I can't wrap my head around anarchism being left wing

>muh devolves into rule of the strongest
once npcs like you are exterminated alongside with your masters we won't have to care about that

I’ve never met an anarchist that could actually survive in true anarchy. You’d need to be proficient living off the land, know how to use multiple weapons and tools, and be in pretty good shape.

Anarchism is considered left wing because commies assume that everyone would just share with each other and live in peace if it weren't for the machinations of the state and socioeconomic elite.

right wing libertarianism is pretty much the same mindset (the establishment gets in the way of harmony) but with the government as the primary cause of injustice instead of the rich.

if you look it up virtually all political science agrees that anarchism is left wing.

"Equality" in the true sense, aka every man for themselves, equal opportunity. Not the gay way where everyone gets everything they want handed to them.
What separates Anarchism from Right Wing Libertarianism, is it's rejection of cultural authorities as well.
With no government, a Right Winger would assume society goes back to natural hierarchies, based on culture, religion, or merely just how useful a person is to the greater good. Communities band together under a structure that they deem suitable for them, so then people within those communities follow community rules or else face being exiled.
Anarchy doesn't even want that. No social authorities, no leadership, no rules. This is all dismantled through violence if need be.
The rejection of order and traditionalism is what makes it left wing.

>and yet anarchism is traditionally considered left
because marxists like to larp. anarchy is true far-right

>inb4 stormniggers and other socialists rant and rave without being able to correct pic related

Attached: 1iJW5EL.jpg (798x415, 114.38K)

Vaush is another breed of stupid, or better yet, he clearly doesn't support anything he says, he just shills.
The true way a "stateless society" would protect itself is through its individuals. Each person by their own protecting themselves against enemies. But since he is a leftist, he can't support individualism nor even mention the word individual.

>dichotomy

anarchy as you know it in media means just chaos
anarchy in political theory means that there is no need for a state because people are smart enough to govern themselves

>anarchism is neutral
imagine, this is a socialist coping, 100%

>believes to be able to defend himself into a lawless land
you will get fucked over from all sides, and you won't be able to do anything about it, until you will accept to band together with others to self-defence
that's when a new kingdom will be born
simple realism
crime has always existed, and will always exist
a lawless society is just asking for crime to fuck it over

anarchism by itself doesn't last, it's not a stable state of things,
the first guy to scare all others into submission, will dictate the new laws
it's unavoidable

>What separates Anarchism from Right Wing Libertarianism, is it's rejection of cultural authorities as well.
or, you know, the fact that one wants absolutely no government and the other wants a limited one. both want a rejection of central authority

>right wing means muh culture
>muh tradition
so the "left wing" founding fathers formed a country based on their "left wing" policies that now right wing conservatives fight to... conserve... imagine using this arbitrary, nonsense definition

>no rules
anarchy is no rulers, not no rules

just look at america
do you believe it to be a land of freedom, by virtue of having lax laws?
america is a shithole, dominated by corporations and mass medias which everyday mindwash the entire population to follow a predetermined narrative
america is an oligarchy, by virtue of it's lax laws

Attached: 1971 America Globohomo China.jpg (2672x2572, 1.65M)

>how can equality be enforced without a state?

... you need a state to keep up inequality, so, without it, equality is the natural result!

>the first guy to scare all others into submission, will dictate the new laws
>it's unavoidable
this could be said of anything. which is why no solution is simply changing an economic system like many think is the way. looking at anarchy in historical sense is not a fair lens. anarchy usually came about after massive wars and the like. when people were so tired of the mayhem and wanted any semblance of their old life back. not to mention, we are talking about a defenseless population, demoralized completely. an armed populace need not fear those "roving gangs of thugs" that so many bring up the instant anarchy is talked about

Attached: 06.jpg (1024x768, 419.99K)

Anarchist here. There are many permutations of anarchist thought. Its primarily associated with the Left, and Communism, because it originally emerged in its current form in the Russian communist revolution., They liked marx, and were allies with the commies to over through the Tzarist landlord aristocracy, but were betrayed by the commies and executed.

Then again, the biggest expression of anarchism in recent times was during the spanish civil war in the 1930s- the anarchist trade unions in the north (CNT), were fighting against the republican right wing forces led by general franco. Again, they were betrayed by the commies, and Franco won.

Anyway there are other, less lefty, more individualistic philosophies of Anarchism too, like Stirnirism- the basic right to be your own man, and be left alone as much as possible.

Etc. Its basically really boring though, its direct democracy. That means a vote on everything, and interminable meetings.

>so the "left wing" founding fathers formed a country based on their "left wing" policies that now right wing conservatives fight to... conserve... imagine using this arbitrary, nonsense definition
i have no idea what you're trying to say
>anarchy is no rulers, not no rules
Rules don't exist unless they are enforced. The enforcers will be considered rulers.

>just look at america
when? pre 1900s? when it was more akin to how it was intended? or do you mean after the 1960s welfare state that constantly goes completely against the founding principles? of course every clown wants to bring up current america and act like this was anything close to how it was intended.. the founding fathers would have been shooting people over 100 years ago

>dominated by corporation
hmm, now what does this sound like? marriage of corporation and state?? hmmm.. that's capitalism, right? oh wait, no.. it's ummmm, don't tell me now!

Attached: jefferson food.jpg (1024x768, 139.65K)

Incorrect. Left and right are a false choice to frame discussion. True anarchists understand that the left are pathetic Statists seeking control over the individual AND the right are Corporatsits seeking control over the individual.

Both sides are idiots who enforce the collective group in an attempt to control the individual. Both the left and right are equally pathetic, and useful idiots.

Leftist anarchism tends to assume that when people are properly "educated" (indoctrinated into leftist beliefs), they will act in mutually-supporting ways without needing institutions to organize them. They think that any deviant behavior will be punished or prevented of by ad-hoc mobs of enlightened people. I think the biggest faulty assumption is the implied belief that it is possible to create an educational program that will get the overwhelming majority of people subjected to the program to behave identically and consistently with the program's goals.

>i have no idea what you're trying to say
of course you don't, no one does because that shit makes absolutely no fucking sense. the liberal "left wing" founding fathers made a country based off "left wing" politics that now the "right wing" aim to conserve.. lmao, makes no fucking sense

>rules don't exist unless they are enforced
so who's "enforcing" gravity? communities will almost always denounce certain things, like harming someone for no reason, pedophilia and the like. people act like it's only the state that are causing people to act certain ways when in reality most people already subscribe to the same basic laws.. don't be a fucking prick to other people, non-aggression principle. you want to be a shit-head, go ahead and go hide in the woods. try to fuck with others and you're likely to get yourself killed, as it should be

The only kind of anarchism that makes any sense is anarcho-primitivism.

Doesn’t mean it’s a good idea though.

Incorrect. Go look up Anarchoprimitivism. They absolutely fucking hate the left for their victimhood-totem competition to get the most gibs by convincing everyone they are the biggest victims. The left are hated because they are hypocrites REQUIRING industrial modernity to exist to enforce their union-communist bullshit “muh workers” Marxism shit.

The consider "transphobia" to be "a government"

>the left are pathetic Statists seeking control over the individual AND the right are Corporatsits seeking control over the individual.
you are describing nothing but the left.. the problem you are having, it seems, is the one that most have. they believe "conservative/liberal" to mean "left/right", when it's not always the case. corporation married to the state is fascism, another form of left wing bull shit. both ends of a spectrum do not compose of socialism/total state control, this is madness

Attached: 1623003281441.jpg (2400x2400, 1.35M)

Attached: 1600372454003m.jpg (746x1024, 202.48K)

>how can equality be enforced without a state?
consider how indians used to have a republic with a rule of law, before that, every single alien tribe was considered "anarchy". In theory, a small government by the people, to the people and for the people is a republic, but depending on context is just a "bunch of anarchists".

>leftist anarchism
these are called marxists, they're delusional.

>I think the biggest faulty assumption is the implied belief that it is possible to create an educational program that will get the overwhelming majority of people subjected to the program to behave identically and consistently with the program's goals.
why? others have been doing it for many, many years with great success.. we just have to do a proper form of it, one that isn't trying to retard the population

Attached: deliberate dumbing down.jpg (1958x2560, 531.46K)

It's not. Lefty anarchists are all communists.

freemason divide and conquer.

It's impossible to not have hierarchy. You can't have a society without it. Anarchy is only temporary. Anarchists who think they can have an anarchist society don't understand that hierarchies inevitably emerge. You can't just do whatever you want. You're right though that anarchy is a tool for switching between systems. It's only temporary and a means to an end.

>how can equality be enforced without a state?
LOL how do you think? Violence.

anarchy also has absolutely fuck all to do with "equality" as it is seen today. we're all equal in that we each have the right to strive for what we wish, so long as we don't harm another in the process. there is absolutely no such thing as equality and no actual socialist really believes in such a thing. hence the "real socialism has never been tried" cope

>anarchy means no hierarchy
this, again, is marxist drivel. you cannot remove hierarchy, correct. no matter WHAT you do, people will always acknowledge someone greater than others at certain things, and have them in positions that suit their abilities. a family will always have hierarchy, nature has hierarchy, it's inherent. only marxists, including the ones who pretend/fancy themselves something else, believe in such nonsense