Comments
Catsforfun wrote
im curious about your explanation, would you share?
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.
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?
ziq wrote
you can't be anti-authority and pro-capitalism. that makes no logical sense. capitalism is an authority.
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.
shanc wrote
I really can't see anyone from 'the right' (patriot militias, christian evangelists, oil barons etc) ever having anything to do with anarchism
shanc 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.
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.