The debate "Far right beliefs are actually anarchism not fascism." was started by
December 29, 2017, 5:54 am.
By the way, Masonearl is disagreeing with this statement.
13 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 24 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most people are against to this statement.
Ematio posted 6 arguments to the agreers part.
Masonearl posted 1 argument, Nemiroff posted 9 arguments, Slymcfly posted 6 arguments, AnarchoCommunist posted 1 argument to the disagreers part.
Ematio, AnnaLee, chasediedrich1, wallingson13 and 9 visitors agree.
Masonearl, blue_rayy, Slymcfly, FiddleStorm, TreyO, AnarchoCommunist, Impossible, Craven198787 and 16 visitors disagree.
Wrong. Anarcho-Capitalists are made fun of in anarchist circles because they are not real anarchists. Anarchism is against unnecessary hierarchy, including capitalism. And yes, it does work. Catalonia during the spanish civil war operated under Anarcho-Syndicalysm (a form of anarcho-communism) and did very well.
Ematio, the way I've always seen it, you usually define your party on how much government involvement you want. Republicans traditionally want less government, especially when it comes to things like welfare, constitutional rights, and anything else the federal government is involved in. They believe in governing a little more by state, smaller governments that provide the appropriate knowledge of the area, and what needs to be done to "help" that area.
Democrats are more willing to allow the government into their lives, in exchange for helping the needy. Democrats are usually more compassionate, which isn't always a good thing, but is sometimes necessary in order to balance out the more hard-up Republicans who believe everyone can pull themselves up by their own bootstraps(me).
Both parties, in my opinion, have been ESSENTIAL for making this country continue to work, and the reason why this great experiment of America has worked out so well. It's a balancing act, and one that is getting more and more difficult with Democrats going more to the left. Because in response, Republicans have had to become more centrists, to keep the scales from tipping over.
I agree that traditional untraditional is a variable measure that can change... but that change is usually slow.
the traditional vs untraditional model appears, to me at least, to be the most accurate description of the left right divide both in the states and internationally over the last 200 years at least. it does have that glaring flaw you pointed out but in response I ask for a more accurate comprehensive alternative that isn't a seperate left right definition for every issue.
internationally American liberals are right wingers... the rest of the free, 1st world has long abandoned liberitarian policies. they usually define American policies as right vs extreme right.
and I would consider the Soviet union with its single man rule, and disproportionately rich ruling *class* as an instant disqualification from communism no matter what they choose to call themselves. do you believe dictator Assad is a president of a democratic republic?
Soviet union, China, and North Korea are fascist in every way but name. so I would disagree with that assessment.
I never said that it was capitalism. I said that before property rights were created arbitrarily out of thin air (usually via force).
it was in response to your claim that "They believe in no government and everyone will magically form a communist society on their own free will." when in reality a communist society is far from magical and was the norm for a long time as people depended on their community for survival and prosperity.
that being said, it wasn't capitalism exactly, but it was an effectively identical model, especially considering your thread against worker rights. serfs and slaves are essentially the same thing as low wage workers in a liberitarian dystopia.
I haven't seen this circle but I have seen a horseshoe with the extreme ends being both big government or small government (anarchy/liberitarian, fascist/communist) which are similar to each other, with the middle being moderates with less extreme ideologies
the tips were judged not by what their beliefs are, but how far they were from the middle.
No matte what "your definition" is, that is not what the world uses. When you read news and hear about "far right" parties they are not referring to a bunch of libertarians. So if we're referring to the real world, liberty and individualism is not right wing.
It sucks, but we have to accept that Americans that refer to small government and the free market as "right wing" don't know what they're talking about.
I think it would be easier if libertarians could just be called liberals, which they are. But unfortunately progressives and socialists stole the word.
I've seen an interesting model with a circle rather than a spectrum.
The top is anarchy and the bottom is totalitarianism. The bottom right is national socialism and the bottom left is marxist socialism.
Can we define this one thing first. What is the scale that defines whether something is right wing or left first?
My definition is how much government interference should be in society, with Far left being Communism, and Far right being Anarchy.
Slavery and serfdom has nothing to do with capitalism.
Before natural property rights were recognized people lived on the backs of others, it was not ypur peaceful communist utopia that dosen't exist. Serfdom and slavery WAS the pre-capitalist model. So stop equating slavery and serfdom with voluntary employment because its dead opposite.
And Nemiroff is right. Even the positions that people were working in, was usually the same as whatever their parents did. The way they made a living was something that was passed down from generation to generation. You can still see some remnants of it in America even.
Dang Nemiroff look at you go! This guy is smarter than I thought!!! Nice history lesson!
but communist society is what humanity had for tens of thousands of years before some invented land ownership and profited off the labor of slaves/employees/peasants/surfs. and most often, that privilege was hereditary, not earned.
Well anarcho socialists are in the left wing circle. They believe in no government and everyone will magically form a communist society on their own free will.
Anarcho capitalists are usually in libertarian circles which is closer to an actual anarchist.
However I would argue that the counter-culture now belongs to conservatives. Especially Christian conservatives. There is nothing more counter-culture today than those people. Conservative Christians go against the grain right now, especially if you're referring to the left.
Ematio, anarchy has always been part of the left-wing counter-culture. It isn't saying anything bad about Democrats at all. It's just a statement that Democrats tend to be the anarchists, and Republicans tend to be libertarian.
Nemiroff I agree with your explanation of the right and big government issues. However Left vs Right is not traditional vs untraditional.
Tradition and change are not absolute truths, they depend on what the tradition is or what the change is. If it is non traditional to practice nationalism does it become left wing to change to it? no. That's why the right is nationalist and militaristic and the left is collectivist in terms of material wealth.
This is also why liberals in America are not liberal at all, they are leftists and socialists. you have to believe in liberal things to be a liberal, like private property and free markets.
Basically I think the spectrum deternines WHAT you believe not what you believe in relation to a countries history.
In your case you could regard communists in modern russia as right wing because they want to relive the past.
Explain to me how anarchy is left wing?
I was just following someone else's logic to a conclusion. I agree anarchy is left wing, but for a different reason. anarchy is untraditional in almost every way. traditional is right wing, different is left.
what is your definition of right and left?
I can't believe I'm about to say this, but I agree with Nemiroff on this one. I think he really nailed this one right on the head.
so if someone does not believe in markets, and instead prefers some community effort thing, like socialists, and anarchists, they are left.
therefore anarchy is left
also drugs, surveillance, and war are all big right wing ideals.
all things liberitarians dislike I believe, are all hatred by the left and calls for smaller government there.
I wonder why libertarians just focus on the one commerce issue over all these social issues and vote Republican? especially since they value PERSONAL freedoms.
Hard to say. Honestly, it differs on individual beliefs. Another player that comes into play is the belief in socialism or free market
yes I agree, there are many republicans who want big government. they are still part of the right tho?
what about the left? wanting less government telling them who to love or be.
The right does not wish to stop migration. May I ask where you saw this?
Also, it's unfair to group all republicans under these ideas of more government. For instance, there can be Establisment Republicans, and Libertarian Republicans, with Establisment wanting big government, and Libertarian wanting less.
but what about other issues, such as traditional values, religion, migration?
the right wishes to stop migration, yet that is government activity. with minimal government people should be able to come and go as they please.
enforcement against gay marriage, or what gender one can be both involve more government.
many right wing stances involve more government
My definition of left wing is more government control, and my definiton of right wing is less government control. Hence my saying that anarchism is extreme right and facism is extreme left. Libertarianism would be under right, as it is advocating for less government control
And your definition of left wing?
You did in your first comment.
I would consider libertarianism center/up.
Far right and far right as both collectivist in dofferent senses.
I would define the right as xenophobic and nationalist. This is similar the European spectrum. Also why the Nazis were called national socialists, or "Right wing collectivists" by the austrian school.
historybuff and Lachlan. how do you define left and right wing?
what are you responding to? no one brought up liberitarianism.
Libertarianism is not right wing.
what would literal far right beliefs be and where did you get your defininition of far right?
Literal far right beliefs are closer to anarchism that facism, but the alt-right's beliefs tend closer to Facism
if you look at their attributes, nations like the USSR, North Korea, and China are far more fascist then communist in every aspect except name.
strong (and enforced) nationalism
prioritizing nation over person
traditional, family oriented social order
they are the opposite of communism
takes a killer to glorify killing
Napoleon said kill 1000 be known as butcher, kill 1000000 be known as a concour.
not so much age. just different. democracy came from ancient Greece but in the 18th century, it was still a revolutionary idea.
for some reason, just labeling them old doesn't feel right and seems to have more of a negative feel to it compared to conservative or traditional.
oh ok. I thought it was more about the ideology itself rather than the age of the ideology.
the left right divide is not big government vs small government, it's conservative vs progressive. liberitarianism and fascism are conservative, traditional perspectives. anarchy and communism are new, progressive ideologies.