There is no such thing as left or right Anarchism

The left and right of what?

The concept of political left and right dates back to the french revolutionary period. The king sat in the center and those who argued that the state should accomplish some list of interventionist social actions sat to the left and those who argued for some meddling in economic or judicial affairs of some other people, sat to the right. Many of the individuals in this arrangement may or may not have had the best intentions for their neighbors and comfreres. They were legal assistants to the monopoly state hoping to gain favor and influence with the powerful great leader. Seeking to motivate and guide the fist of authority.

Is anarchism politics?

Anarchism is famously known to be against monopoly politics, authority and government. It is the social philosophy that says “politicians are unnecessary for workable human society, individualistic or collectivist.” Or at least, it says that, even if the state were considered necessary for a workable society, that wouldn’t mean the state is justified. Anarchism is a reactionary response to a claim of subservience by an external actor. Usually a claim of this sort is a threat backed up by violence and so most rationalist anarchists declare that the dichotomy between aggressive and defensive interpersonal violence is a defining characteristic of anarchist thought. Anarchism is social action but society and politics are not the same thing. Some like to imagine a history, reaching farther back then their own experience can assure them of. A historiology of quaint, patronizing, narcicistic judgement. The past is innocent in their view. It is innocence itself. Laws were once sensible. Police were once peace keeping. Politicians once represented the “people”. Alas, ”the People” is a chimera. The noble savage turned out to be the same savage nobles we should be used to around the world. We are all anarchists in as much travel, employment, culture, currency, love and relationship as we guess is realistic to achieve in our small and simply lives. In the best parts of our lives. But not in the political. “Political” once meant social or interpersonal and only slipped slowly out of Aristotel’s grip and landed in the panopticon classroom. At present all social issues are sphere’s claimed and considered the rightful domain of the state and it’s infernal authority. The state is a parasite that consumes the vibrance of life that surrounds it. The state claims to be the inventor of safety and charity. The state teaches the false doctrine that the only existing society is a vapid unkultur known as, “political culture”. Anarchism is the abolition of political authority in any part of the social sphere.

Why the left is wrong

The left says they care about the underdogs enduring unfortunate lives. They have been raised with a faux chivalry towards all perceived under classes. They assure the rest of us that they have direct positive intention for those who are deemed weak or incapable. Those who can be held to be not up to the herd. Those useless masses need the beneficient gloved hand of the humanitarian. While still holding the guillotine in the other hand the humanitarian sitting to the left of the seat of power, knows in a casual and off-hand manor, what is best for any hapless and pathetic soul. The man on the left is sure that the worker is as unhappy with his work as the monopoly state is. The man on the left wants to whip and equalize any individual who excels above the herd. The man on the left wants to tax the efforts of the eager to keep uppity untouchables from rising up the ladder of self worth and to prevent their impending entry to the sphere of the gods.

Why the right is wrong

The right wants to conserve value. It wants to weigh ponderously any radical change that might pass on the wind from day to day. The man on the right is sure of the soundness of his inherited wisdom. His truths were forged with Thor’s hammer. They are infused with the same power and authority. They have the same tendency towards violence and mass killing. The man on the right is so sure of his traditions even when he himself cannot to be said to follow these tradition, that he would flatten an entire city with a bomb. He would tear the skin off a three year old girl and set her on fire in front of her mother. Because his heritage is unquestionable. Because through stern obedience to the past, the seat of authority will guide a aimless mass of lemming men towards safety and the placid quietude of elderly retirement and slow death.

Toward an anarchist alliance of disunity.

There is a third way. Sitting next to the king for any other reason than to gorge at the table, drink rudely and fart would be attempting to garner favor with the beast. Besides, sitting at the table with the king is dreadfully boring and unproductive. There is no seat to take. It is thrust upon all of us to not sit down. To overthrow the table or at the least to simply refuse or forget to show up. To host a better feast or perhaps to poison the food. To connect with others who won’t show up as well. Together we can refuse to show up to the bloody feast of souls.