difference is left-wing anarchists are more authoritarian than right-wring anarchists because left-wing anarchists want to control the economy and there's no way to control an economy without either people losing freedoms or voluntarily denying themselves access to them.

The reason the right-wing anarchists display more violence is because freedom isn't free and competition and war will ensue. The people on the left will voluntarily sacrifice their freedoms and thus not choose to compete or fight to keep them.

None of this explains how a more authoritarian personality opts to sacrifice its own freedoms to avoid competition or war, since negative traits are usually attached to authoritarians and would not predict them sacrificing anything. This is why I disagree with the political compass chart because it creates this confusion.
edit on 18-1-2014 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 18 2014 @ 01:14 PM
link   

John_Rodger_Cornman
What is the difference between a Right wing anarchist and a Left wing anarchist?


Easy.

The right wing anarchist must be turned counterclockwise to insert while the left wing one you turn clockwise for the same effect.

Next question please.

Harte



posted on Jan, 18 2014 @ 01:21 PM
link   

jonnywhite

Anyway so my take on the OP is the difference is left-wing anarchists are more authoritarian than right-wring anarchists because left-wing anarchists want to control the economy and there's no way to control an economy without either people losing freedoms or voluntarily denying themselves access to them.


Ah. I see.

So, the left uses a screwdriver and the right uses a hammer. Because of this, the left is more "authoritarian?"

You cannot be both authoritarian and anarchist/libertarian.

This just sounds like you have a bias against economic models that you personally do not like. Socialism is not authoritarian. Capitalism is not authoritarian. YOUR EXECUTION of these economic models is what determines whether you are a libertarian or authoritarian.

just because you are "on the left" does not mean you are authoritarian. The left can be authoritarian, but the right can also be authoritarian.

Just because a group of people voluntarily choose to share does not mean they are authoritarian simply because they are sharing.

If they force you to use a hammer when you want to use a screwdriver, then yes, they are authoritarian.


The reason the right-wing anarchists display more violence is because freedom isn't free and competition and war will ensue. The people on the left will voluntarily sacrifice their freedoms and thus not choose to compete or fight to keep them.


How did you come to this conclusion?



posted on Jan, 18 2014 @ 02:38 PM
link   
reply to post by jonnywhite
 


I had to read this several times before I grasped which angle you were coming from.

Let's fantasize that the US Government falls because of the economy went out of control. You fill in the details.

So where do the "freedoms" come from and who decides?



posted on Jan, 18 2014 @ 04:44 PM
link   

MOMof3
reply to post by jonnywhite
 


I had to read this several times before I grasped which angle you were coming from.

Let's fantasize that the US Government falls because of the economy went out of control. You fill in the details.

So where do the "freedoms" come from and who decides?




The OP may have meant many things when he/she said "Left wing". According to the official political compass chart the left wing can encompass extreme and more moderate views on economic controls and it can be extreme authoritarian or its extreme opposite, so it can mean a lot of things. However, the defining feature is moderate or greater support for economic controls.

I don't know if it really made any sense or not, but it made enough sense to me to write it down. I adjusted the political compass chart based on my own interpretation of it. Another thing is I was judging just based on the economic controls dimension of my (readjusted) political compass chart. This means the left-wing anarchists are more authoritarian on the economic controls dimension. Since they're anarchists, it's assumed they have equal libertarian views on social controls.

My own interpretation of what extreme authoritarian means is extreme support of state control. This can apply to both the economic and social dimensions of the political compass chart I've been chatting with Lew about. My disagreement has to do with how the economic dimension omits authoritarian considerations. This is why I renamed the authoritarian/libertarian axis to "Social controls" and the left/right axis to "Economic controls". I then put a "State Freedoms" label on the top-left of the chart and a "Individual Freedoms" on the bottom-right. This allows for the economic dimension to be tied to authoritarian motives as well as the social dimension. Only together is extreme authoritarianism possible.

The reason Lew disagreed with me appears to because he/she did not relate voluntary sacrifice of freedoms (to control economy) to state enforcement of economic control. As I see it, voluntary sacrifice of freedoms is as much a control measure as state control. I think in Lew's view, state control of economy is not the same as voluntary sacrifice of freedom both of which have the aim of controlling the economy. My difference from Lew is I believe they both have the same destination they just take different roads. I do not distinguish between them on my readjusted political compass chart as I believe they're both authoritarian.

All this means is people who score on the left of hte political compass chart are now more authoritarian than they thought and people who were previously considered extreme authoritarian may not be as extreme as they thought. All in all, this means Stalin was more authoritarian than Hitler. Ghandi was more authoritarian than Milton Friedman. In my judgment, the political compass chart is prejudiced towards concluding voluntary sacrifice of freedoms to control economy is not authoritarian. In my view, any good ant in a colony has to voluntary serve the queen and do so without the desire to regain those freedoms. However, this doesn't mean being forced can't work, but nature generally favors voluntary actions. Voluntary or not, authoritarian ambitions all seek to control.

NOTE: "State Freedoms" can be though of as "Collective Freedoms" too. If I voluntarily sacrifice economic and/or social freedoms to join a utopian commune then I have joined a sort of collective. This collective has grown in its freedoms as I have lost them. Maybe it would be more appropriate to think of the individual at hte bottom-right and the society at the top-right. As the individual gains in power the society loses it and vice versa.
edit on 18-1-2014 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 18 2014 @ 05:26 PM
link   
From my old study.

I think the left anarchy is still basically based on freedom of choice in that humans would choose to do without capitalism, capitalism would be as alien as a system with capitalism would be to us. That was the point of the communism stage. The social engineering would done through communism over a generation or two would "supposedly condition human to view the free market capitalist system as abhorrent and there fore descendants of those who were born under communism when the state receded would choose those ideals willing as that what they know and trust.

Of course the communism stage would be pretty totalitarian and with limited freedom of choose, but the idea is this stage is done because we are contaminated with the current systems ideas and values and therefore broken and unable to be responsible with total freedom, communism was to be used as a sort of training tool not as permanent system.


Again its not WHAT I want, im not a communist. Just explaining the original idea.

edit on 18-1-2014 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 18 2014 @ 06:42 PM
link   
reply to post by jonnywhite
 


I thought this thread was about rightwing anarchists and leftwing anarchists. I can draw a box. But I like to think outside one.



posted on Jan, 18 2014 @ 06:56 PM
link   

LewsTherinThelamon

jonnywhite

Anyway so my take on the OP is the difference is left-wing anarchists are more authoritarian than right-wring anarchists because left-wing anarchists want to control the economy and there's no way to control an economy without either people losing freedoms or voluntarily denying themselves access to them.


Ah. I see.

So, the left uses a screwdriver and the right uses a hammer. Because of this, the left is more "authoritarian?"

You cannot be both authoritarian and anarchist/libertarian.

This just sounds like you have a bias against economic models that you personally do not like. Socialism is not authoritarian. Capitalism is not authoritarian. YOUR EXECUTION of these economic models is what determines whether you are a libertarian or authoritarian.

just because you are "on the left" does not mean you are authoritarian. The left can be authoritarian, but the right can also be authoritarian.

Just because a group of people voluntarily choose to share does not mean they are authoritarian simply because they are sharing.

If they force you to use a hammer when you want to use a screwdriver, then yes, they are authoritarian.


The reason the right-wing anarchists display more violence is because freedom isn't free and competition and war will ensue. The people on the left will voluntarily sacrifice their freedoms and thus not choose to compete or fight to keep them.


How did you come to this conclusion?


Stop spreading your domestic terrorism here. Ok? Thought criminal...

Individualism is not free when your in a parasitic monopolistic system. The system(not really statism itself but a mentality)uses violence and force to enforce the Darwinist "might makes right" parasitism of force. The higher up the parasitic system the more you can leech from others while not being leeched upon as much.

A hyper-centralized statism is potentially dangerous as history has shown us. Authoritarians have classically used centralized statism to monopolize force and violence within a parasitic darwinist system. Its can be just a tool for those in power or be a tool of the people to limit unchecked power.



posted on Jan, 19 2014 @ 10:46 AM
link   
reply to post by LewsTherinThelamon
 


I'm not disagreeing with that. I've used the political compass myself in the past.



posted on Jan, 20 2014 @ 08:55 PM
link   
reply to post by jonnywhite
 


Actually, after you explained it, your point of view makes sense.

So, basically, any form of control over the economy is a form of economic authoritarianism? Even if someone voluntarily gives up their financial freedom?

That makes sense, the lower-left side is all about taxation against businesses and economic controls like NAFTA. Just to clarify, I have taken the political quiz and I always land in the lower-right on the Ayn Rand side.

Could you draw us a detailed map of the changes that you made? I would like to see a visual representation of what you were saying.



posted on Jan, 27 2014 @ 08:34 AM
link   
Is it left wing or right wing that will allow dancing after the revolution?
I'm with Emma. Why is it that the sense of humor has to be so lacking?
I came to anarchism through punk rock. Profane Existence, all the Crass bands, that sort of thing.
I read Emma Goldman, Errico Malatesta, Aklexander Berkman, whatever I could get my hands on.
Over time I came to a conclusion...
I don't want to be around other anarchists. I like the way I do it and the way other people do it bothers me. That's sort of the point. It works on a small scale almost perfectly.
I came to see that for an entire country to be anarchists, you would end up with something like Somalia.
If you have to herd people, and give them guidelines, The US Constitution is pretty damn good as written and compared. As used? No. There are some deep control issues happening in Washington that make me wistful for my direct action days.


Y'all have a great day.



posted on Feb, 2 2014 @ 09:39 PM
link   
reply to post by GrislyAddams
 


Somalia has a very small government and has localized religious authoritarian rulers(sharah law).

So no they are not anarchist.



posted on Feb, 3 2014 @ 10:40 AM
link   
You are correct, they are not anarchist. But, gently, and with a smile, that was not the point I was trying to make. They live in chaos just because that's the kind of human they are. That's how they've been raised.
Human beings just go feral sometimes. While this is fine for some folks, the vast majority would rather have safety from those mobs.
A city full of hungry people would become something like Darfur, Rwanda, Mogadishu, Cambodia, Myanmar, (I could go on) rather quickly.
Bullies take over when they think they can and in different ways.
So, my point, which may have been left in my head, was that no matter how lofty your ideals, there are bad people in the world that will make a government or a contrary social order (like cannibalistic mobs) just because that's what feels right to them. Just as anarchy feels right to others.

How do you defend your group?
Do you do it yourself or do you start looking to make "special" people in charge of that...and there goes anarchy, right out the window for most people, because they realize the inevitability of a military class being in charge eventually (and especially in any scenario that would allow real anarchy to progress that far).

Have a great day.



posted on Feb, 3 2014 @ 11:05 AM
link   
reply to post by crazyewok
 


Take the social chart from the political test that was started in this thread and wipe out the Authoritarian/Libertarian axis, so that all you have is Left/Right with Authoritarian. That's what Europe swings to. On one end you have Hitler and the Nazis, the right end, and one the other end, you have Stalin the Communists. What you never, ever have is any degree of liberty except for maybe when you're caught in the middle and some of you can slide through the cracks between policies.

In the US, we added the Libertarian bottom half where individual liberty comes in. Most of the TEA Party are Right Libertarian. I know I am according to that test. Occupy are more Left Libertarian to Left Authoritarian I'm guessing.

Right now in the US, you have a fight between the Republicans who are actually Right Authoritarian (Establishment Pubs or RINOs and the ones who are more Right Libertarian).


edit on 3-2-2014 by ketsuko because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 3 2014 @ 07:07 PM
link   

GrislyAddams
You are correct, they are not anarchist. But, gently, and with a smile, that was not the point I was trying to make. They live in chaos just because that's the kind of human they are. That's how they've been raised.
They do not live in chaos. They live in a authoritarian theocracy. But within that society they are fine. Just not 1st world technology fine...but fine in thier own way.
Human beings just go feral sometimes. While this is fine for some folks, the vast majority would rather have safety from those mobs.
Do feral humans drop nuclear weapons on civilians? Do feral human have a new war every 5-10 years? Do feral humans drone innocent bystanders to kill one "suspected" terrorist? or maybe experiment on civilians/soldiers without them knowing?
A city full of hungry people would become something like Darfur, Rwanda, Mogadishu, Cambodia, Myanmar, (I could go on) rather quickly. or inner city detroit or inner city chicago
Bullies take over when they think they can and in different ways.
That is why the right to bear arms,an educated population, and separation of powers is so important.

So, my point, which may have been left in my head, was that no matter how lofty your ideals, there are bad people in the world that will make a government or a contrary social order (like cannibalistic mobs) just because that's what feels right to them. Just as anarchy feels right to others.

Tell me something. If Johnny/Jane A Dictator wants to turn the united states into a despotic totalitarian regime. How far can he go if there is a separation of powers,free speech, free information, an educated populace, and a legitimate right to bear arms? Johnny/Jane A Dictator can be a dictator all he/she wants to. The population is armed and is informed. The gears of law making and law enforcement is decentralized. They would have a tougher time being a crazed power addicted despot with legit representative government. We could just vote the dictator out. It really does not matter what social system you have as long as the populartion is well educated, free and well armed, the crazed despots will have a hard time being crazed despots.

How do you defend your group?

"defend your group". Us vs Them division tactics.Moving on.

Do you do it yourself what? or do you start looking to make "special" people in charge of thator hire them like everyone else does...and there goes anarchyanarchists can hire specialized services like a statist can...its just not forced on them to. Its totally voluntary., right out the window for most peopleeh..no, because they realize the inevitability of a military class being in charge eventuallyeh...no the people are armed and educated and most of the power is held by the public not the military (and especially in any scenario that would allow real anarchy to progress that far)What ever you say statist. Start another useless energy/mineral/geopolitical powerplay war and blow up some more uninvolved civilians.

Have a great day.


Government has killed 263 million people in the last 115 years. It has used nuclear weapons and biological weapons on people.
I don't see anarchists using nukes,agent orange,botulism and developing nerve gas. Nope just those violent extremist statists like always.
Is the iranian people developing nukes are is the despotic government of iran developing nuclear weapons?
While I see government can and has done much good it has and does do incredible evil and destruction.

How many wars where started by anarchists?

How many wars where started by statists?

edit on 3-2-2014 by John_Rodger_Cornman because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 3 2014 @ 09:27 PM
link   
reply to post by ketsuko
 


If your for government solving your problems your not a libertarian.

Libertarians are against all or most government restrictions.
Libertarians are against all or most government enforcement of morality.



posted on Feb, 3 2014 @ 10:11 PM
link   
reply to post by LewsTherinThelamon
 


This is a more accurate chart based on the modern government size. The other charts are bogus and nothing is properly defined therefore, anyone can place anything anywhere.

Have u taken political science course? Because if u did u know that Fascism is a left wing ideology not right wing.





new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join