[eyko]

The left/right dichotomy doesn't work with anarchism since it doesn't necessarily have to be on either side of that spectrum - generally based on ideas about economy and not social structures or hierarchies. It can display features usually attributed to left wing ideologies (fight for equality, emancipation, fair society, freedom of speech, freedom of (and from) religion, self organisation, bottom-up communities, etc), as well as right wing ones: small (or no) government in the sense of a state and an establishment, fewer coded laws, no monopoly of power/rights by one group or institution (e.g. right to bear arms), free market, etc.

You might say that anarchism is the left wing on a spectrum where authoritarianism or absolute monarchs are considered the right wing. Anarchism is anti discrimination (pro egalitarianism) and by definition is against racism, sexism, nationalism, fascism, etc. It's not because it's "left" like socialists or (socialist) progressives are, but because of the hierarchies it is ideologically opposed to. Its main objective is a society free from imposed and unnatural hierarchies.

Edit: what I'm trying to say is that no one-dimensional linear scale that goes from left to right on which you can place all ideologies and compare them.

[mixedCase]

> Anarchism is anti discrimination (pro egalitarianism)

Anarchism is anti-state. That's it. Everything else is anarcho-something.

[tray5]

That's not true at all, anarchism is anti-hierarchy. The state is just one (and the second most prominent) hierarchy that anarchists oppose.

[mixedCase]

>anarchism is anti-hierarchy

Anti-involuntary hierarchy, not those who voluntarily take part of certain types of power hierarchies.

[tray5]

Your free market part is where you'll find the clash. Any anarchist would say that a free market is inherently oppressive. The only place a "free" market would work is in a mutualist economy, and even then, that requires worker ownership over the means of production.

[AimHere]

The sticking point is not so much free market - mutualists are considered anarchists by other anarchists - but other, major, aspects of capitalism, mainly private ownership of the means of production and the use of waged labour, where owners hire others to work on or with their property - those are outright incompatible with anarchism, outwith the anarchocapitalists whose 'anarcho' credentials are disputed.

[CM30]

And how exactly do you aim to stop a free market existing?

Because I strongly doubt any political change will get everyone to work for 'common interests', and a fair few product creators, service owners, artists and others will try and sell their work anyway.

How do anarchists plan to avoid this? What about the people who don't want to own the means of production and are perfectly fine with working for others for a wage? What would stop people competing with each other to get more money and resources?

[kemiller]

But what, exactly, is the alternative to a free market?

[tray5]

Personally I'm a fan of a workers run syndicalist economy. There are other options, like a workers run market economy, or an outright collectivist gift economy.

[int_19h]

The question is, how would you enforce that, if some part of the populace just decided to recognize property rights, and structured their part of the economy accordingly?

[s_kilk]

> or an outright collectivist gift economy.

Of which we already have a great example in FOSS.

[gaius]

Which is utterly dependent on the "real" economy for umm, food and every other essential.

[kemiller]

Are there any examples of that working at large scale?

[dragonwriter]

> Any anarchist would say that a free market is inherently oppressive.

When did anarcho-capitalists stop being anarchists?

[tray5]

They never were TBH, capitalism is inherently hierarchical and a system of entirely private enterprise would resemble corporate feudalism, not an anarchist society.

[dragonwriter]

> The left/right dichotomy doesn't work with anarchism

It works the same way with anarchism as it does in general; that is to say, it captures a real and major axis of variation among anarchists but not the only one. It actually works a little better with anarchists then it doesin general, because “anarchism” limits one of the other significant axes of political variation that exist in the wider society.