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.

    • LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net
      151·
      2 months ago

      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.

        • LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net
          5·
          2 months ago

          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?

            • LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net
              4·
              2 months ago

              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.

    • SolarPunker@slrpnk.netOP
      81·
      2 months ago

      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.

        • cqst [she/her]@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          11·
          2 months ago

          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).

            • cqst [she/her]@lemmy.blahaj.zone
              12·
              2 months ago

              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.