Some insight on Anarchism, and why all Anarchists aren't the same.

Straight to the point. There's not a day that goes by here on ATS that someone invariably states in some fashion that all Anarchists are the same. That they are a tool of the left, useful idiots, yada yada yada.

What they fail to realize is that while many of the people you see in the riots are indeed useful idiots they most likely only identify as Anarchists without really understanding what it is to be an Anarchist. They cling to old mentalities. They are fed Marxist-Leninist BS, and through their naivete end up being used by some statist party.

If you really want to critique Anarchism you need to learn about the differing Anarchist ideologies.

There's what I consider the old left Anarchists who in my opinion seem stuck in the past trying to repeat history in the hopes that "this time it will work." Those being the Anarcho-Communists, Anarcho-Socialists, and Anarcho-Syndicalists.

There are other groups like Anarcho-Individualists, Anarcho-Capitalists, Eco-Anarchists, Anarcho-Primativists, Anarcho-Pacifists, Post-Civ Anarchists, Anarcho-Transhumanists, to Anarcho-Queer and Anarcho-Trans.

There even the old "Black Flag" Anarchists, who refuse to identify as anything other than Anarchists.

There are also misconceptions that Anarchists are against democracy, when that's not really true at all. Many of the social Anarchists believe democracy is the only way that everyone's voice can be heard. Although, they often dance around how to make sure no one feels marginalized.

I myself have identified as an Anarcho-Capitalist. Mostly to antagonize old left Anarchists or fake Anarchists who are actually statist loving tankies.

While many Anarchists consider Capitalism to be inherently evil, it is necessary to create the surplus to bring affordability of commodities to people, and it is vastly more apt in regards to innovation.
Anarcho-Communists especially loathe accepting the benefits of Capitalism over Communism, and I like laying it on thick to the group that betrayed me, and many others when they sold out to corporations for funding and hashtags.

In actuality I find that I agree with many, not all, of the ideology that is presented by Post-Left Anarchism.

Here is a well written article on Post-Left Anarchy.

Post-Left Anarchy

I ask that you read it before commenting.

a reply to: AutomateThis1
I am sorry there is no democracy or republics, or even anarchy or anarchists.

There are only idiots, and idiocies. And all of them are just fads, which last anywhere from a few minutes, to a few hundred to thousands of years. Yup! The thousand year fads? its what were experiencing here now. Its basically like refusing to evolve beyond the point of wearing parachute pants and pet rocks and Beanie Babies or mohaks.

Remember, tattoos are cool. As long as there on other people. I personally preferred the barbed wire arm tattoo age of some lost yester year. Then today's fads of being overly political and well, kind of dumb.

Besides if there is one thing that all throughout history has been written down and learned over and over and over, is that governments and giving one group or one person or any person or group any power? Is kind of stupid, and has never worked out for anybody in history at all. If albeit it for a brief time, before it just becomes despotic.

But hey. Maybe this time it will. Keep your fingers crossed.

As I understand it, an anarchist wouldn't give a f about your defining them.

a reply to: AutomateThis1

Excellent article, according to Oxford, the definition is:

the political belief that laws and governments are not necessary; a political force or movement based on this belief

www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com...

I'm sure many people may claim to be an 'anarchist', but I doubt they know the true meaning and history of what it actually means.

To me it's about being free within a fair and equal system created and controlled by the people for the people, essentially the same ideas as proposed by Mikhail Bakunin and espoused by Emma Goldman, it's the purest and truest political movement imo

a reply to: AutomateThis1

When you have to sub-divide what an “anarchist” is you’ve lost the f@&$in initiative and need to re evaluate your stance.

Anarchists are against any type of “authority”, that’s it. No one to tell you what to do, hold anyone accountable, ect. Example: CHAZ - but it doesn’t ever work out and never will, do you know why? The people who believe that don’t have the mental capacity to understand what comes with that type of system, IE - person with bigger stick wins every time.

True anarchy or anarchism doesn't like labels or conformity of any kind therefore I'm commenting without reading your article. Any kind of organizational structure or "political movement" kind of is exactly what they are against and why it's dead on arrival as an ideology.

a reply to: AutomateThis1

There's what I consider the old left Anarchists who in my opinion seem stuck in the past trying to repeat history in the hopes that "this time it will work." Those being the Anarcho-Communists, Anarcho-Socialists, and Anarcho-Syndicalists.

There are other groups like Anarcho-Individualists, Anarcho-Capitalists, Eco-Anarchists, Anarcho-Primativists, Anarcho-Pacifists, Post-Civ Anarchists, Anarcho-Transhumanists, to Anarcho-Queer and Anarcho-Trans.

Holy # just no...like no...literally just no...

a reply to: AutomateThis1
When I was a student, somebody was introduced to a student group, which I was attending, as President of the university Anarchist Society. He corrected the introducer; "I don't believe in Presidents; I'm the secretary."
This struck me as amusing, because it gave away two points;
Even anarchists, if they're going to exist as a group, need someone to organise them, which rather undercuts the theory.
And the first point can't really be disguised by manipulation of labels.

I just call myself a political atheist.

It's getting like the underground Music scene, sub genre of a sub genre of a sub genre ...

I can't permanently tie myself to anything, there's too much good stuff everywhere, and equally as much # in them all too!

I did enjoy the OP though, just to be clear!

Which is the better "system" ? ..

1. Pre government Anarchy

or

2. Post government Anarchy

😃

a reply to: AutomateThis1

The Cyphernomicon:

4.11. Crypto Anarchy
4.11.1. The Crypto Anarchy Principle: Strong crypto permits
unbreakable encrypion, unforgeable signatures, untraceable
electronic messages, and unlinkable pseudonomous identities.
This ensures that some transactions and communications can be
entered into only voluntarily. External force, law, and
regulation cannot be applied. This is "anarchy," in the sense
of no outside rulers and laws. Voluntary arrangements, back-
stopped by voluntarily-arranged institutions like escrow
services, will be the only form of rule. This is "crypto
anarchy."

No need to ask permission. Let them think what they think.

originally posted by: Gnawledge
As I understand it, an anarchist wouldn't give a f about your defining them.

That has nothing to do with Anarchy, thats just a romanticized view of "The Anarchist" archetype. An anarchist might be more prone to ambivalence of this kind, but not exclusively or necessarily commonly.

originally posted by: Variable2027

Example: CHAZ -

CHAZ was very clearly not an example of actual Anarchy. They used force and coercion to dominate a region.

originally posted by: putnam6
True anarchy or anarchism doesn't like labels or conformity of any kind therefore I'm commenting without reading your article. Any kind of organizational structure or "political movement" kind of is exactly what they are against and why it's dead on arrival as an ideology.

This is also incorrect. Anarchists arent against organization, despite that being the mainstream narrative. Being against political movements is roughly accurate, though more than a little vague.

One of the core concepts behind actual Anarchism (i.e. not the teenage derived caricature) is that organization can occur *without* government or political middlemen.

In the same vein, Anarchists arent even necessarily against authority as a concept.. Just positions of authority that gain or maintain their positions through force and coercion. Someone who is exceptional at something would be more likely to reach a position of authority (its a vague word, eh?) than the longstanding system of exploiting said individuals with expertise through centralized coercion, force, and manipulation.

In other words, an Anarchist would easily defer to someone with immense experience with, say, building a dam when building a dam. How that authority actually manifests would look very roughly the same as most are used to, but would take place in a backdrop & context that differs greatly.

Some Anarchists, such as myself, feel that the founding documents of the US were the first major step taken towards Anarchy. It was limited to taking place in the existing paradigm of technology and culture, and even then pushed it.

The mainstream Narrative is that Anarchists just want a mad max style world literally right now. That makes so many erroneous assumptions that its hard to address. Particularly when so many ironically take up the banner of "anarchy" through corporate backing and riots.

Look up Anarcho-Tyranny USA by Samuel Francis and read to your hearts content about what is actually happening now. Then run an extensive search for Norm Eisen and you'll find the "puppet master" behind all the riots, plus the game plan they used to get Biden where he is.

originally posted by: xuenchen
Which is the better "system" ? ..

1. Pre government Anarchy

or

2. Post government Anarchy

😃

Yes.

Smoke in mirrors.

'Government is government and government is force'.

"Whoever lays his hand on me to govern me is a usurper and tyrant, and I declare him my enemy."

Nothing more, nothing less.
The rest is just intellectual bollocks and only serves to distract, detract and alienate.

However, this is an excellent post.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

I'll always be an Anarchist at heart.....shame age has made a cynic of me and I know until mankind as a species makes some sort of step change its nothing but a utopian dream.
There's always someone looking to use, control, manipulate and exploit others for their own betterment and advancement of one sort or another.

a reply to: AutomateThis1

Thank you for this insightful post, as well as that on point document.

I have yet to make it all the way through, I would consider myself an anarcho-capitalist as well, this would only work IMO with a framework such as the Constitution.

Would love to hear your thoughts on the above.

I would say what with the varied responses, that the article and title posted by the OP are indeed accurate

However, to think of "anarchism" as some disorganized movement that merely rallies against the system etc. is incorrect, the foundations of anarchism, which has somewhat been lost through the years, had/has defined goals and objectives and was certainly not disorganized.

a reply to: Serdgiam

Once again. Thank you Sergiam for your responses. My thoughts exactly.