You must log in or register to comment.

anarchoreposter wrote

Left vs Right comes from which side of the French king members of the états généraux were sitting before the French revolution - those on the right were monarchist, those on the left were in favour of the republic. In other words, both were in favour of the state. Obviously all this was a long time ago, and most people aren't really aware of it, but that doesn't mean it's not relevant, because the underlying assumption still persists that the whole spectrum of conceivable politics need to be enacted through the state. That's still true, whether it's social-democrats, liberals, leninists, greens, whatever.

I think one of the most important things we need to get across is that worthwhile political changes can only be achieved through direct action outside and against the state, parliamentary democracy and the various structures of class collaboration, and that means questioning the left vs right thing.

26

Green_Mountain_Makhno wrote

That's a great way to look at it. I knew about the origin of left vs right, but never looked at it exactly this way.

9

[deleted] 0 wrote

9

Catsforfun wrote

im curious about your explanation, would you share?

6

[deleted] 0 wrote

17

Catsforfun wrote

so you are saying that when you step out of the state entirely, you can't regulate if everyone is doing things the best most leftist way, so its not necessarily leftist?

3

Splinglebot wrote

...no, I'm pretty sure she's saying that the entire the left/right spectrum is a statist concept

12

rot wrote

I feel like left & right are meaningless when you get deep into philosophical details and comparing ideologies. Anarchism is 'left' as long as the 'right' stands in opposition to it

8

j0hn_d0e wrote

I think its part of the left and right since people on both sides have "anti authority" views.

0

ziq wrote

you can't be anti-authority and pro-capitalism. that makes no logical sense. capitalism is an authority.

9

j0hn_d0e wrote

Your right, but everyone isn't 100% anti-authority and pro-capitalism or vice versa. For example people on the right tend to not want taxes, so anarchy might be appealing since there's no governing force to tax them. People on the left tend to want equality, so anarchy might appeal to them since there is no hierarchy. On the flip side, people on the left tend to want more government intervention (healthcare, social programs, gun control, etc) which is the opposite of true anarchy. People on the right also tend to want government intervention (restricting abortions, anti-LGBT rights, anti-immigration, etc.) which isn't part of anarchy. This is why I think anarchy can be from both sides. Obviously complete anarchy wouldn't have capitalism, but that's the system that is established and people who are apart of it might switch to anarchy.

3

manc wrote

I really can't see anyone from 'the right' (patriot militias, christian evangelists, oil barons etc) ever having anything to do with anarchism

3

sonamtashi wrote

I definitely agree, however there are certainly some on the right who try to identify with anarchism. Besides An-Caps, there are Sovereign Citizens, Freeman on the Land people, etc. Before I looked into Anarchism for myself, these types of individuals gave me a really bad impression of it. These ideologies couldn't be further removed from Anarchist thought, but they're absolutely convinced that that's what they are.

2

manc wrote

Sometimes 'anarchist' is just what people call themselves to sound cool on the internet. 'Sovereign citizens' etc clearly have nothing to do with anarchism. I really can't stand those guys.

2