myshoono wrote:
I disagree. Politics is all things that effect people and if you are living without government politics still come into play. Left and right is just another way of saying conservative or liberal. It is all in the language. If you lived in a small society of say a dozen people and one of them wanted an abortion for example then a right wing person would say she can`t have one. The left is, to me, simply a way of saying that it is her body and her choice. That fits in perfectly with Anarchism. Of course not all Anarchists agree on all things but the ones I tend to agree with are those who support the freedom of the individual over the desires of the majority.

With regards to labels.
If I say I'm an anarchist, what am I saying?
I'm saying that I don't see the need of a State, a hierarchical government and that I think empowered and responsible people can work together for the good of all. I'm not really saying anything else.
If anyone else chose to associate the "label" with anything else, that'd be up to them innit

dubmeup wrote:
I would agree with that and perhaps it is a double edged sword to ever use a label because people have misconceptions about the meaning of things like Anarchism and perhaps different ideas of what it means to be "left wing" or whatever else.

Labels are a bad idea, full stop, imo. For example, I could say I was hung like a horse, but the fact remains, I'm not.

i-baster wrote:
So,just an anarchist then? I don't see where this proclamation of "a left wing anarchist" ever has to come into play. Not all right-wingers are anti-abortion, and I've met a few left-wingers who ARE. Of course,yes,it all boils down to a personal level where peoples' views aren't so easily boxed in by strict left/right - I'd say generally most people are probably a mixture of both depending on any particular individual issue.

As a whole,though, as a generalisation, it is seen that "the left" tends to favour more BIG government, and is more pro-government regulation. So you can see how the term a "left wing anarchist" can come across as really ironic

myshoono wrote:
Well I disagree really with that. I don`t see many examples of left wing government let alone a desire for big government. Regulation yes but that is to avoid government being taken over by business, oops too late.

But no I am not just an Anarchist. Again this is just how I see myself and not something that I go around declaring to strangers. It is kind of like how I got into Buddhism. I learned about it and it made sense, I already agreed with it before I knew anything about it. I am against war an corruption and business rule etc etc so I will label myself left wing. Of course as demonstrated by this topic it was perhaps a mistake because people do not agree with me on the meanings that those labels have.

My understanding of the terms and yours are different and so to me the terms are not ironic or at odds with each other at all to me. I am for equal rights and against oppression. I am what people would probably consider left wing.

myshoono wrote:
Within accepted Western boundaries then yes you're right. The left boundary being Socialism which does indeed involve BIG government.
If you carried on going left to pure Communism though, that government is gone is it not? Theoretically of course, not the practical examples of "Communism" we've seen in the world which I wouldn't personally describe as Communism.

anarcho syndalism

i-baster wrote:

You can call yourself an anachist you can call yourself what ever you like. Im a tree

The question is why do we feel we have to call ourselves anything.

i-baster wrote:
again, lol.

nirvana wrote:
Based on an awful lot of the things I've seen you write on tinterwebz, I'd call you an Islamaphobe.

That is not to say that I think an Islamaphobe is all that you are is it.....

Hey Ibaster great thread, Anarchy, actual anarchy and not simply petit bourgeois utopianism called "Anarchism", is a radical Left wing Ideology, so I agree with you there.

Andyh imo has a very strange personal definition of anarchy probably incompatible with the majority of Anarchists throughout history, ie Ravachol, Durruti or Galleani who advocated direct action against the state, andyh advocates financial participation and independence, non participation in politics and capital ownership without contribution to the social state through taxes.

i dont know who i am. threads like this make me wonder, do you guys have a list of things that you think you are or that you believe in or something?
how about im independent and i rule myself. thats the best i can do.
i dont really care about other peoples beliefs i can get along with most anyone. i dont like when i get told what to believe or do or whatever. other than that we can all be friends and play grab ass if you want.

I'd say that makes you a 'free-thinker' batou.

A 'label' that I would apply to myself also (if I had to choose a 'label' that is)

Fundamentally it boils down to change, i would say currently it is very hard for alienated, competing individuals to just get along, self govern, so for me the west requires extensive social, cultural and political change which is a Left Wing perspective.

I dunno I always question ideas like that, I mean maybe you do, I don't know if it's possible though?-Jean-Paul Sartre

The people of the western world know the system is not going to collapse.

All you can really do is be Anti-War publicly or complain about the system on forums like this.

Because if your waiting around for this system to collapse you will probably take that to the grave.

At least here in the US nothing is really changing in terms of the system.

Poor people still suffering with addictions, rich people still spending money.

Just be Anti-War, Anti-Violence, Anti-Killing with your public views.

At least that's how I am.

Guevarista wrote:
i guess we're all intertwined hey. for the most part i dont give two shits what someone thinks, lifes a joke.

Guevarista wrote:
Since when did anarchists advocate a state and taxes?

Again

You guys haven't a clue tbh.

andyh wrote:
Well the thing about Anarchism is that it is as open for interpretation as any ideology or label. There are many different schools of thought regarding how society should function. I am sure you are aware of this but I felt I should point this out to you since you think some people(not sure who you are including or not including) do not have a clue.

As somebody mentioned above it is most likely that the state will not fall on a global or even countrywide scale in our lifetime so Anarchism is what some might say is just a pipe dream. However Anarchism does occur on smaller levels within groups and people like myself use it as a standard if you like.

I like this quote that sums this up:

“Anarchy might be imaginary - meaning that we don’t now and may never have a society without rulers - but anarchism is a value-set, like pacifism or Christian love, or Buddhist empathy. It is not a description of the world, but a standard for judging situations within the world.”
— bkMarcus

It is a shame that this topic kind of got off track. I was not making a topic about Anarchism or labels but about people who are not open about their beliefs or motives. There are a lot of people here claiming to not label themselves etc but by doing so they are of course labeling themselves in a manner that is apparently as unclear as saying "i am an anarchist" but is also giving much more potential for hiding certain stands and coming off as kind of snotty.

No offense is intended by that or anything I am just trying to make a point and discuss it.

As for calling yourself a tree that also has certain preconceived ideas attached to it. People will assume you are crazy or silly or trying to be funny. My purpose in describing how I see myself, which isn`t so much part of a list in my head as just something I tend to agree with and find interesting, was simply to give you some information about where I am coming from. Experience has shown me the perils of such a statement and I don`t normally label myself but I feel no shame in using that label as I do truly believe that we would be better off if we governed ourselves in the truest sense.

Somebody should start a topic and call it Anarchism just in case anybody would like to discuss my original topic in here.

As a reminder I was talking about conspiracy authors or anybody really who present certain information but do not reveal the whole of their agenda or their views etc. You know the person who is quick to say your idea is terrible but does not offer anything in response.

thanks for the responses though they are all appreciated.

With regards to labels I'd like to refer back to my comment about Nirvana's Islamophobia .
Really, if we are going to use labels to describe ourselves (as a means of saving words basically), we need to use a string of them to convey an even vaguely true picture. I'm not aware of any label that could describe the complexity of an individual Human to any reasonable extent.
In the context of the OP though they are convenient. They help the person you're conversing with to understand your position on a subject (assuming that you both understand the label).
I think this topic ties in with such phrases as having the courage of your convictions and wearing your heart on your sleeve quite nicely. Personally I find it far easier to interact with people when they do so. If I get the impression from someone that they are being disingenuous or in some way hiding their true thoughts I tend to be wary of them and that colours the interaction.
For example I have a certain amount of respect for the way Nirvana declares his views on subjects like Sharia. The fact he does that means that I'd be able to discuss related subjects with him from an empowered conversational position.
Our recent and now banned members however were hiding their true thoughts from the start. This meant that I was unable to have any respect for them and unable to have a decent discussion with them. I would label them as "tossers"