anarchist-naturism

-ninjastorm  asked:

Could you explain for me the difference between liberal-anarchist leaning and socialist-neomarxist? Political scales always get me confused bc I've been told a few conflicting things and I don't know what is reliable but you explain a lot of things really well so I wanna know how you would explain that difference? Thank you!

Liberalism (classic liberalism) is the belief in the right, power, and responsibility of self determination. It is the basis of the modern concept of human rights. As a philosophy of independence, it is anti-authoritarian. It is naturally anarchist-leaning in its appeal to the individual as the best authority rather than kings, monopolies, conglomerates of power, theocrats, gods, or whatever. I describe it as being the path to sustainable, peaceful anarchy. Other philosophies seek to establish dependence on an external authority as the basis of order. Liberalism seeks to make all individuals competent authority figures capable of dictating their own lives instead of being lead by people who need leaders themself.

Liberalism is the philosophy of independence and enlightenment. It appeals to individuality, individual rights, self empowerment, a responsibility to the self and to humanity. It’s inherent skepticism toward authority make it naturally synchronous with empiricism, and it was a school of thought developed alongside empiricism, though it was originally heavily influenced by deist thought.

Marxism is basically the opposite of anarchy. It is an authoritarian philosophy of dependence (though not necessarily, some would argue). It comes from Karl Marx’s ‘conflict theory‘. It is the anti-capitalist philosophy. It suggests that capitalism (free markets) are the source of all oppression and exploitation. It suggests that the privileged/ruling class “bourgeois” were oppressing the victim/working class “proletariats”, and that the proletariat would create a collective class consciousness (a cult) to overthrow the bourgois.

Patriarchy theory and the rest of feminist theory is a conflict theory based on classic marxist theory, but is focused more on the “culture of capitalism”: “Patriarchy“ (thus the alternative name of neo-marxism “cultural marxism”). Social justice feminism is basically conflict theory, but replace “capitalism” with “patriarchy/kyriarchy”, replace “bourgeois“ with “men“ “cis“ “abled“ “white“ “het“ etc, replace “proletariat“ with “women“ “PoC“ “LGBT“ “neurodivergent“ “disabled“ “muslim“. They are modernist, post modernist, and post structuralist. In a nutshell, they thing everything is a social construct, and in neo-marxist theory, everything is part of capitalist/patriarchal oppression. Science is a social construct made to oppress, gender is a social construct made to oppress, race and sexuality, religion, education, etc.

________________________________________________

The solutions and accomplishments of neo-marxists fall in line with an authoritarian view, not view of liberty or anarchy. They don’t want the self empowerment of anyone, but instead wish to make the ‘cultural proletarians’ (women, lgbt, PoC) dependent and conformist to their ideology. Their concept of liberation is not liberation from authority, from dependence, from government dictation, but liberation from “The Patriarchy” and capitalism. It’s not about freedom of the individual, it’s about the unbalanced empowerment of women, PoC, and LGBT. It’s liberation from their flawed concept of what the current power structure is (which doesn’t seem to include an opposition the actual neo-liberal corporate establishment).

Liberty is choice, but marxism suggests capitalism is oppressive because it allows choices that include being able to violate other people and take power over them -without an opposition from an authority-. Their concept of equality is not the belief that we are all equal in our right, power, and responsibility to our self determination. Marxism is not about independence, it’s not even about individuals at all. “Society does not consist of individuals…” -Karl Marx. That’s not a philosophy that can end in the interests of any individual, only regimes and totalitarians like Stalin.

The split between liberalism and marxism is this:

-On the liberal side, you have independence, individuality, competition, free thought, free speech, individual rights, free participation in markets, free assembly and free press, and an opposition to authority including any monopoly of ideas, economics, or power. Democracy, Capitalism, liberty, equality, responsibility, human rights.

-On the marxist side you have group dependence, state dependence, dependence on feminist thought, a monopoly of thought, a monopoly of speech, a monopoly of power, politically correct censorship, group rights, no markets, no competition, no assembly with enemies of the ideology, no press that disagrees with the ideology, and only fellow marxists may have power, distribution of resources, press, and speech. Dictatorship, Communism, equality, revolution, victimhood, group rights (aka privilege [ironic]).

I actually have a page about marxism and neo-marxism