New system of governement exposed here!

This has been bothering me for a while.

You guys realize that anarchists are NOT left wing... they're radical far right. Like, as far right as it gets. Super right. The exact opposite of communism. Communism is far left, as in as far left as it is possible to be. You can't be both.

Anarchism isn't far right. Even anarcho-capitalism isn't far right. Anarchism and communism generally go hand and hand, thus, without a market economy, it is left wing. How the hell do you think anarchism is right wing???

nillerz wrote:

This has been bothering me for a while.

You guys realize that anarchists are NOT left wing... they're radical far right. Like, as far right as it gets. Super right. The exact opposite of communism. Communism is far left, as in as far left as it is possible to be. You can't be both.

It depends on the anarchists views....

YOU are thinking of anarcho-capitalism.

nillerz wrote:

Jesus wrote:

nillerz wrote:

Right but what force makes the corporate government pay you equally? There's no alternative, you can't go work for some other corporation, so they have no incentive to.

that's full of non-sense! you're first sentence doesn't mean anything! Of course they'res competition since when you work hard you get less taxes and have a chance of changing cast, and since we always keep it proportional it forces everyone to work at least a tad hard because when someone goes up someone else goes down. Btw for all the ''negative'' sides it's because i include myself in the 2nd class =D

But those with that sort of power don't work like that. People with power become corrupt and eventually fuck everyone in the ass. They won't pay you by how hard you work they'll pay you enough to live while they can buy themselves these wonderfully lucrative mansions.

yeah but we will fuck everyone in the ass equaly.

Okay, back to grade school time.

Right wing: small government
Left wing: big government

Right wing: Private ownership of land/property
Left wing: Government ownership of land/property

Anarchy is right wing. If you think it's left wing you're not thinking of anarchy. Anarchy means "No real rules at all".

nillerz wrote:

Okay, back to grade school time.

Right wing: small government
Left wing: big government

Right wing: Private ownership of land/property
Left wing: Government ownership of land/property

Anarchy is right wing. If you think it's left wing you're not thinking of anarchy. Anarchy means "No real rules at all".

See, that's my problem with the left-right scale, because Anarchism - what I would consider the left-wing traditions of Anarchism - is not accurately addressed in the second case you presented.

I'd have to argue that Anarcho-Communism, Anarcho-Syndicalism, and similar ideas would have to, by default, fall under the left-wing - if we allow ourselves to be confined by such vague concepts - because the left-wing implies public - not necessarily government - ownership over the means of production. Where Anarchists differ from others that you would classically put in with the left - Socialists and Communists - is what we mean by "the public" and through what institutions the public are represented. Socialists and Communists would say the public should be represented through the State. Anarchists would say that the public should be directly represented by themselves.

But the point is that Socialism, Communism, and what I would refer to as the left-wing schools of Anarchism all support some form of collectivization - they only differ on how they are collectivized and through which institutions.

Ultimatey, however, I think the left-right scale sucks and is completely pointless. It's an outdated concept, and something that we really shouldn't care about. I mean, honestly, who cares?

nillerz wrote:

Okay, back to grade school time.

I bet you passed, didn't you?

Quote :

Right wing: small government
Left wing: big government

You're speaking in terms of "free market" societies, and you're not looking at this from a political and economic point of view. Both should be considered before you open your trap.

Quote :

Right wing: Private ownership of land/property
Left wing: Government ownership of land/property

And where does communal ownership land on your distorted spectrum, eh?

Quote :

Anarchy is right wing. If you think it's left wing you're not thinking of anarchy. Anarchy means "No real rules at all".

Uh... no, it's not, and no, it doesn't. The 'rule' (if you wanna call it that) is no coercive authority.

Quote :

The exact opposite of communism. Communism is far left, as in as far left as it is possible to be. You can't be both.

Are you just here so that the rest of us can have a laugh? If so, i love your work.

You are obviously basing this assertion off of the assumption that communism = government control of the means of production, which is utterly false, ask any communist. Your dumb-ass spectrum doesn't allow for communal ownership of the land, so according to it, anarchists and communists are politically right, and economically... non-existent.... ya.

Read a book that isn't written by a state funded-author and you might learn a thing or two... you know, beyond your elementary-school's criteria.

Quote :

Right wing: small government

How is fascism right wing?

Want to go into semantics? Good.

If we're going to use that scale of "left=big government, right=small one" then it has to be understood this way:

Left=when all the people are the goverment.
Right=when a little bunch of people govern ie a military junta, some corporations or a mixture of both.

But that's of course a limited spectre as it covers just autoritative hierarchy while dismissing economy.

Left, in economic terms is collectivist while right is individualist.

That's why a 2-axis' graphic works better. Up and down for authority, left and right for economy.

calinis wrote:

Anarchism isn't far right. Even anarcho-capitalism isn't far right. Anarchism and communism generally go hand and hand, thus, without a market economy, it is left wing. How the hell do you think anarchism is right wing???

Yes, anarcho-capitalism is oxymoronic.
Also, the free market is left-wing. Just like the words 'libertarianism' (to describe a political ideology), and 'socialism democracy', in origin. As well as 'anarchism', which some silly fucks on the right decided to steal to describe an ideology that is statist, and capitalistic, both being incompatible with anarchism.

Quote :

Anarchy means "No real rules at all".

Bullshit.

MightyObserver wrote:

Jesus wrote:

Haha you tell me people who do not work intentionally and live on the taxes of others and the prisonners who murdered and violated shouldn't be used for the good of society? that's strange

What are you talking about now? I can't make much sence of what you've said. Are you trying to justify the denial of liberty to an entire 10% of the population?

It baffles me that a person could willingly admit to supporting a system like this and admit to it being a system in which an entire 10% of the population are disallowed a decent life. How would you feel if you had to spend your entire life in that situation? How would you feel if you had no free will of your own?

Because i can say that letting some people live freely (10% was not an exact number) reduces the general freedom a regular citizen can have. I say we should make the prisoners who've murdered and violated work in mines at the place of having them just sit arround and eat 75000$ each in taxes.

I asked my 13 year old sister, she's a real wizz with this stuff, and she says that anarchy is a total lack of law. She understands this concept and she's a 7th grader. Why do you not get this? Do you think people will get along in an anarchist society? No one will lie cheat or steal what they want? No one will go and murder people? No one will start a new government to stop people from doing all of the above? You're deluding yourself.

Capitalism is as close to economic anarchy as it gets.

Also, the nazis weren't right-wing, it was called the national *Socialist* party.

I prefer the 2 scale system too. The one provided by the worlds smallest political quiz puts me in a nice libertarian area.

nillerz wrote:

Also, the nazis weren't right-wing, it was called the national *Socialist* party.

no. thats just stupidness. like saying hitler was a jew etc etc.... only stupid people say that oops i should not generalize in puplic KGB SEES EVERYTHING.
lol jk
back to topic. i should not generalize.
but nationalsocialist german workers party (nationalsocialist in one word, atleast in german.)
well.... the party didnt do much socialism when they were in power from 1933 to 1945. well some thing may look like socialism, actually quite many, but in fact it was no socialist. it was more: Nationalist-Romantic-Wothanism + fascisme and racisme. and maybe some more. well before hitler came to power, at the time the party was named NSDAP. then hitler spoke mainly to the workers and veterans. and then it gained alot of power trhough the workers, because they were naive enough to believe it was jews faulth and democracy fails and so on. but later then when hitler wanted more power the party slowly was entering more liberal part, when Hitler spoke for the bourgis it was much more liberal he talked about, but when he spoke to the workers it was more socialist. he made them unite. socialists and capitalists, for one vision nationalisme(MY COUNTRY IS BETTER THEN YOURS, I CUM INVADE UR COUNTRY) well then in 1933 some major capitalist wanted to put money on hitler and his party( cant remember what its called) and then hitler changed the political goals of NSDAP, to more liberals so they put money in him so he could win. well in 1933-1945 its hard to tell if it was socailist but i say no. because the people was oppressed, you didnt had freedom of speech and so on.

nillerz wrote:

I asked my 13 year old sister, she's a real wizz with this stuff,

Not if she's anything like you.

Quote :

and she says that anarchy is a total lack of law.

Anarchy is the rejection of masters and gods, i.e. coercive authority.

Quote :

She understands this concept and she's a 7th grader.

I highly doubt she understands the intricacies of anarchist theory and agenda.

Quote :

Why do you not get this?

You're speaking in the second person? Cos you seem to be the only who doesn't get it, thinking that anarhists are right-wingers.

Quote :

Do you think people will get along in an anarchist society?

Yes, why wouldn't they?

Quote :

No one will lie cheat or steal what they want?

Lying and cheating about what? If it's their personal life, that's their own business, and their own conscience they have to worry about.

And this question of theft depends on the time-frame. Are we in a period of collectivism, communism, individualism? It's your hypothetical, at least fill in the blanks necessary to answer such a question. You think people just steal for kicks? Most anarchists (all the anarchists here) have the basic understanding that class antagonisms must be liquidated for an anarchist society to function. This means social revolution, from the grass roots, up. Its not just that everyone will wake up one day and think, "let's give that anarchism a try".

Quote :

No one will go and murder people? No one will start a new government to stop people from doing all of the above? You're deluding yourself.

Are you saying people don't murder because there is a government? That's profoundly idiotic. I find the murder rate to be quite unpleasant at this stage in history, and government is ubiquitous. Sure, some murder will continue (to the smallest degree), but this is just unfortunate. There's no cure for murder.

Quote :

Capitalism is as close to economic anarchy as it gets.

Anarchy has very little to do with the economy. That's why you have categories like communists, collectivists, individualists, mutualists, etc.

Quote :

Also, the nazis weren't right-wing, it was called the national *Socialist* party.

So if i called myself a cappie, i'd be one? Who's deluding themself? oh, that's right...

Quote :

I prefer the 2 scale system too. The one provided by the worlds smallest political quiz puts me in a nice libertarian area.

So you were just talking out your ass before?

Quote :

Anarchy is the rejection of masters and gods, i.e. coercive authority.

No it isn't it's a lack of laws.

Quote :

I highly doubt she understands the intricacies of anarchist theory and agenda.

Wait, Anarchy has an agenda?! Isn't that slightly counter-intuitive?

Quote :

You're speaking in the second person? Cos you seem to be the only who doesn't get it, thinking that anarhists are right-wingers.

They are. A total lack of government is about as small-government as you get, seriously.

Quote :

Yes, why wouldn't they?

Because some people suck and those people won't be scared of getting arrested.

Quote :

Lying and cheating about what? If it's their personal life, that's their own business, and their own conscience they have to worry about.

And this question of theft depends on the time-frame. Are we in a period of collectivism, communism, individualism?

A period of anarchy, of course.

Quote :

It's your hypothetical, at least fill in the blanks necessary to answer such a question. You think people just steal for kicks?

YES

Of course people steal for kicks, when was the last time a shoplifter stole a kit-kat to feed his starving children?

Quote :

Most anarchists (all the anarchists here) have the basic understanding that class antagonisms must be liquidated for an anarchist society to function.

yet at the same time, you can't get rid of class antagonism without something preventing classes from forming, and that doesn't sound very in-line with anarchist ideas.

Quote :

This means social revolution, from the grass roots, up. Its not just that everyone will wake up one day and think, "let's give that anarchism a try".

If you say so...

nillerz wrote:

Quote :

Anarchy is the rejection of masters and gods, i.e. coercive authority.

No it isn't it's a lack of laws.

Quote :

I highly doubt she understands the intricacies of anarchist theory and agenda.

Wait, Anarchy has an agenda?! Isn't that slightly counter-intuitive?

Quote :

You're speaking in the second person? Cos you seem to be the only who doesn't get it, thinking that anarhists are right-wingers.

They are. A total lack of government is about as small-government as you get, seriously.

Quote :

Yes, why wouldn't they?

Because some people suck and those people won't be scared of getting arrested.

Quote :

Lying and cheating about what? If it's their personal life, that's their own business, and their own conscience they have to worry about.

And this question of theft depends on the time-frame. Are we in a period of collectivism, communism, individualism?

A period of anarchy, of course.

Quote :

It's your hypothetical, at least fill in the blanks necessary to answer such a question. You think people just steal for kicks?

YES

Of course people steal for kicks, when was the last time a shoplifter stole a kit-kat to feed his starving children?

Quote :

Most anarchists (all the anarchists here) have the basic understanding that class antagonisms must be liquidated for an anarchist society to function.

yet at the same time, you can't get rid of class antagonism without something preventing classes from forming, and that doesn't sound very in-line with anarchist ideas.

Quote :

This means social revolution, from the grass roots, up. Its not just that everyone will wake up one day and think, "let's give that anarchism a try".

If you say so...

Trollin'?

Ah... the first person to accuse another of trolling is in fact a very clever troll.

nillerz wrote:

Ah... the first person to accuse another of trolling is in fact a very clever troll.

Normally I'd agree with you, and that would be clever, but I swear to Cthulhu that I was seriously questioning whether or not you're trolling us.

The claim that Anarchism supports lawlessness is way off base. What it supports is statelessness. Now this doesn't mean that there aren't laws, and it doesn't mean that there isn't order; what it does mean is that the enforcement of laws - which, admittedly, there wouldn't be too many, other than the obvious ones, such as those that would oppose coercion and enforce negative rights - is undertaken by different institutions other than the State.

Which institutions those will be, well, that differs depending on which ideology you're talking about.

But honestly, there is a system of Anarchist law.

No. You are wrong. Anarchy is a state of lawlessness, usually coming from a breakdown of formal authority, not the other way around. A riot is an anarchy unless broken by police forces. Anarchists support lawlessness.

nillerz wrote:

No. You are wrong. Anarchy is a state of lawlessness, usually coming from a breakdown of formal authority, not the other way around. A riot is an anarchy unless broken by police forces. Anarchists support lawlessness.

I guess the ethymologic definition of "Anarchy" doesn't make sense at all for you.

nillerz wrote:

Quote :

Anarchy is the rejection of masters and gods, i.e. coercive authority.

No it isn't it's a lack of laws.

Anarchy comes from the Greek (maybe latin) word 'anarcho', which means 'without leaders'. No matter which way you look at this, you're dead wrong.

Quote :

Wait, Anarchy has an agenda?! Isn't that slightly counter-intuitive?

No, you're just intellectually inept.

Quote :

They are. A total lack of government is about as small-government as you get, seriously.

You could also argue that it is as large a government as possible, considering the people govern themselves.

Quote :

Because some people suck and those people won't be scared of getting arrested.

That's fine. Why arrest people and create a new criminal class? That just screams authority.

Quote :

Of course people steal for kicks, when was the last time a shoplifter stole a kit-kat to feed his starving children?

We're concerned with the fate of humanity and the earth itself, and you're worried about someone stealing a kit-kat? Are you serious?

Quote :

yet at the same time, you can't get rid of class antagonism without something preventing classes from forming, and that doesn't sound very in-line with anarchist ideas.

Probably because you don't understand anarchist ideas. If an egalitarian community is formed and class antagonisms are gone, who's going to let some asshole come back and take the land (this would be the only way another class could form)? It's absurd to think classes just pop out of the blue. It takes force and coercion to constitute a new ruling class, and people informed of the history of capitalism would not allow history to repeat itself as such.

Quote :

Now this doesn't mean that there aren't laws, and it doesn't mean that there isn't order; what it does mean is that the enforcement of laws - which, admittedly, there wouldn't be too many, other than the obvious ones, such as those that would oppose coercion and enforce negative rights - is undertaken by different institutions other than the State.

How would you accomplish laws without a new state? It always perplexes me how anarchists can come to a conclusion like this. If you have laws, you need someone to enforce them, police. If you have police, you'll need criminals (otherwise, what's the point of the police?). If you have criminals, you'll need prisons (whether or not they're rehabilitative). This will mean the constitution of a criminal class, and thus, the constitution of a state. By creating laws, you're giving material roots to the state.

The whole thing reminds me of Jennifer Government...

Zeronos wrote:

The whole thing reminds me of Jennifer Government...

hahahahaha

true that, never thought of it.

Anybody knows that Anarchy don't work!
there will be burning cars in the streets!
Without Laws there wont be Morals, with out morals there wont be Religion.

Spoiler:

Listen to this! WE THE PEOPLE DONT WANT ANARCHY BECAUSE ITS SIMPLY IMORAL.

Black_Cross wrote:

How would you accomplish laws without a new state? It always perplexes me how anarchists can come to a conclusion like this. If you have laws, you need someone to enforce them, police. If you have police, you'll need criminals (otherwise, what's the point of the police?). If you have criminals, you'll need prisons (whether or not they're rehabilitative). This will mean the constitution of a criminal class, and thus, the constitution of a state. By creating laws, you're giving material roots to the state.

Anarchist law is something that I haven't quite worked out yet. Ideally, I don't think that there would have to be laws, because - and I'm somewhat paraphrasing something Chomsky once said - libertarian socialist institutions - like unions, workers' councils, and other collective groups - will instill some sense of altruism and communality into society. Following this altruism, the need for laws will be diminished, as the causes of laws - crimes - will be pretty much done away with. If you have what you need provided for you, and if everyone receives equally, then why bother stealing?

However, I do think that there are some crimes - and this number is very small - that are not socioeconomic in nature and that will not go away in a post-revolutionary society; take, for instance, rapists. I genuinely think that there is something pathologically wrong with rapists, and they can't control themselves. Now am I suggesting we punish them for something they probably can't handle? No. But I am suggesting that there needs to be some kind of institution to keep these people safe and away from the public.

In hindsight, that doesn't necessarily sound like upholding the law as it does simply setting up some kind of organization that will handle treating such people.

Anarchist law is a tricky subject, because I can't think of a single writer who addresses this issue, so I kind of have to base this all on my own gut feelings rather than any kind of well-documented sources or anything.