How are minarchist and anarchists viewed by the mainstream political parties?

How are minarchists and anarchists(anarcho-communists/libertarian socialists on the left and anarcho-capitalists/primitivists on the right) viewed by the two large mainstream US political parties?

They mainly ignore us for the most part or call us "extremists" or violent. Which is absurd because at least with anarchists their ideology is totally opposite of the typical statist violent coercion and threats of force. But why does the corporate sponsored media/political parties insist that anarchists are violent and coercive(using force and threats of force to get what you want) when statism by nature is violent and coercive?

When the average person thinks of an anarchist they immediately think violent crazed protestor,a mentally ill teenage punk, a communist wanting a "revolution", or a whiny college kid trying to act out and get attention. We are doing a terrible job of promoting anarchism to the average smo and ms. smo.
They are doing a pretty effective job and dominating the debate and censoring opposing viewpoints(as they usually do on MSM).


The media largely paints the minarchst/anarchist crowd as the "whiny college trust fund brat" or "the mentally ill loser acting out". The pro-corporate establishment hires even contractors(sometimes local police)to infiltrate activist political groups to help steer the activist organization from the inside out. They are doing a brilliant job with their talking heads on national syndicated media at framing the libertarian/astatist/minarchist movement as fringe,violent,crazy,terroristic or silly.

What can we do as minarchists/anarchists to defend ourselves against this systematic smear?

a reply to: John_Rodger_Cornman
What's a minarchist? A small anarchist?

a reply to: John_Rodger_Cornman

Anarcho-capitalists are very clear to differentiate themselves from anarcho-communists, anarcho-syndicalists, socialists et al.

The explanation for this is that, in socialism's lore, once the selfish yucky capitalists are gone, everyone will behave themselves and the state will, at that later undefined point in time, having determined itself to be no longer necessary, voluntarily disband and join the karma orgy already in progress.

Social anarchism (sometimes referred to as socialist anarchism) is generally considered to be the branch of anarchism which sees individual freedom as being dependent upon mutual aid. Social anarchist thought generally emphasizes community and social equality.

Libertarian socialists believe in converting present-day private property into the commons while retaining respect for personal property. Social anarchism is used to specifically describe tendencies within anarchism that have an emphasis on the communitarian and cooperative aspects of anarchist theory and practice. Social anarchism is generally considered an umbrella term that includes (but is not limited to) collectivist anarchism, anarchist communism, anarcho-syndicalism, and social ecology. Social anarchism is often used as a term interchangeably with libertarian socialism, left-libertarianism, or left anarchism. The term emerged in the late 19th century as a distinction from individualist anarchism.

I don't know where they get this term "libertarian socialists", it is an oxymoron. Perhaps they meant "libertine"?

Any thing that attempts to reduce the power of the all controlling state will be viewed with contempt, suspicion and fear. And any side that wants to pull down the power in charge will gladly use anarchists and then dispose of them afterward.

originally posted by: crayzeed
a reply to: John_Rodger_Cornman
What's a minarchist? A small anarchist?

Basically a constitutional republican, someone who believes in systemic limitations to the growth and power of government.

a reply to: John_Rodger_Cornman
I think the R's and D's will always view the anarchists and minarchists with disdain. The multitude of laws are their means of controlling the populace.

a reply to: John_Rodger_Cornman

There really aren't any libertarian socialists, the term liberal was arrogated last century by the progressives so "libertarian" became an alternative to saying "classical liberal" but, they are essentially equivalent.

I AM A VAGICHIST! Thereby I seek a society where I am the only male. I of course will befriend all and seek intimate counsel with regularity from the nubility.

originally posted by: John_Rodger_Cornman
What can we do as minarchists/anarchists to defend ourselves against this systematic smear?

I just look nice and act nice and wear a circle-A necklace with pride wherever I go. I think you can only dispel the media impression by being the opposite of it, which is what most of us are, right? I look like a "normal" person, I don't even have any visible tattoos. I was at a bus stop once and a guy was walking around asking people for a lighter, I heard him ask 3 or 4 people before I got my lighter out for him, and he actually said "Oh! the last one I expected!"

If any sort of political topics come up, I tell people as simply as possible what my basic view is, as an Anarchist, which can often include several expletives. I'm not an Anarcho-whatever. I don't pretend to know what sort of non-system (hmmm?) will be appropriate for different people in different communities in a different world in the future. If I'm ever in the position to be involved in a community of people inclined to be free and responsible for themselves, I'm going to trust that we can work out, individually and as a group, what sort of arrangements would best sustain our survival, without imposing a specific system or philosophy that someone imagined-up beforehand... I think that's kind of the point.

Anyway, I just try to represent by being a cool, non-threatening person.

a reply to: John_Rodger_Cornman

Probably start with figuring out what it is that you believe in.

You either believe in a state and controlling others bodies or you don't.

Now that doesn't mean that you are not forced to play the game of reality for survival. Obviously paying taxes and other parts of this system are impossible to avoid. Kind of how it's impossible to avoid borders and other issues associated with these football teams(sorry I meant countries).

But you have to figure out what you truly believe in and what you don't. If you believe in control you agree to control. Control will always find you when you find control acceptable.

There is no such thing as a minanarchist or a capoanarchist or a funarchist or liberanarchisocialist.

Okay, some of those are a bit contrived but you get my point.

There are simply two types of people in this world. Those that believe in controlling other people's units of human capital and those that don't.

The method that those beliefs manifest themselves is of little consequence as is their "label". All paths lead to the same destination.

Kind of how ever form of government(including democracy) has been one giant manipulative fail. They are all based on the principle of holy control.

The label is not what's important.

Hell, make up a new one. But first decide what it is that you actually believe in. If you believe in control you will always lose and be manipulated and there will be no way to defend yourself against others who also believe in control. You are one and the same and are invited to the same # party as everyone else who buys into the same ideals(the type of car they used to drive to said # party doesn't matter)

Edit: The reason above is important in "Defending" against anarchy smears is because most libertarians and anarchists are full of #. People who claim to believe in the right of a person to control themselves and then turn around an go against abortion rights and things of the sort. Hypocrites. That's why I say first figure out what you truly believe in because there's nothing more delicious than a hypocrite for opposing views. If you are claiming to be an anarchist then you better damn well be one. Yeah?

originally posted by: OrphanApology
The reason above is important in "Defending" against anarchy smears is because most libertarians and anarchists are full of #.

This is why I love to see "Anarchists" argue about what economic system should be imposed on everyone in a future "free society". Their anger at others' nonconformity to their personal ideals shows who is full of it.

a reply to: eMachine

Yeah or those ones so caught up in the worship of the "founding father's vision" that they forget said fathers believed in gender and other types of slavery along with an onslaught of other hypocrisies.

a reply to: OrphanApology

They forget (or weren't ever taught) that one of the first things Washington did as President was to take an army into my PA hills to threaten people for taxes, it was called the Whiskey Rebellion.

But then The State is a religion and Washington is one of their sacred idols.

(Edited to add: Yes, they're MY hills. I can only use a couple square feet at a time though, so others are free to enjoy them as well.)

a reply to: eMachine

Yeah anarchist views in general are a very excruciating mental exercise and harsh history lesson that in the end leaves you feeling as if there are no heroes and everyone is a hypocrite. Probably because there aren't and they are.

To be quite honest I am just scratching the surface myself and I read all the time.

Everyday I feel more stupid.

Good news is that I have finally figured out currency and what it actually is in it's natural form. I feel like a savant.

To answer your OP question, they are domestic terrorists to be closely monitored and watched.

They will eventually come for you when they implement the next phase of control that will eliminate any threat which will be expected to resist them with violent reprisal, which they are more than happy to use on you a long time ago already.

You can just make up a name and form a club of nobody's and you will still be domestic terrorists.

In a Marxist Commie system posing as democratic constitutional republic, EVERYONE ELSE is a domestic terrorist. And yes, you will have to remove your diaper for inspection upon demand.. Thanks Mr. Commie Obammy!

But why is everyone a domestic terrorist? Because when leaders are posing as a democratic power limited president, but are really a Marxist Communist, Socialist (He's a ninja of all schools of tyranny), they know when you all learn how ugly they really are inside and what they fear you will do to resist them, so you become a natural threat even before you knew it yourself, like many are learning.

And now anyone who doesn't like one of our imbecile officials stupid asinine ideas, they call you a domestic terrorist as well. It is so easy!

a reply to: OrphanApology

Indeed. It requires one to be intellectually flexible, while adhering to the most basic and fundamental principles of ethics. And it can also drive a person to intolerance of BS and isolation from others because of that.

I wonder if you're familiar with David Graeber. Currency, in my understanding, originated with debt. Although I abhor the financial system and "debt" as it stands today, I feel that debt and barter is a better arrangement than currency, unless you want to take advantage of someone and run.



Edited to add: ATS needs more Anarchist discussion threads.

a reply to: eMachine

I haven't heard of him I don't think. I will watch the video later(no headphones right now)

I was going to say that I think the most basic form of currency is the human body. It is a finite resource(because we die one day) that can be improved in value(education and skills) and used in exchange for goods and services. It's been the most popular form of currency in history. Not to say that you can't acquire say a banana and trade it, but you were trading your life in the time it took to pick up the bananas that you used to trade.

Think about it.

All current "currency" in my opinion is just a derivative of that. They are representations of physical human capital. Of course the current systems are controlled by a small percentage of people which means it's ultimately a system of slavery...but still...

Underlying notion.

Yeah I agree we need more anarchy topics but they always just digress into being Republicanishdemocraticish political nonsense that makes me want to hurl.

a reply to: OrphanApology

You're absolutely right about labor-value-currency. Isn't it insane that you can't even trade in that most-natural currency anymore ("legally")? That's really the definition of slavery, when you don't have the freedom to determine your own value, the value of your time and energy.

I can't go to my friend who operates a small restaurant and say, "Hey man, I really just want to feed my kids. Can I help out in the kitchen for a couple hours to earn them a decent meal?" Oh, that would be asking them to break the LAW and potentially have their business shut down...

a reply to: eMachine

No it absolutely is insane. Sometimes I just sit and think for 15 or so minutes in silence on the human capital aspect and how it can really be linked to all forms of violence and control.

The forced control of another person's natural currency(their body) is what leads to all things that cause issue in the world.

It's a really strange path to let the mind wander down.

Here is the Wikipedia definition of a slave:

Slavery is a legal or economic system in which principles of property law can apply to humans so that people can be treated as property

Seems fitting.

Edit:

Of course we are also all a part of the machine but that doesn't change the fact that maybe just maybe there are little things we can do here and there to chip away at it. I suppose maybe figuring out the machine exists is a good place to start.

Also was trying to look up better words. This is normally why I don't call myself anarchist because the whole title is associated with a lot of nonsense.

originally posted by: OrphanApology

Slavery is a legal or economic system in which principles of property law can apply to humans so that people can be treated as property

Seems fitting.

Absolutely fitting. Especially when you consider how "social security" numbers work, and how we're used as collateral when the government is loaned money from private banks.

Also was trying to look up better words. This is normally why I don't call myself anarchist because the whole title is associated with a lot of nonsense.

One I heard only recently and have taken a liking to is "Abolitionist".

Edited to add: Personally, I do like to use the term Anarchist to describe myself, because it seems to create cognitive dissonance among those unfamiliar with the philosophy. I do not look like or act like what they expect an "Anarchist" to look like or be like. Ninja ambush.