Can someone explain to me what actually the left-wing anarchist want? I undestand they want society without state and without capitalism, but how is that possible together? If they abolish the state, how will they force people to stop having private property? I suppose they'd use violence... and isn't that the same thing as the state?

Left-wing anarchists is an oxymoron.

__________________

Anarchism is funny

Left-wing anarchism is divided into a few subtypes... mutualists, syndicalists, and communists to name a few.
The syndicalists tend to believe society is best set up as a series of trade unions rather than a state, each working for its own interest.
Mutualists (I'm including single-taxers in this for simplicity's sake) believe in private property but believe land is something that cannot logically be owned by any individual. Same with scarce natural resources found in land.
Communists... well they believe in something similar to the commies we're used to... but without the state. Done through decentralization of government to the point where smaller groups can run everything independently.

Realistic? Probably not. But neither is anarcho-capitalism (the very concept of the market taking the place of government is extremely ridiculous. It's like claiming that forces of nature can take the place of society).
I'm drawn to mutualism myself... but I don't see it happening anytime soon.

__________________
That information is classified and to be given only on a need-to-know basis...

And I do not need to know.

Anarchy is ridicules as a whole. The idea that people will be absolutely free and nothing bad can come of that.


Those who do want anarchy should expect the Water World type results.. I think anarcho-capitalism is possible, if we define capitalism more by barter trade, because gold might be worth something to you but worthless to somebody else. Then what do you do?

No other choice but conflict. Under government, both parties are forced to accept the value of gold. Whether or not they think differently is irrelevant.


Now, left wing anarchy atleast has some stable ground. Capitalism plays no role, and without capitalism, government isn't really nesscary. If everyone is in government, who exactly is being governed? What left-wing anarchists want is the smurves. Where we help eachother out but pretty much live our own lives, doing our own things.

People's ambitions to become a doctor or an artist are not fueled by profit, but by something deeper, more spiritual. Ofcourse figures, the left-wing rejects spirituality. And if a left-tard would like to argue that they reject religion and not spirituality. That's splitting hairs, all religion is, is an organization of spirituality with common beliefs and goals. Evidently, that's where smurf logic gets you. The Vatican.


Irony is a cruel mistress.

I'm also in the camp that so far all proposed forms of anarchy are simply non viable transitions to something else.

Left wing anarchy is prone to creation of a too powerful state.

Right wing anarchy is pretty much a straight run to financial feudalism

Lefts are more delusional, rights, well, more evil I guess, they fancy that it is they that will be the Lords and Counts of their nation, and certainly not the serfs. And given the people that usually advocate it they have a fair shot at it.


However I find that both tend to fail horribly in dealing with the neighbors when they become hostile.

The best form of anarchy I'd say is primitivism.


Technology could not survive because there's no social structure to preserve/create it.


We'd all be practically animals, living off the land, and killing/screwing eachother to our heart's content. We'd only be as evil as the local possum or coral snake.

The Milton Friedman's of this world put total faith in the so called free market which they claim is the most efficient way of allocating resources. For them laisse-faire capitalism and the ANARCHY that underpins the 'invisible hand' is the new religion - a kind of Hobbesian nightmare where human beings are pitted aginst fellow human beings in 'the war of each against all'. This singular economic worldview is taught in the colleges and universities throughout the countries of Western liberal democracies - a prevailing orthodoxy that is falsely deemed to be unchanging and natural. Those nations who reject this orthodoxy are invariably coerced by the economic institutions (IMF, World Bank etc) who act at the behest of the major powers. If however, the coercion of the 'invisible hand' fails to intrasagent nations into line, then the 'visible military fist' will fall down on them and they will be attacked with bullets and bombs.

However, their blind faith in the free market capitalist system is inherently prone repeated crisis as Karl Marx was at pains to point out 150 years ago. At such times, the free market system will be bailed out by us, the taxpayers. The capitalist class therefore can never lose out under such a system - a system designed by them, in order to benefit them. When they garner massive profits during periods of economic boom, they get all the profits but when the system needs to be bailed out, it is us who underwrite it.

The Milton Friedman's of this world put total faith in the free market which they claim is the most efficient way of allocating resourses. For them, laisse-fairre capitalism and the ANARCHY that underpins it, is the new fundamentalist religion. Their God is the 'invisible hand' - a kind of Hobbesian nightmare where the notion that human beings are pitted against each other in the 'war of each against all', is deemed to be an unchanging and a. 'natural' phenomenon.

Nations who resist this singular prevailing economic orthodoxy will invariably be coerced into accepting it as a result of the dictats of economic institutions like the IMF and the World Bank, who act at the behest of the major powers in order to bleed them dry. If however, the coercion of the 'invisible hand' fails to bring 'difficult' but defenceless nations like Iraq into line, then the 'iron fist' will come down on them and they will be attacked with bullets and bombs and their wealth plundered in a less overt way. This process of Western state intervention and economic/military plunder has been a characteristic method of extracting profit from other countries. It is what is meant by 'imperialism' or as Rosa Luxemberg called it 'the highest stage of capitalism.

The capitalist system though is deeply flawed and is inherently prone to repeated economic crisis as Karl Marx was at pains to point out 150 years ago. At such times the free market will be bailed out by us, the working class, in the form of taxes. The capitalist ruling class, therefore, are unlikely to ever lose out under such a system - a system designed and implemented by them in order to safeguard their interests. When the banks and financial institutions make huge profits we don't get a share of them, but when they go bust, it is us who underwrite them in the form of tax subsidy. As Noam Chomsky put it: The ANARCHY of the free market system can be summed up as capitalism for the masses (in other words we are at the mercy of the ups and downs of the system), and socialism for the ruling class (who face no risk because their potential losses are underwritten by us).

I wish people would come to realize that every human system has been and always will be flawed. We strive and strive for perfection, but perfection is not meant for us. Like Mozart, a longing for something which we can never have, yet always fight and struggle to attain...