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.

  • fxomt@lemm.ee
    101·
    3 days 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.

    I agree, but some of our “peers” think it’s necessary to cause a mass revolution that’ll cause thousands of death. When i think of revolution i think of something along the lines of syndicalism. We have the power of the workers, why not use it? why would we have to construct an entire military and fight a powerful one?

    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.

    Liberalism has infected modern political debates. While it is better than ultraconservatism that is not a high bar. And decades of red scare propaganda from the US and the failures of ““AES”” have completely tarnished our reputation. People see socialism as this scary thing when at its basis it is literally just the workers owning the means of production. I find people are less uncomfortable when you mention Market Socialism, and show them how it’s not too radical.

    • cqst [she/her]@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      11·
      2 days 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).

      • fxomt@lemm.ee
        1·
        2 days ago

        That’s objectively wrong, but okay. Capitalism is the private ownership of the means of production, market socialism is the social ownership of the means of production while still keeping markets. Looking at both it’s clear who the winner is.

        And do you expect people to pop out of the womb as anarcho communists? Baby steps, market socialism is a gateway to other leftist thought.

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

          • fxomt@lemm.ee
            1·
            2 days ago

            I agree, but it’s a stepping stone. Both as an ideology, and as for the status quo. If people transition from social democracy to market socialism, it opens the gates for them to learn of other ideologies and understand why capitalism and markets are dehumanizing.

            I’d rather live in a market where it’s all co-ops and we own the means of production than corpos and private ownership. Even better, communism. But let’s be realistic, that’s not going to happen any time soon. That’s why we need steps like this.