Comments

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.

27

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.

8

amongstclouds wrote

Yes and no. For me: No.

10

Catsforfun wrote

im curious about your explanation, would you share?

6

amongstclouds wrote

Historically, anarchism has been a 'leftist' movement, and originally is part of the reason I was drawn towards it. As years have gone on I see how the idea of 'left vs right,' is heavily steeped in a logic that I no longer wish to perpetuate; the logic of the state.

I still hold more in common with 'leftism,' than the opposite, but I don't see how it's any different than the right, especially when it comes to the question of state power. This isn't to say the 'left and right' are the same as much as the problems we see on the right are never confined ONLY to the right and vice versa.

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

13

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

7

selver wrote

I don't consider myself a leftist, but many other anarchists are leftists.

4

phantomPower wrote

It depends on where you are. Where I come from if you call an anarchist a leftist it is considered an insult and/or they will think that you don't know what you're talking about or that you're a leftist that wants to appropriate once more the anarchist's movement power. Still, there are some that call anarchy as extrem-left but they're mostly journalists or leftists... In english speaking places, I noticed there is not necessarily a distinction but thankfully there is this term of post-leftist for anti-authoriterian approches and it makes total sense to me. So concluding and due to my inputs, the way I see things there are 2 categories hierarhical ones (left, right etc) and non-hierachical ones (anarchism, libertarianism etc). I think it's obvious that the didtiction is made on an organisational-praxis basis.

3

j0hn_d0e wrote

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

−1

ziq wrote

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

10

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.

2

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

4

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