The fantasy-story of right-wing anarchy is creating misinformation, someone thinks that something like “anarcho-capitalism” is real philosophy, instead of the linguistic distortion of fascist-capitalism that it is.
Should people even specify that they are left-wing anarchists now? Do we really want to put a stop to this propagandistic joke? Anarchy will always be the extreme left into the political pendulum.
And I will tell you more: anarchism is by its nature also pacifism, as it aims to prevent any form of uncontrolled power on others. This is to silence even centrists: another fake group, people who think that it’s not “extremist” in its own abstinence, in delegating violence.
deleted by creator
I do think it is often possible to force despots to resign through nonviolent conflict. Their power ultimately stems from obedience of others—if that obedience is removed they are just as powerless as any of us.
So the question is: can that obedience be undermined through nonviolent resistance? I think the answer is often yes, and we have seen such things before in history.
On the other hand, even many pacifists acknowledge the righteousness of self defense. So if nonviolent efforts fail and the tyrant comes for you and yours and you have to fight back I won’t fault anyone for this. On the other hand, you can’t and shouldn’t want to engage overwhelming military force on its own terms. That’s not a fight we can ever win head on.
deleted by creator
That must be very difficult. I can’t imagine living in such a way as I’ve been an outspoken critic of my government from a young age.
I’ve read that sometimes organizing in such places can be focused on building power that is independent of the state, even if that power has a conciliatory stance towards the regime initially. However, that independent power can be used in a critical moment when the regime’s power weakens. I am not familiar with Saudi society—is there hope for such a strategy?
Another strategy is tiny acts of resistance that are too small to detect or punish but that introduce friction into the workings of society. The impact is small but again, it may help tip the scales towards liberation. And it has the advantage of being safe enough for anyone to engage in and being actionable for an individual—meaning no one can report you.
Finally I am curious if you have advice for how people in the West can help advance a liberatory cause in your country. Obviously our military and financial support is a huge malignant force in your society, so seeking to remove this support might help. Do you agree with that assessment?
deleted by creator
I should clarify that the organizing I’m discussing does not need to be openly political. Religious institutions, civic organizations, charities, etc. anything that is not directly subservient to the state can be turned against it when the time comes. Especially if the purpose of the organization attracts people who might be naturally skeptical of the ruling powers.
While I obviously support the things you describe here, Joe Biden’s weak response to Jamal Khashoggi’s murder made me realize that the royal family actually has a very strong bargaining position with the US due to their influence on OPEC. Americans are addicted to oil and, as we saw in the last election, very willing to punish leaders who aren’t able or willing to secure their cheap access to it. I am not sure this problem can be solved without first breaking this addiction. I also think the oil economy is one that very much favors autocracy, so destroying global demand for oil could have very positive effects even beyond the influence over US policy.
Thanks for sharing your perspective. I hope you have an eye to your own safety as you participate in these conversations but I assume you know better than I do what is safe and what isn’t.
deleted by creator
How and when morally acceptable is the use of violence has always been the subject of deep debate mostly among anarchists. Pacifism is often misunderstood on this point: pacifism can precede forms of self-defense - and therefore violence - when it comes to self-preservation.
Liberalism is another thought to dismantle, as it has long moved historically on the right side of the political pendulum. Today’s democracies show that either you reduce it at least to bring some socialism or you create the inconveniences that we see daily from its inefficiency.
deleted by creator
I find people are less uncomfortable when you mention Market Socialism, and show them how it’s not too radical.
Cool theory. Still Capitalism (and still creates all the same problem capitalism does).
deleted by creator
You can’t have Capitalist elements like, commodity production, wage-labor, money, markets, and call that “socialism”. All of the inherent contradictions and harms of capitalism remain (because its capitalism), like theft of surplus value, imperialism, and alienation.
deleted by creator
And I will tell you more: anarchism is by its nature also pacifism, as it aims to prevent any form of uncontrolled power on others.
If by pacifism you mean a peaceful society I agree, however if you are talking about achiving said society with no violent means whatsoever I must say that it seems like a nice utopian vison but not a practical one.
Paris Commune was well designed principle. Failed to have sufficient security, because external assholes wanted it destroyed.
Even the Nazi party had “socialist” in their name…
I started defining words and meanings whenever I am talking on the subject. It is annoying but otherwise whenever you mention anarchism people imagine indiscriminate bombings.
I was told the other day by a tankie on here that all anarchists support violent revolutions and that I wasn’t an anarchist because I didn’t 🙄
deleted by creator
How exactly do you expect to achieve and maintain anarchy without violence? Do you expect the bourgeoisie will just go “Oh shit you’re right!” and give up their power willingly?
Non violent evolution through class consciousness. Parallel counter economic systems that erode the states power. Strong co-operative networks like Proudhon envisioned.
Peace can only come from peace, not violence.
Basically what the tech fascists are trying to do without the centralisation, oligarchy and white supremacy.
States employ a very wide range of tools to neutralize movements they perceive as a threat.
How do you stop the state from using its power to stop these parallel systems from taking away its power?
True decentralisation is unstoppable. No centralised point of attack.
You don’t need centralization to present points of attack. Any exchange of goods or person involved is a potential attack surface.
Look at any Food Not Bombs deals with. Or if you want to go further back, look at how the Black Panthers were neutralized.
When frameworks and tooling is sufficiently robust, one node being attacked doesn’t impact the whole network.
Black Panthers weren’t decentralised, not in any comparable way anyway. Food Not Bombs has attack vectors but they would be one node, not the whole network.
I am not understanding how any org can do anything without presenting something the state can use violence against, can you give an example?
I have a hard time believing it can be non-violent. Parallel power structures will be met by violence as soon as they become a threat to the establishment. It can’t be built up to the capacity to rival the state’s power in secret, it’ll be identified and eradicated prior to reaching that point.
Defensive violence seems unavoidable, but I see your point about not needing to initiate the violent overthrow of the state.
Democracy theoretically permits voting for someone who will reduce government power. Media telling you who you are allowed to vote for is an obstacle.
Proletarian democracy, sometimes. Try to vote out a bourgeoisie democracy though?
Then stop reading about them?
I mean, look at what the conservatives call communism, wokeness, socialism, censorship… You really don’t want to take their definitions seriously. You can’t if you want to talk seriously about these matters.
Yeah nothing says “my political views comes only from nothing but podcasts and YouTube videos but I consider myself well read and super informed” like people who try to liken anarchism with any form of right wing ideology.
I prefer ancap as a term to avoid acknowledging any affinity with real anarchism.
That said, I don’t think they’re necessarily all fascists and there are some points of agreement between us so I’m not afraid to cooperate in limited ways when it’s appropriate. Right now there are worse enemies to reckon with.
i’ve never seen an ancap who doesn’t want to be king of his own however-small kingdom, and most are straight up frustrated warlords. be very careful
Anarcho Capitalism is an astro turfing funded (Kochs in early 2000-2010s) movement to support low taxes. Monopoly on violence replaced with mafias. NAP is recipe for war/violence more than peace.
That said, mainstream leftist anarchism is extremely dogmatic in regards to feminist/queer supremacy/purity, and purity tests for “freedom lovers”.
There are centrist paths to anarchy, minarchy, and government disempowerment. UBI is the obvious personal freedom that can replace all government except for IRS. Market anarchism, socialist libertarianism is inclusive of UBI/freedom dividends, in that fair markets can be promoted, and poverty eliminated. Centrist anarchy/UBI has no “freeloader problem”.
I understand what you say and I agree. Still I would like to add something:
I have noticed that in the english speaking world when people talk about the left they often include anarchy in this term. For me, this is highly problematic too, since the left has hierarchical structures and anarchy has horizontal ones.
“The left” is nebulous but it usually means “trending towards socialism”. As anarchism is a socialist movement, it makes sense.
I am not denying there is a historical reference to the use of this term. I just think it also makes sense - especially if we take into consideration the last 100 years or so - for this term to shift from its initial meaning. Or to put it differently, in other languages this shift has taken place for decades now.
“The left” is relative to the political scenario, for example in the States we can see a big right-wing advantage so even liberists are left for them, while in the historical scenario they aren’t. Hierarchy is still contemplated in the left but more you go on that and less hierarchy you have in a proportional gradualism.
The term leftist is considered to come from the fact that people sitting on the “Left” in the Estates General in France. Generally, liberals, (Jacobins, Third Estate). There is very poor sourcing for this online, but Wikipedia cites some untranslated difficult to source french book.
In mainstream discourse, “left” takes on a number of meanings, but to the extent that left is meant to mean anti-capitalist, and/or, Marxist, anarchism has left wing currents, hence, left wing anarchism.
There are definitely “right-wing” anarchist currents that are popular and not as unhinged as how “anarcho-capitalism” is generally characterized, as in, anarchism that espouses the use of capitalism, but I have not really seen any genuinely “socially conservative”, anarchists. Pacifism is reactionary and emboldens the status quo.