5 ms·

That's what really blows my mind. Growing up as Reagan Republican. When did Republicans go from law-and-order, to anarchists? Traditionally anarchism is a le

That's what really blows my mind. Growing up as Reagan Republican. When did Republicans go from law-and-order, to anarchists? Traditionally anarchism is a left-liberal idea. Now the far-right is same as far-left. Left-Right is now a circle.

giraffe_lady 2y ago
This is a very strange view of it. Anarchism is extremely far from liberalism. "Anarcho-capitalists" are more or less just extreme libertarians, they share no history or ideology with any other anarchist movements, no other anarchist movements recognize them as anarchists. The far left and the far right are not the same either where do you even get that! A far left party in the american context is something like democratic socialism, or sure why not actual marxist-leninism. While the far right is proud boys, groypers, literal neonazis, christian integrationists. You may have equal distaste for both but that doesn't mean they share anything else.
- FrustratedMonky 2y ago
  "no other anarchist movements recognize them as anarchists." Once you go down the rabbit whole of trying to define 'anarchist' , there are actually dozens of definitions, and they all argue about who is really anarchist. So, that they don't agree that some other group isn't 'really anarchist', I take it with grain of salt . These extreme Republicans want to get rid of government. I'm using the highest level gloss over, that No-Government is Anarchism. I'm sure in reality, humans would re-coalesce up in communes/tribes/feudal groupings, and thus re-form local groups, and is that still Anarchism? At what point of organization do we stop saying something is 'anarchism'. I'm just saying, when the US breaks up because there is no government, it will be anarchy, and that seems to be what Republicans are shooting for..
  - giraffe_lady 2y ago
    > Once you go down the rabbit whole of trying to define 'anarchist' , there are actually dozens of definitions Which is why I avoided providing or using any definition of anarchism, instead describing the actions of people who consider themselves anarchists. > and they all argue about who is really anarchist. Yes, but there is only one group who consistently considers themselves anarchists but who exactly zero other anarchist groups recognize as anarchists. All other anarchist movements have at least one mutually-recognized peer movement. I'm not saying this is an absolute or the only definition, but it's very useful in this context. There is something different about ancaps. > These extreme Republicans want to get rid of government. They do not! They are not proposing an elimination of the military or police departments or prisons, for example. They are using the DoJ to pursue political enemies, the executive branch to enact and enforce tariffs. In fact exactly the parts of the state that are used to create and enforce hierarchy. I do not know any anarchist movements, other than anarcho-capitalism, that has this goal. I understand why your view of it is alluring, I find it to be so as well. But I have found that it simply has very little explanatory power for this situation. The only thing the far left and right truly share I think, is radicalism. By which I mean an intention or acceptance of rapid and comprehensive change to the dynamics of daily life for the whole population. But the actual changes they want have virtually no overlap.
- cshores 2y ago
  [flagged]
razakel 2y ago
Anarcho-capitalists are not anarchists. They share no history or ideology with any of the other variants of anarchism. They're extreme libertarians/neo-feudalists.
- FrustratedMonky 2y ago
  How are you not seeing how "extreme libertarians/neo-feudalists" is similar to anarchism?
  - razakel 2y ago
    Anarchists don't want a king. Neo-feudalists want to be the king.
    - FrustratedMonky 2y ago
      extreme libertarian's don't. Maybe don't put libertarians and feudalist together.
      - 52-6F-62 2y ago
        Peter Thiel most definitely wants a form of kingship though he professes to be a libertarian I believe it means libertarian in the context of present systems. In their new system, they no longer need to be libertarian. Just absolute ruler. King is even the wrong term. Dictator
        FrustratedMonky 2y ago
        I didn't realize. I guess libertarians have morphed into something new. Can't believe they would be publicly calling for a monarchy, and still call themselves libertarian.
        razakel 2y ago
        It's not the first time they've hijacked the term. It's a smokescreen because they're aware of how unpalatable their beliefs actually are.
rayiner 2y ago
It’s not “anarchism” it’s simply rolling back the bad parts of Reagan’s legacy: free trade, immigration/amnesty, and foreign empire. When Democrats embraced free trade and globalism with Clinton, most of the liberal Reagan republicans and neocons became Democrats. What MAGA is today is what the bulk of the GOP has always been: a coalition of social conservatives and business owners.
- scarface_74 2y ago
  Business owners don’t like the tariffs either. Even American car companies are being hurt by tariffs on steel and car parts.
- FrustratedMonky 2y ago
  "Democrats embraced free trade and globalism with Clinton" History would disagree with this. Republicans and Big Business were always for free trade and globalism. Because in 80's-90's, big-corp was salivating over that sweet cheap-cheap foreign labor. To put this on Democrats is a retcon.
  - rayiner 2y ago
    No, I agree with you. My point is that Democrats embraced it in the 1990s as well. So the Republicans who were otherwise liberals but just in the GOP for the cheap foreign labor switched sides.
- mochomocha 2y ago
  What is so bad about free trade? Isn't competition in free markets something Republicans believe in anymore? Because forcing Americans to buy inferior locally-made products at a premium through artificial restrictions surely isn't that. Free trade and globalization are also a pacifying force, by creating mutual dependencies between countries. Protectionism doesn't work.
  - rayiner 2y ago
    [flagged]
gruez 2y ago
> Now the far-right is same as far-left. Left-Right is now a circle. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horseshoe_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horseshoe_theory
api 2y ago
It's because the far left and the far right are both made of up of people deeply disaffected by the status quo, and when those people talk they often find that at the very least many of their grievances overlap. In terms of today's landscape there is a list of things like LGBTQ issues, race, gender equality, abortion, religion, etc., and if you avoid things on that list you'll find a huge overlap between the views of the far left and the far right. Both are broadly opposed to what's popularly called neoliberalism, the post-Reagan/Clinton post-cold-war order, and the reasons for this opposition overlap quite a bit if you again avoid the topics that I listed. From that perspective, blowing up the system is the goal. When they see trade policies like these crash the present system, they view that as a success because they think the current system is such a mistake that it must be smashed. (I am not making a judgment in this post, just explaining the landscape.)
- rayiner 2y ago
  Correct. The left and right seem like a circle because Pat Buchanan and Bernie Sanders long had a large overlap on issues that have become highly salient today: immigration and free trade.
CalChris 2y ago
Reagan’s administration was very corrupt. So that law and order evidently didn’t apply to them. It was also very profligate. So that fiscal conservatism didn’t apply to them. I don’t see a lot of difference between the actor Ronald Reagan and the actor Donald Trump. Maybe in degree but not in kind. I’ve been a left liberal my whole life. We haven’t gone anywhere.

giraffe_lady 2y ago

This is a very strange view of it. Anarchism is extremely far from liberalism. "Anarcho-capitalists" are more or less just extreme libertarians, they share no history or ideology with any other anarchist movements, no other anarchist movements recognize them as anarchists. The far left and the far right are not the same either where do you even get that! A far left party in the american context is something like democratic socialism, or sure why not actual marxist-leninism. While the far right is proud boys, groypers, literal neonazis, christian integrationists. You may have equal distaste for both but that doesn't mean they share anything else.

FrustratedMonky 2y ago
"no other anarchist movements recognize them as anarchists." Once you go down the rabbit whole of trying to define 'anarchist' , there are actually dozens of definitions, and they all argue about who is really anarchist. So, that they don't agree that some other group isn't 'really anarchist', I take it with grain of salt . These extreme Republicans want to get rid of government. I'm using the highest level gloss over, that No-Government is Anarchism. I'm sure in reality, humans would re-coalesce up in communes/tribes/feudal groupings, and thus re-form local groups, and is that still Anarchism? At what point of organization do we stop saying something is 'anarchism'. I'm just saying, when the US breaks up because there is no government, it will be anarchy, and that seems to be what Republicans are shooting for..
- giraffe_lady 2y ago
  > Once you go down the rabbit whole of trying to define 'anarchist' , there are actually dozens of definitions Which is why I avoided providing or using any definition of anarchism, instead describing the actions of people who consider themselves anarchists. > and they all argue about who is really anarchist. Yes, but there is only one group who consistently considers themselves anarchists but who exactly zero other anarchist groups recognize as anarchists. All other anarchist movements have at least one mutually-recognized peer movement. I'm not saying this is an absolute or the only definition, but it's very useful in this context. There is something different about ancaps. > These extreme Republicans want to get rid of government. They do not! They are not proposing an elimination of the military or police departments or prisons, for example. They are using the DoJ to pursue political enemies, the executive branch to enact and enforce tariffs. In fact exactly the parts of the state that are used to create and enforce hierarchy. I do not know any anarchist movements, other than anarcho-capitalism, that has this goal. I understand why your view of it is alluring, I find it to be so as well. But I have found that it simply has very little explanatory power for this situation. The only thing the far left and right truly share I think, is radicalism. By which I mean an intention or acceptance of rapid and comprehensive change to the dynamics of daily life for the whole population. But the actual changes they want have virtually no overlap.
cshores 2y ago
[flagged]

razakel 2y ago

Anarcho-capitalists are not anarchists. They share no history or ideology with any of the other variants of anarchism. They're extreme libertarians/neo-feudalists.

FrustratedMonky 2y ago
How are you not seeing how "extreme libertarians/neo-feudalists" is similar to anarchism?
- razakel 2y ago
  Anarchists don't want a king. Neo-feudalists want to be the king.
  - FrustratedMonky 2y ago
    extreme libertarian's don't. Maybe don't put libertarians and feudalist together.
    - 52-6F-62 2y ago
      Peter Thiel most definitely wants a form of kingship though he professes to be a libertarian I believe it means libertarian in the context of present systems. In their new system, they no longer need to be libertarian. Just absolute ruler. King is even the wrong term. Dictator
      - FrustratedMonky 2y ago
        I didn't realize. I guess libertarians have morphed into something new. Can't believe they would be publicly calling for a monarchy, and still call themselves libertarian.
        razakel 2y ago
        It's not the first time they've hijacked the term. It's a smokescreen because they're aware of how unpalatable their beliefs actually are.

rayiner 2y ago

It’s not “anarchism” it’s simply rolling back the bad parts of Reagan’s legacy: free trade, immigration/amnesty, and foreign empire. When Democrats embraced free trade and globalism with Clinton, most of the liberal Reagan republicans and neocons became Democrats. What MAGA is today is what the bulk of the GOP has always been: a coalition of social conservatives and business owners.

scarface_74 2y ago
Business owners don’t like the tariffs either. Even American car companies are being hurt by tariffs on steel and car parts.
FrustratedMonky 2y ago
"Democrats embraced free trade and globalism with Clinton" History would disagree with this. Republicans and Big Business were always for free trade and globalism. Because in 80's-90's, big-corp was salivating over that sweet cheap-cheap foreign labor. To put this on Democrats is a retcon.
- rayiner 2y ago
  No, I agree with you. My point is that Democrats embraced it in the 1990s as well. So the Republicans who were otherwise liberals but just in the GOP for the cheap foreign labor switched sides.
mochomocha 2y ago
What is so bad about free trade? Isn't competition in free markets something Republicans believe in anymore? Because forcing Americans to buy inferior locally-made products at a premium through artificial restrictions surely isn't that. Free trade and globalization are also a pacifying force, by creating mutual dependencies between countries. Protectionism doesn't work.
- rayiner 2y ago
  [flagged]

gruez 2y ago

> Now the far-right is same as far-left. Left-Right is now a circle. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horseshoe_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horseshoe_theory

api 2y ago

It's because the far left and the far right are both made of up of people deeply disaffected by the status quo, and when those people talk they often find that at the very least many of their grievances overlap. In terms of today's landscape there is a list of things like LGBTQ issues, race, gender equality, abortion, religion, etc., and if you avoid things on that list you'll find a huge overlap between the views of the far left and the far right. Both are broadly opposed to what's popularly called neoliberalism, the post-Reagan/Clinton post-cold-war order, and the reasons for this opposition overlap quite a bit if you again avoid the topics that I listed. From that perspective, blowing up the system is the goal. When they see trade policies like these crash the present system, they view that as a success because they think the current system is such a mistake that it must be smashed. (I am not making a judgment in this post, just explaining the landscape.)

rayiner 2y ago
Correct. The left and right seem like a circle because Pat Buchanan and Bernie Sanders long had a large overlap on issues that have become highly salient today: immigration and free trade.

CalChris 2y ago

Reagan’s administration was very corrupt. So that law and order evidently didn’t apply to them. It was also very profligate. So that fiscal conservatism didn’t apply to them. I don’t see a lot of difference between the actor Ronald Reagan and the actor Donald Trump. Maybe in degree but not in kind. I’ve been a left liberal my whole life. We haven’t gone anywhere.