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

Skyfloating
For left-wing anarchy think a bunch of gullible child-like people who run around naked and chant hare-krishna while slowly starving to death. For right-wing anarchy think rule by a bunch of outlaws, motorbike-gangs and mafia-like groups while anyone not into violence and machismo dies out.

How come statists always preach about anarchism being violent and lawless when statism uses violence,terrorism and threats to coerce people into compliance?

Governments have killed over 262 millions people in the last 100 years and started 2 world wars and used nuclear weapons.

I don't see anarchists killing 262 million people.

So who's more violent and lawless?

OK- I remember my college Polysci course definitions- Radical, liberal, conservative and reactionary.

Radical- wants to totally replace the existing system with a new better political system (e.g.: replace democracy with socialism)

Liberal- wants to change the existing system from within (e.g.: liberals want to change laws in USA to assist the poor)

Conservative- wants to work within present system to prevent change and return to better policies of the past
(e.g.: increase the autonomy of states)

Reactionary- wants to totally replace the existing political system with some past one. (e.g.: replace democracy with
monarchy)

So a leftist anarchist is a radical who wants to replace our political system with some new on that had no ruler (anarchism meaning w/o ruler), and a rightist anarchist would want to replace the existing system with one from the past that had no ruler (examples, not sure, a tribe with all equal ?)

reply to post by retsdeeps1


Most anarchists are not radical as they don't want to replace any system. They just don't want to have a system they didn't agree will be forced on them with violence,blackmail,threats,theft and coercion.

What is a centrist anarchist?

Strange. Why do people get upset at non-statists? What are you afraid of?

John_Rodger_Cornman
reply to post by retsdeeps1

 

What is a centrist anarchist?

There is none, does not apply !

There can be some new political system with no ruler and some in the past (I thought of one , a religious community government from the past with no leader- example is QUAKERS !) I know, Quaker William Penn did become a governor but PA wasn't a pure religious community.

reply to post by John_Rodger_Cornman


Both are corrupted and both keep increasing the powers of each other during their term, so at the end they are both increasing government powers destroying the constitution and cementing the corporate dictatorship, because we only have two corrupted political parties where the trash recycle every 4 years and nothing else is allowed to survive in order to challenge their power and we the people do not do any challenging either.

We reap what we sow

D is for Drive Forward, R is for Reverse.

reply to post by John_Rodger_Cornman


Both have a tendency to be close minded and are set in their belief system.

Die Hards so to speak.

To be thruthful, I guess I am a bit that way myself. I love discussing things and do try to keep a open mind, but when I see that the other has a closed mind, I guess mine does as well.

But I do love a lively discussion with those who are willing to listen and be civil in their replies. That keeps ny minds door open to new ideas.

Please reference the post above mine as an example.

So we've learned that there are only two people on ATS with the slightest idea what anarchy is.

I think the main difference between right and left would be to do with where responsibility lands. IE personal vs collective. This is fairly standard right vs left paradigm stuff though and has little to do with anarchism really. Any sensible anarchist would take ideas from both sides and use them to question/challenge the legitimacy of any authoritative hierarchical structure. Fictional anarchic societies can be a nice talking point but in reality it is a reaction against the abuse of power structures.

In my experience, very few people can function in a group without without leadership/hierarchy, so the evolution of these systems is necessary. At the same time very few people can wield power without being corrupted, so the questioning gaze of anarchists is necessary to provide (supposedly) neutral critique of those with power, be they left or right.

Anarchy should be apolitical but I can imagine it swinging opposite to which ever ideology is most abusive at the time. The level of ignorance on anarchy, even among self proclaimed anarchists, is quite staggering. It's so much more than simply 'smash stuff up' or 'that time when the power went out for a bit'.

reply to post by John_Rodger_Cornman


Nothing...................same people different faces.

reply to post by retsdeeps1


Sorry just had to point this out as it is a little bugbear of mine. Socialism is not a political system, it is an economic system that democracy, which is a political system can work perfectly well with. Would you call capitalism a political or economic system?

reply to post by John_Rodger_Cornman


Governments have certainly killed more people than anarchists. The problem is anarchists are essentially a useful tool to get rid of government and those governments have always been replaced by new ones and sometimes by ones many times more totalitarian than the one they helped topple. That is why I see them more as a tool political forces can use rather than a viable political force themselves or at least that has been the case in history. The right hasn't successfully used them for political change yet but I imagine it would be similar to the results when the left have used them to cause political change.

Anarchy shouldn't really be on this left/right paradigm in fact it should be on a scale of its own. I mean sure you will have anarchists that hold left wing views and you will get anarchists that hold right wing views, although the latter would be unlikely what with the right's love of social hierarchy. I think this idea of right wing anarchy comes from the idea of the individual being self sufficient a la republicanism over the pond but the reality is that it seems most who hold these republican views cling on tightly to the idea of social hierarchy as I said before which would backfire on itself if this was the view of an anarchist as it goes against what anarchy is defined as. Essentially however anarchy just means absence of rule and that is it really whatever comes with it is down to the views of the individual.

reply to post by John_Rodger_Cornman


A right-wing anarchist wants to get rid of people in authority imposing regulations on him or her, to prevent maximizing profits at a workers expense.

A left-wing anarchist wants to get rid of people in authority imposing regulations on him or her that enables a business to maximise their profits at the workers expense.

Result normally always means the workers, the ones who actually do the work, losing most of the time.

They don't have the money to influence those in authority who impose the regulations...

reply to post by John_Rodger_Cornman


It's not possible to have a left wing anarchist. On the American political spectrum FAR right is anarchy and FAR left is totalitarianism. There isn't one single politician in DC right now that is far enough right to be considered an anarchist... not even close. The vast majority of Republicans are right in the middle, some of them are left of center and some of them are right of center. Even Ron Paul isn't that far to the right. on the European political spectrum the FAR right and left are both totalitarian.

Right-wing anarchists get their drugs through prescriptions. Left-wing anarchists get theirs through friends.

I think your perception of left/right first depends on where you are from.

I think in Europe, it is more an axis between monarchy/fascism and socialism/communism with monarchy/fascism being right and socialism/communism being left. Of course, no matter which way you ultimately end up, you have an oligarchy totalitarian rule from the top.

In the US, the COTUS set up a different system that was supposed to be more about anarchy/liberty on one end with all other forms on the other. Anarchy/liberty is right and the others are left. The idea was to go as close to true anarchy as you could without tipping over. Your government is supposed to be the bare minimum you need to ensure your domestic security and provide some basic societal structure. The rest is supposed to be up to you as a free people. We are traveling far down toward the left end the more power we give government to arbitrate our lives and make decisions for us.

As for "right" and "left" anarchists, I don't think there are any meaningful distinctions between the two. A true anarchist, IMO, is someone who wants to watch the system burn and not replace it with anything else, so they will go wherever they think they can get the most anti-government, anti-system chaos generated.

March of the Fire Ants
So we've learned that there are only two people on ATS with the slightest idea what anarchy is.

I think the main difference between right and left would be to do with where responsibility lands. IE personal vs collective. This is fairly standard right vs left paradigm stuff though and has little to do with anarchism really. Any sensible anarchist would take ideas from both sides and use them to question/challenge the legitimacy of any authoritative hierarchical structure. Fictional anarchic societies can be a nice talking point but in reality it is a reaction against the abuse of power structures.

In my experience, very few people can function in a group without without leadership/hierarchy, so the evolution of these systems is necessary. At the same time very few people can wield power without being corrupted, so the questioning gaze of anarchists is necessary to provide (supposedly) neutral critique of those with power, be they left or right.

Anarchy should be apolitical but I can imagine it swinging opposite to which ever ideology is most abusive at the time. The level of ignorance on anarchy, even among self proclaimed anarchists, is quite staggering. It's so much more than simply 'smash stuff up' or 'that time when the power went out for a bit'.

Yeah I got into a mild argument with one of them. The Rothbard fan.

He made a lot of sense though.

What if you want government to consist of advanced self-programmable ai's and not people. As machines are impossible to bribe and have no sense of ego or fear of death.

You would not have rulers as every position of power is ran by a machine with self-evolving code(it can improve on its own ai,pattern recognition, algorithms and other software systems millions of times faster than a human programmer).

No more CEOs(companies totally ran by ai's), militaries(combat bots and enforcers), politicians(all ai's that are purely democratic with no sense of self gratification) or NASCAR drivers(ai driving a racing vehicle recklessly at dangerously high speeds).
No more pilots or doctors either. A machine doesn't have to sleep.

MysterX
reply to post by John_Rodger_Cornman

 

A right-wing anarchist wants to get rid of people in authority imposing regulations on him or her, to prevent maximizing profits at a workers expense.

A left-wing anarchist wants to get rid of people in authority imposing regulations on him or her that enables a business to maximise their profits at the workers expense.

Result normally always means the workers, the ones who actually do the work, losing most of the time.

They don't have the money to influence those in authority who impose the regulations...

Good point.

They can't bribe as well as statist can.

reply to post by TDawgRex


Both wings on the same bird, headed in the same direction, The [inevitable] World Government [New World Order ] read World Tyranny ,which a lot of useful IDIOTS are working towards and playing a part in [namely your Politicians who have sold you out], and will later regret the Monster they have created ,an Orwellian NIGHTMARE from which there will be no escape

reply to post by John_Rodger_Cornman


Right wing anarchist believe in no government. They believe in individualism and self sufficiency. I never understood the left anarchist because leftists believe in big government, which to me is contradictory. Maybe someone can explain.

Anarchist usual see government as corrupt and a threat to freedom. They believe big government breeds tyranny.