Chill, it’s just a rhetorical you, directed at any who identify with it. If you don’t, then that’s fine. I know nothing about your ideology.
Anarchism is unique to the left though. I’ve never met someone in the right who doesn’t subscribe to some kind of hierarchical domination of other people, usually one or multiple of the examples I gave. If they don’t, then in my view they are confused about their own ideological position.
If you destroy some hierarchies and not others, the systems newly freed from competition for dominance in society will rapidly expand and replace them. Anarchism has always been about opposition to capitalism as much as to the state. You can’t just abandon one of the core tenets and still claim to belong—although the first ancaps were never anarchists. They were capitalists who discovered a clever and dishonest way to advocate for their own dominance over society.
Just saying it was pretty leading, when I worked hard to keep my comment neutral. Clarifying if I’m being put in a box is not being triggered or whatever.
The point is after the dissolving of macro scale government, all bets are off on what’s next. Neither the left or right has ownership of the idea of “absence”
It’s no worries we cleared that up, we are just chatting about an interesting but potentially loaded topic.
I understand anarchism as it is known in leftist groups has a well defined ethos and criteria.
My point is that that the core motivation isn’t unique, others have their own interpretation. The desire to reduce macro scale government is certainly not unique to leftist groups. And those.other groups have their own well defined ideation around the ideal post transition society.
That’s all true, I just think it’s very annoying that they chose to graft themselves onto an existing political movement by taking their name when they share very little of the core ethics. It makes communication more difficult and implies an affinity that I don’t believe exists.
It is relatively new actually. I mean the ideas, maybe not since Jefferson had similar ideas hundreds of years ago but the cooption of the words anarchism and libertarianism, both of which were historically leftist movements, was popularized by Murray Rothbard in the 1970s. He was also pro-segregation, just to demonstrate what kind of people we’re discussing here.
Rothbard agreed privately that his movement was fundamentally not anarchism but for whatever reason in his public writings, he claimed otherwise. I suspect it was just to troll leftists but who knows.
Edit also the ideation is not tied in a person or specific movement, just saying the notions of situation and isolation, especially idealized with the collapse of the federal government go back before the 70s
Anarchism significantly predates even Marxism. Depending on who you ask it is at least 150 years old as an explicit political movement. And even before that the majority of the socialists were ideologically closer to what is today described as anarchism, heck even the young Marx largely just plagiarised ideas from earlier anarchist thinkers.
Chill, it’s just a rhetorical you, directed at any who identify with it. If you don’t, then that’s fine. I know nothing about your ideology.
Anarchism is unique to the left though. I’ve never met someone in the right who doesn’t subscribe to some kind of hierarchical domination of other people, usually one or multiple of the examples I gave. If they don’t, then in my view they are confused about their own ideological position.
If you destroy some hierarchies and not others, the systems newly freed from competition for dominance in society will rapidly expand and replace them. Anarchism has always been about opposition to capitalism as much as to the state. You can’t just abandon one of the core tenets and still claim to belong—although the first ancaps were never anarchists. They were capitalists who discovered a clever and dishonest way to advocate for their own dominance over society.
Just saying it was pretty leading, when I worked hard to keep my comment neutral. Clarifying if I’m being put in a box is not being triggered or whatever.
The point is after the dissolving of macro scale government, all bets are off on what’s next. Neither the left or right has ownership of the idea of “absence”
Sorry, I didn’t mean it that way.
But I think you are confused about what is meant by anarchism. We’re talking about a specific political movement, not a mere absence of government.
It’s no worries we cleared that up, we are just chatting about an interesting but potentially loaded topic.
I understand anarchism as it is known in leftist groups has a well defined ethos and criteria.
My point is that that the core motivation isn’t unique, others have their own interpretation. The desire to reduce macro scale government is certainly not unique to leftist groups. And those.other groups have their own well defined ideation around the ideal post transition society.
That’s all true, I just think it’s very annoying that they chose to graft themselves onto an existing political movement by taking their name when they share very little of the core ethics. It makes communication more difficult and implies an affinity that I don’t believe exists.
I mean , libertarian sourced small to zero government is NOT new
It is relatively new actually. I mean the ideas, maybe not since Jefferson had similar ideas hundreds of years ago but the cooption of the words anarchism and libertarianism, both of which were historically leftist movements, was popularized by Murray Rothbard in the 1970s. He was also pro-segregation, just to demonstrate what kind of people we’re discussing here.
Rothbard agreed privately that his movement was fundamentally not anarchism but for whatever reason in his public writings, he claimed otherwise. I suspect it was just to troll leftists but who knows.
Dude that’s 50 years ago.
Edit also the ideation is not tied in a person or specific movement, just saying the notions of situation and isolation, especially idealized with the collapse of the federal government go back before the 70s
Anarchism significantly predates even Marxism. Depending on who you ask it is at least 150 years old as an explicit political movement. And even before that the majority of the socialists were ideologically closer to what is today described as anarchism, heck even the young Marx largely just plagiarised ideas from earlier anarchist thinkers.