What is a "radical left anarchist?"

[RKMBrown]

Libertarians are often aligned with anarchism.

Bullshit. Anarchists align themselves with other anarchists. Libertarians are aligned with the idea of limited government...which means we support the existence of a government! That can't be anarchy, no matter how much you'd like to believe it so.

He's a modern socialist. All socialists have to defend their policies is deflection and disparagement. If anarchy is bad, then that's what libertarians and republicans are, anarchists. Doesn't matter what anarchy is or isn't the point is deflect and disparage.

 

[whitehall]

Webster defines anarchist as someone who advocates or participates in the violent overthrow of the government. Bill Ayers was both an anarchist and a terrorist.

 

[NightFox]

So you are a marxist?

No (but thanks for trying to put words in my mouth) but I do understand what communism as defined by Marx is (which obviously you do not), you also don't appear to understand what fascism is, it's a form a big government totalitarianism which is inherently authoritarian i.e. more aligned with the philosophy of the American LEFT than it is with the limited government philosophy of the American RIGHT.

Traditional conservatism AKA center/right "ike" type republicans would fit that mold, but today's GOP are on the extreme right, essentially fascism.

LOL, I don't know where you get your information on political philosophy from but you should sue them for fraud.

As the creator of fascism Mussolini stated "Fascism should more appropriately be called corporatism, because it is a merger of state and corporate power"

Which best describes both the Democratic Party AND the Republican Party but has no relationship whatsoever to limited government philosophy that mainstream conservatives purport to adhere to.

Today's GOP are completely in bed with the corporate masters like the Koch's, big oil, big banks, big pharma,...they are the epitome of far right wing extremism. Not to mention their attacks on freedom from women's rights to marriage equality to marijuana legalization to 1st amendment censorship.

Thanks for the partisan parrot act but you're hopeless blind and foolish if you believe the GOP is any different from the Democratic Party when it comes to being controlled by monied interests.

The current far right are the biggest threat against freedom, liberty, and against the founding fathers that this nation has ever seen.

As opposed to the benevolent, individual liberty loving far left , fortunately for hyper-partisan automatons hypocrisy and cognitive dissonance aren't fatal.

 

[NightFox]

Webster defines anarchist as someone who advocates or participates in the violent overthrow of the government. Bill Ayers was both an anarchist and a terrorist.

Anarchism and violence do not necessarily go hand in hand, in fact many preeminent anarchists (Rothbard for example) adhere to the same non-aggression principle that libertarians do, they eschew the initiation of force and the use of violence (except in self-defense).

 

[ScreamingEagle]

I see, so being an anarchist that wants no government, actually means complete totalitarian government control.

And you wonder why people think those like yourself on the far right are complete idiots

show me a country full of anarchists.....

Somalia

a country in civil war...? ok....call them anarchists....then look at what happened...

tyranny happened.....violence, piracy, humanitarian disaster.....

thanks for making my point...

 

[Black_Label]

show me a country full of anarchists.....

Somalia

a country in civil war...? ok....call them anarchists....then look at what happened...

tyranny happened.....violence, piracy, humanitarian disaster.....

thanks for making my point...

I did make my point quite nicely, that you are a brainwashed right winger Informing yourself isn't a bad thing (not from the right wing propaganda machine)

 

[NightFox]

Somalia

a country in civil war...? ok....call them anarchists....then look at what happened...

tyranny happened.....violence, piracy, humanitarian disaster.....

thanks for making my point...

I did make my point quite nicely, that you are a brainwashed right winger Informing yourself isn't a bad thing (not from the right wing propaganda machine)

I find it exceeding humorous when a hyper-partisan robot whose brain has obviously been turned to mush by copious amounts of propaganda sniffing has the temerity to accuse other people of being "brainwashed".

People that live in glass partisan parrot cages shouldn't throw stones.

 

[theHawk]

Serious question. Occupy Wallstreet called themselves anarchists, but they demand big government control over business, that's socialism, which is the opposite of anarcy.

I've heard people use that term to describe themselves as well, saying "I'm far left, almost anarchist."

I've Googled it and basically the only answer I've seen are people (presumably left) saying you can be left and anarchist, but none of them explained what that means they think.

Don't go back to the real definition of words, like classic liberal. I know what that means, but that obviously isn't what Occupy Wallstreet or radical leftists who call themselves anarchists mean.

Its quite simple, use anarchy to stir up shit and cause as much social discord as possible, in order for the progressive movement to gain power in government.

Leftist or anarchist, they're all just batshit crazy.

 

[NightFox]

Serious question. Occupy Wallstreet called themselves anarchists, but they demand big government control over business, that's socialism, which is the opposite of anarcy.

I've heard people use that term to describe themselves as well, saying "I'm far left, almost anarchist."

I've Googled it and basically the only answer I've seen are people (presumably left) saying you can be left and anarchist, but none of them explained what that means they think.

Don't go back to the real definition of words, like classic liberal. I know what that means, but that obviously isn't what Occupy Wallstreet or radical leftists who call themselves anarchists mean.

Its quite simple, use anarchy to stir up shit and cause as much social discord as possible, in order for the progressive movement to gain power in government.

Leftist or anarchist, they're all just batshit crazy.

Methinks You're making the common mistake of confusing philosophical anarchism with chaos, The people you're talking about aren't anarchists in a philosophical sense they're statists that want to foment chaos in order to achieve a more authoritarian state.

 

[theHawk]

Serious question. Occupy Wallstreet called themselves anarchists, but they demand big government control over business, that's socialism, which is the opposite of anarcy.

I've heard people use that term to describe themselves as well, saying "I'm far left, almost anarchist."

I've Googled it and basically the only answer I've seen are people (presumably left) saying you can be left and anarchist, but none of them explained what that means they think.

Don't go back to the real definition of words, like classic liberal. I know what that means, but that obviously isn't what Occupy Wallstreet or radical leftists who call themselves anarchists mean.

Its quite simple, use anarchy to stir up shit and cause as much social discord as possible, in order for the progressive movement to gain power in government.

Leftist or anarchist, they're all just batshit crazy.

Methinks You're making the common mistake of confusing philosophical anarchism with chaos, The people you're talking about aren't anarchists in a philosophical sense they're statists that want to foment chaos in order to achieve a more authoritarian state.

Thats what I just said.....they are just progressives stirring up shit....

 

[editec]

Serious question. Occupy Wallstreet called themselves anarchists,

I don't doubt some of them might call themselves anarchists. So what?

but they demand big government control over business, that's socialism, which is the opposite of anarcy.

I've Googled it and basically the only answer I've seen are people (presumably left) saying you can be left and anarchist, but none of them explained what that means they think.

Don't go back to the real definition of words, like classic liberal. I know what that means, but that obviously isn't what Occupy Wallstreet or radical leftists who call themselves anarchists mean.[/QUOTE

No control over business is not socialism, lad. If you going to play in the world of Political science you really ought to learn the venacular.

I've heard people use that term to describe themselves as well, saying "I'm far left, almost anarchist."

Some IDIOTS calling themselves anarchist are really advocating some kind of government.
They're idiots.

That might very well be the only thing you and I will agree to.

Now go read a book and learn what the term SOCIALISM really means in the world of political science.

YOur right wing teachers have mislead you.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Serious question. Occupy Wallstreet called themselves anarchists, but they demand big government control over business, that's socialism, which is the opposite of anarcy.

I've heard people use that term to describe themselves as well, saying "I'm far left, almost anarchist."

I've Googled it and basically the only answer I've seen are people (presumably left) saying you can be left and anarchist, but none of them explained what that means they think.

Don't go back to the real definition of words, like classic liberal. I know what that means, but that obviously isn't what Occupy Wallstreet or radical leftists who call themselves anarchists mean.

Its quite simple, use anarchy to stir up shit and cause as much social discord as possible, in order for the progressive movement to gain power in government.

Leftist or anarchist, they're all just batshit crazy.

Methinks You're making the common mistake of confusing philosophical anarchism with chaos, The people you're talking about aren't anarchists in a philosophical sense they're statists that want to foment chaos in order to achieve a more authoritarian state.

true...philosophically anarchy is a stateless society......but how does anarchy operate in the real world.....?

in the real world i can only see anarchy becoming chaos because for individuals to interact with one another they must have some form of interpersonal understanding....and therein lies the rub....because when each individual has a different undertanding of how he can operate within a stateless society you will wind up with conflicts and chaos....

which is why i believe anarchists take on the aspects of promoting some kind of basic governmental form.....thus we wind up with a full spectrum of different flavors of 'anarchists'......from anarcho-communists.....to anarcho-capitalists.....to 'left libertarian anarchists'.....to 'radical left anarchists'.....take your pick...

 

[TakeAStepBack]

in the real world i can only see anarchy becoming chaos because for individuals to interact with one another they must have some form of interpersonal understanding....and therein lies the rub....because when each individual has a different undertanding of how he can operate within a stateless society you will wind up with conflicts and chaos....

hence why to advocate for any type of anarchy besides capitalism based anarchy is an absolute failure. Rothbard made this case in several books. A society without government must be grounded in the fundamentals of human action. That is, slef ownership, liberty and private property. Anarcho-capitalists belive that a society sans government can exist only based upon contracts. And that private enterprise can arbitrate dispute of contracts.

People make the disconnect with anarchy because they believe that humans are inherently evil. Yet, want an authority comprised of humans to oversee social structure. It's an interesting internal conflict externalized. That is, to believe that the state, which is comprised of people, is somehow omnipotent. While without such an authority, social structure would break down over the inherent evils of man.

 

[RKMBrown]

I always find it humorous when libs try to explain their understanding of what people want.

For me, I want a federal government who's business is national defense, matters of state, and protecting property rights of citizens and acting as arbiter across state and national borders. The feds should be defending us from state tyranny. Instead the feds wish to increase their power/tyranny over us. This needs to be corrected.

IMO, we don't need the feds for police, fire, rescue, retirement, insurance, education, charity, ... These are local matters.

 

[RKMBrown]

in the real world i can only see anarchy becoming chaos because for individuals to interact with one another they must have some form of interpersonal understanding....and therein lies the rub....because when each individual has a different undertanding of how he can operate within a stateless society you will wind up with conflicts and chaos....

hence why to advocate for any type of anarchy besides capitalism based anarchy is an absolute failure. Rothbard made this case in several books. A society without government must be grounded in the fundamentals of human action. That is, slef ownership, liberty and private property. Anarcho-capitalists belive that a society sans government can exist only based upon contracts. And that private enterprise can arbitrate dispute of contracts.

People make the disconnect with anarchy because they believe that humans are inherently evil. Yet, want an authority comprised of humans to oversee social structure. It's an interesting internal conflict externalized. That is, to believe that the state, which is comprised of people, is somehow omnipotent. While without such an authority, social structure would break down over the inherent evils of man.

Or we can go back to a republic where the fed's job is to regulate the states not the people.

 

[NightFox]

Its quite simple, use anarchy to stir up shit and cause as much social discord as possible, in order for the progressive movement to gain power in government.

Leftist or anarchist, they're all just batshit crazy.

Methinks You're making the common mistake of confusing philosophical anarchism with chaos, The people you're talking about aren't anarchists in a philosophical sense they're statists that want to foment chaos in order to achieve a more authoritarian state.

true...philosophically anarchy is a stateless society......but how does anarchy operate in the real world.....?

in the real world i can only see anarchy becoming chaos because for individuals to interact with one another they must have some form of interpersonal understanding....and therein lies the rub....because when each individual has a different undertanding of how he can operate within a stateless society you will wind up with conflicts and chaos....

Good points ScreamingEagle.

Interesting question (how does anarchy operate in the real world), the fact of the matter IMHO it doesn't (beyond a very limited scale that is), however if one takes the time to listen/read what some of the more enlightened proponents of anarchism (for example Rothbard or Molyneux) have to say they make some very interesting and thought provoking arguments. We have to keep in mind that the institution of the state is one of the very few institutions that has survived from time of human barbarism into the modern day fairly intact and that from a historical perspective it has almost always evolved into an institution of criminality and economic exploitation.

One has to hope that at some point humankind can invent something superior to statism as the model for the organization of society or even better we can evolve to a point where anything similar to the institution of the state is no longer necessary. Think about it, wouldn't the world be a FAR better place if the state were no longer necessary? Some of the arguments I read/heard from more enlightened anarchists provide some food for thought on how we might one day get there, for example Molyneux's ideas on parenting and how using violence as a behavior modification tool not only damages children's ability to use reason and negotiation for problem solving but has all sorts of other wide ranging detrimental affects on society.

which is why i believe anarchists take on the aspects of promoting some kind of basic governmental form.....thus we wind up with a full spectrum of different flavors of 'anarchists'......from anarcho-communists.....to anarcho-capitalists.....to 'left libertarian anarchists'.....to 'radical left anarchists'.....take your pick...

The differences you're seeing here are differences in economic philosophy and the specific organizing principles of society proposed by each "flavor" of anarchism in a stateless society, but you're right there is a fairly vast array of different flavors, IMHO some of them worthy of study and some of them just downright irrational.

 

[KevinWestern]

So you are a marxist?

No (but thanks for trying to put words in my mouth) but I do understand what communism as defined by Marx is (which obviously you do not), you also don't appear to understand what fascism is, it's a form a big government totalitarianism which is inherently authoritarian i.e. more aligned with the philosophy of the American LEFT than it is with the limited government philosophy of the American RIGHT.

Traditional conservatism AKA center/right "ike" type republicans would fit that mold, but today's GOP are on the extreme right, essentially fascism.

As the creator of fascism Mussolini stated "Fascism should more appropriately be called corporatism, because it is a merger of state and corporate power"

Today's GOP are completely in bed with the corporate masters like the Koch's, big oil, big banks, big pharma,...they are the epitome of far right wing extremism. Not to mention their attacks on freedom from women's rights to marriage equality to marijuana legalization to 1st amendment censorship.

The current far right are the biggest threat against freedom, liberty, and against the founding fathers that this nation has ever seen.

Since Obama signed a bill that protects Monsanto from being sued if their products are found to be dangerous (ie "Monsanto protection act"), and since he appointed a former Monsanto exec to a top position within the FDA, can we also consider the Dems fascist as well?

Agree with you on many of the Repubs, but it's silly to give the other side a free pass.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

in the real world i can only see anarchy becoming chaos because for individuals to interact with one another they must have some form of interpersonal understanding....and therein lies the rub....because when each individual has a different undertanding of how he can operate within a stateless society you will wind up with conflicts and chaos....

hence why to advocate for any type of anarchy besides capitalism based anarchy is an absolute failure. Rothbard made this case in several books. A society without government must be grounded in the fundamentals of human action. That is, slef ownership, liberty and private property. Anarcho-capitalists belive that a society sans government can exist only based upon contracts. And that private enterprise can arbitrate dispute of contracts.

People make the disconnect with anarchy because they believe that humans are inherently evil. Yet, want an authority comprised of humans to oversee social structure. It's an interesting internal conflict externalized. That is, to believe that the state, which is comprised of people, is somehow omnipotent. While without such an authority, social structure would break down over the inherent evils of man.

Or we can go back to a republic where the fed's job is to regulate the states not the people.

The problem is that the State always aims to grow itself and its authority. Never in the history of government has one started small, grown large and then willingly relinquished its powers.

And small governments always become large and eventually totalitarian. That's why, while I'd love to see a return to the original concepts of this nation, it's a fools errand to try. The only way it will happen is through a violent confrontation. Where, like the revolutionary and civil wars, sides will be chosen and people will not be in agreement about the power structure.

Such is the human condition. Until a full rejection of any authority over people becomes a popular idea, we're doomed to a constant repetition of failed governments.

 

[RKMBrown]

hence why to advocate for any type of anarchy besides capitalism based anarchy is an absolute failure. Rothbard made this case in several books. A society without government must be grounded in the fundamentals of human action. That is, slef ownership, liberty and private property. Anarcho-capitalists belive that a society sans government can exist only based upon contracts. And that private enterprise can arbitrate dispute of contracts.

People make the disconnect with anarchy because they believe that humans are inherently evil. Yet, want an authority comprised of humans to oversee social structure. It's an interesting internal conflict externalized. That is, to believe that the state, which is comprised of people, is somehow omnipotent. While without such an authority, social structure would break down over the inherent evils of man.

Or we can go back to a republic where the fed's job is to regulate the states not the people.

The problem is that the State always aims to grow itself and its authority. Never in the history of government has one started small, grown large and then willingly relinquished its powers.

And small governments always become large and eventually totalitarian. That's why, while I'd love to see a return to the original concepts of this nation, it's a fools errand to try. The only way it will happen is through a violent confrontation. Where, like the revolutionary and civil wars, sides will be chosen and people will not be in agreement about the power structure.

Such is the human condition. Until a full rejection of any authority over people becomes a popular idea, we're doomed to a constant repetition of failed governments.

>>>we're doomed to a constant repetition of failed governments

Or we can become educated, recognize this repetitious failure and better react to the failings.

Slavery was bad, most of the civil war amendments were good. But not the part about taking away our liberties with due process. We can fix that. It's just one small phrase, hell just a few words deleted and we have a fix to that. Most of the rest of the tyrannical usurpation of this federal government and of the state governments can be linked to one word in one phrase in the 14th amendment. The magic word... "without". Redact that portion of the phrase and we are good to go for another couple hundred years.

"...nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;

 

[TakeAStepBack]

If it was that simple, it would have been done already. Like I said, you're not going to get power to be relinquished voluntarily. It doesn't work that way.