Disagree with the video 

Discussions of notes

@gopfertami 7 months ago Anarchism is far right. Liberalism is also right wing. On the other side conservatism is right wing but fascist is not. So it was not truly left vs right. But it was labelled as such and we remember it that way. Nowadays left and right is no longer used in its original meaning but rather to address emotions.

@gopfertami 1 month ago (edited) ​​ @davidcox9234 anarchism is purely right wing ideology. You won't be able to give a single point from the anarchist ideology which could be considered as left wing. 

 Reply greatguyaaa @gopfertami This is pure nonsense, Professor Green of Oxford University has a whole book devoted to left wing anarchism. Cancel

The argument always begins the same way: with a young man in black insisting that anarchism means freedom, and another young man—also in black, naturally—replying that freedom for whom is precisely the question. One imagines the scene repeating itself endlessly across centuries: in a Paris café thick with smoke in 1848, in a Spanish union hall before the guns began firing, in an American college dormitory beside a shelf of Austrian economics and survival food. The anarchist enters history declaring war on kings; he leaves it arguing about landlords.

The first anarchists emerged from the furnace of nineteenth-century Europe, where factories rose like iron cathedrals and workers were fed into them with the efficiency of coal. Men like Pierre-Joseph Proudhon and Mikhail Bakunin did not see capitalism as the antidote to tyranny but as one of its newest disguises. To them, the state and the factory owner were cousins—one ruled with soldiers, the other with hunger. Their dream was not the liberation of the market but liberation from domination itself: no kings, no czars, no monopolists, no bureaucratic priesthoods. The anarchist of the nineteenth century was therefore unmistakably a creature of the left, born in strikes, barricades, and revolutionary congresses.

Then history performed one of its usual tricks and shifted the scenery. The twentieth century witnessed socialism hardening into bureaucracy and, in places, outright terror. Out of that wreckage emerged another anti-statist tradition, especially in the United States, where distrust of government mingled with frontier individualism and market mythology. Thinkers like Murray Rothbard arrived waving not the black-and-red banner of workers’ revolt but the pure black flag of radical property rights. They regarded taxation as theft, government as organized coercion, and the free market as the nearest thing to voluntary human order ever devised. To the older anarchists this sounded absurd: abolishing the state only to enthrone corporations appeared rather like overthrowing the monarchy so that feudal barons could govern directly.

And so the quarrel continues. One faction insists that capitalism is merely private government with better advertising; the other argues that markets are what remain when coercive states disappear. Both call themselves anarchists because both despise centralized authority. Yet they are separated by a philosophical canyon. One dreams of communes and federations of workers; the other of contracts and voluntary exchange. The dispute is therefore not over whether freedom matters, but over what power actually looks like when it puts on civilian clothes.