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

reply to post by amfirst1


I fixed it for you:

reply to post by wurzalgnu


Actually it was the religious conservatives in the US that freed the slaves and gave them voting rights. Abraham Lincoln was a republican. So your analogy of the right wing concept in America is inaccurate.

The NRA armed the slaves and taught them how to defend themselves during a ugly time in America's history. The NRA are considered right wing because the are hardcore believers in the constitution.

If anything the left in America were actually the one that thought they were superior. The KKK was derived from the leftist in America.

Again, every countries chart is different depending on how the country was founded.

reply to post by crazyewok


Look to break it down to basic terms. The right in America advocate what the framers originally intended for America to be. That's why the are called CONSERVATIVES!!! Look the framers were not FASCIST. So it's impossible to conserve something like limited government can morph into FASCISM, which requires big government.

U can not morph America into FASCISM without going through progressive means like democracy. U have to vote tyranny and big government into power, and vote down the constitution. THis is related to progressiveness. It's progressives that constantly say the constitution and bill of rights are outdated.

LewsTherinThelamon
reply to post by John_Rodger_Cornman

 

It is amazing to see the amount of one-dimensional thinking in this thread after having read through the comments.

Politics is two-dimensional because most issues can be separated into two aspects--the "social" aspect (the y-axis) and the financial aspect (the x-axis)

What separates the left/right libertarians? Both groups would agree on issues like the legalization of drugs (because they are on the same side of the Cartesian plane that deals with social liberalism), but they would differ on financial philosophies.

The left would lean more towards socialism, while the right would lean more towards a merit-based system (like a free market). In either case, both groups would oppose state enforcement/intervention of any economic model. All state involvement is authoritarian, the only tool the state has at it's disposal to compel people into acquiescence is force, and all use of force is authoritarian.

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

In my initial post on this thread on page 1 I mistakenly switched the social and economic dimensions for the political compass. I suppose I never read the analysis on a detailed basis. HOwever, I must have understood it sometime ago because it has brought me back to an issue I remember thinking about a year or two ago.

What's hte issue? Well, the economic axis is supposed to do with controlling the economy on the far left or not controlling it on the far right. Good, so far, right? The social axis is high individual value (libertarian) on the far bottom of the chart and high state value (authoritarian) on the far top of the chart. THIS is where I get confused because how can there be lots of economic control on the far left WITHOUT infringing on the individual? Shouldn't high amounts of economic control on the far left also mean a more authoritarian position?

Just in case you wondering, I score -3.25/-3.33 so I'm like hte Dalai Lama with leftist economic and libertarian social. This means I conceivably want to control hte economy more than somebody on the right. And this is of course why I bring all this up, since I do think some of the individual is lost if the economy is controlled.

Based on this, I think a true libertarian would be bottom-right. They would believe in not controlling the economy and in not controlling people socially. I derive this from the idea libertarians believe in individual freedom first.

So does this mean the chart needs to be changed, since I think the economic axis pertains at least somewhat to individual value versus state value?

What I'm saying here is my score of -3.25/-3.33 makes me more authoritarian than somebody who has the same social score as me but a economic score further right. Yet if I read the analysis right, it would conclude I am NOT more authoritarian than them, I just believe in more economic control. As I stated already, how can I believe in more economic control without giving the state higher value?

Note that if my points are correct then an extreme authoritarian would be top-left, believing in complete control of economy and social freedom.

If I adjusted the graph I would put authoritarian on a diagonal line from top-left to bottom-right, meaning the bottom-right is the least authoritarian position. I'm not sure how I'd adjust the rest of the chart, but it'd have to be adjusted. Having a social and economic dimension to the aspects which are controlled (or not controlled) helps to define just how much control a person wants enforced on the individual. I guess the chart would still be 2d, but I'd change hte labels.

reply to post by jonnywhite


Exactly, why I say his chart is inaccurate.

Libertarians in my opinion are center right.

amfirst1
reply to post by crazyewok

 

Look to break it down to basic terms. The right in America advocate what the framers originally intended for America to be. That's why the are called CONSERVATIVES!!! Look the framers were not FASCIST. So it's impossible to conserve something like limited government can morph into FASCISM, which requires big government.

U can not morph America into FASCISM without going through progressive means like democracy. U have to vote tyranny and big government into power, and vote down the constitution. THis is related to progressiveness. It's progressives that constantly say the constitution and bill of rights are outdated.

edit on 18-1-2014 by amfirst1 because: (no reason given)

edit on 18-1-2014 by amfirst1 because: (no reason given)

Your missing the point entirely.

I'm not saying the framers wanted FASCISM nor am I saying that small government can morph into FASCISM. Nor am I saying all far right = FASCISM.



What im saying is that right and left are encompass more than just big or small government.

You can have right and small government (Which you founding fathers wanted) or you can have left and small government and on the flip side you can have Left and large government (Stalin) and Right and Large government (Hitler).

reply to post by jonnywhite


Basically, the authoritarian left is going to use the state to force collectivism onto the population. Your resources are taken forcefully by the state and shared with the group (and you have no choice but to comply).

The libertarian left uses voluntarism instead of state-based force. It would be something along the lines of tribalism. Or the hippie groups that you find in the US living together in very loosely structured communes where they voluntarily share work and resources.

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.

LewsTherinThelamon


Only if you have trouble thinking 2-dimensionally.

Actually that may be the problem. People of lower IQ have trouble grasping multi directional concepts.

reply to post by crazyewok


I understand what u are saying. It's just that it doesn't work for America. Every country works different depending on what they are founded on.

For instance, if your country is founded on a monarch, then conservatives which are considered to the right would be to conserve the monarch or tyranny.

If your country was founded on liberty like America, then conservatives or the right would mean to conserve liberty.

What works in other countries does not apply to America. America works much different and u can not put it on a chart that works for another country.

LewsTherinThelamon
reply to post by jonnywhite

 

Basically, the authoritarian left is going to use the state to force collectivism onto the population. Your resources are taken forcefully by the state and shared with the group (and you have no choice but to comply).

The libertarian left uses voluntarism instead of state-based force. It would be something along the lines of tribalism. Or the hippie groups that you find in the US living together in very loosely structured communes where they voluntarily share work and resources.

WHY is there a need to control the economy and how can you control the economy without removing individual freedoms of the peoples engaging in it?

I'm arguing hippies are being more authoritarian than their libertarian counterparts on the right. This brings into question whether they should be called libertarian on an equal basis, as the chart states. My point is this could cause confusion if it's ignored, since it's not realizing there's an authoritarian dimension to the economic axis. This throws out a big chunk of the ability to define authoritarianism. I might argue it's forgiving authoritarianism on the economic axis by omission.

I reorganized the chart in paint and came up with this:
2 axis: Social controls (up-plus/down-minus), Economic controls (left-plus/right-minus)
1 diagonal line from top-left to bottom-right: State Freedoms is top-left, Individual Freedoms is bottom-right

What do you think? What am I not understanding. Can you make me understand?

reply to post by amfirst1


It is very easy.

The bottom is for the freedom of personal choice (social, if you want to do drugs, go ahead). That includes left libertarians and right libertarians. If the authoritarian left or the authoritarian right does not want you to do drugs (the social aspect) they will send men to your house to hit you in the face with clubs so you can't. The top takes away the individual's right to govern their own, personal affairs. The bottom encompasses the social aspect of classical liberalism, which is modern libertarianism.

The left side of the compass, when dealing with finances/resources, whether top (authoritarian) or bottom (libertarian) says "I want to share resources." The top approach is through the power of the state (communism, you have no choice but to share), the bottom's approach is through voluntarism (hippie communes, the Venus Project, monasteries, nunneries, etc).

The right side of the compass, when dealing with finances/resources, whether top(authoritarian) or bottom says "you can only have what you have earned." They champion competition as opposed to the cooperation of the left.

Summary:

TOP LEFT (authoritiarian left): socially they will not let you do drugs if they do not want you to. If they do want you to do drugs, then they force you to. Financially, they force you to give up any right you have to private property, you HAVE to be a collectivist.

TOP RIGHT (authoritiarian right): socially they will not let you do drugs if they do not want you to. If they do want you to do drugs, then they force you to. Financially, they force you to give up any idealistic notion you may have towards sharing resources. If you start a hippie commune, they will send their thugs in to smash your head in. Or take you to jail, or make you pay a fine (really, all of those things are force).

BOTTOM LEFT (libertarian left): socially if you want to do drugs...OK. If you don't want to do drugs.....OK. Financially, you can choose to live in their commune and share things, or just leave and live somewhere else.

BOTTOM RIGHT(libertarian right): socially if you want to do drugs...OK. If you don't want to do drugs.....OK. Financially, you can choose to live with the free market and competition between businesses (with zero state interference), or you can just leave and live somewhere else.

LewsTherinThelamon
reply to post by amfirst1

 

It is very easy.

The bottom is for the freedom of personal choice (social, if you want to do drugs, go ahead). That includes left libertarians and right libertarians. If the authoritarian left or the authoritarian right does not want you to do drugs (the social aspect) they will send men to your house to hit you in the face with clubs so you can't. The top takes away the individual's right to govern their own, personal affairs. The bottom encompasses the social aspect of classical liberalism, which is modern libertarianism.

The left side of the compass, when dealing with finances/resources, whether top (authoritarian) or bottom (libertarian) says "I want to share resources." The top approach is through the power of the state (communism, you have no choice but to share), the bottom's approach is through voluntarism (hippie communes, the Venus Project, monasteries, nunneries, etc).

The right side of the compass, when dealing with finances/resources, whether top(authoritarian) or bottom says "you can only have what you have earned." They champion competition as opposed to the cooperation of the left.

Summary:

TOP LEFT (authoritiarian left): socially they will not let you do drugs if they do not want you to. If they do want you to do drugs, then they force you to. Financially, they force you to give up any right you have to private property, you HAVE to be a collectivist.

TOP RIGHT (authoritiarian right): socially they will not let you do drugs if they do not want you to. If they do want you to do drugs, then they force you to. Financially, they force you to give up any idealistic notion you may have towards sharing resources. If you start a hippie commune, they will send their thugs in to smash your head in. Or take you to jail, or make you pay a fine (really, all of those things are force).

BOTTOM LEFT (libertarian left): socially if you want to do drugs...OK. If you don't want to do drugs.....OK. Financially, you can choose to live in their commune and share things, or just leave and live somewhere else.

BOTTOM RIGHT(libertarian right): socially if you want to do drugs...OK. If you don't want to do drugs.....OK. Financially, you can choose to live with the free market and competition between businesses (with zero state interference), or you can just leave and live somewhere else.

You can liley explain it to your blue in the face, they wont see through the propaganada.

can't say what an "anarchist" is. sounds like a club.

To experience a circumstance that has decayed into an anarchic state is both desperate and terrifying.

reply to post by jonnywhite

WHY is there a need to control the economy and how can you control the economy without removing individual freedoms of the peoples engaging in it?

You and I could live together and choose to cooperate and equally share all of the work and resources of the home. No one is forcing us to share. We could choose to give up our sense of ownership, so if I have an xbox, I could choose to give it to the group.

Sharing, cooperation, and socialism are not control. They are tools, like screwdrivers or hammers. You can choose to use those tools, or you can pick different tools. An economic model is a tool.

The authoritarians (whether the left or the right) want to force you to use their tools (economic models). Whether those tools would work for you or not.

The authoritarian left does not approve of the authoritarian right's economic model. If they were separate countries, since they are both authoritarian, they would probably wind up going to war with each other.

The libertarian left and the libertarian right may use different economic models (tools), but unlike the authoritarians (the top), the libertarians respect the right of the individual to choose which tool works for them.

reply to post by LewsTherinThelamon


If I was an authoritarian I'd voluntarily allow myself to be controlled too. No different than if I joined a hippie community and voluntarily shared my possessions. It doesn't mean hippies aren't being somewhat authoritarian on economic terms. They're still controlling the economy.

More than that, I'd like to see how hippies respond to a full blooded free marketer in their midst who believes his possessions are his own. The free marketer would get kicked out or deemed unworthy or unreasonable. How is that libertarian? If hippies believe in freedom then they shouldn't kick out the free marketer or refuse to interact, but in fact, that's precisely what I think they'd do. Truth is, they don't believe in economic freedom, since they choose to control it by sharing possessions. If one doesn't abide to their rules then they're excluded.

I'm saying the economic axis has an authoritarian dimension.

It's being ignored by omission. I'm not convinced it's not there yet. Work harder.

reply to post by jonnywhite


Which economic model do you personally prefer? Socialist free market based on cooperation or a capitalist free market based on competition?

The top does not use a free market in either instance. The top-right will use the state to decide who gets to be the owner's of large businesses. They believe in privatization, but you don't get to decide what's private (cronyism). In that sense, they are more like an oligarchy. The top-left will use the state to rob you of your possessions for "the greater good." So, all the sharing done by the top-left is forced, whether you like it or not.

If the state is interfering to force you to use an economic model that is authoritarian.

I could live in Pickaway County here in Ohio, and we could use a capitalist free market approach to how we do business. One county over, Franklin County, could use a socialist free market approach. In either instance, the stat of Ohio is not going to step-in and stop either county. That would be libertarian.

If the state of Ohio forced Franklin county to adopt Pickaway county's model, that would be authoritarian.
If the state of Ohio forced Pickaway county to adopt Franklin county's model, that would be authoritarian.

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.

are there Right wing anarchist?
I don't even know what a far left or far right is,