Sorry but I highly doubt you were an anarchist. An anarchist would have to acquire their house without paying for it - either by building it or pillaging it from someone else, an anarchist would not pay any bills or taxes, and an anarchist would most definitely not have a job or purchase food. They live off the land or steal from others - its the only way for anarchy to operate. Once you introduce the societal element anarchy no longer exists.
Anarchy means no government. None of the things you are describing, I am not for the system, but that being said I do not have the audacity to over generalize. I think that is the mistake you are making, the mistake that my idea, idea of government is inherently better than any other type of government on the grounds of yourself saying so. That is just not true, being that there is no one perfect style of governance or lack there of of governance, it all depends on the situations at hand and the people behind those systems.
Anarchism (not anarchy) as a political system refers to the lack of a central governing authority; the lack of any governing person/group over people, so that each person has absolute personal liberty. It is a nice theory (some of it, this is coming from someone who knows quite a bit about leftist political ideologies), but would quickly and easily fall apart on a large-scale basis like we have in the modern United States. However, the possibility of it being implemented properly and its benefits reaped is significantly higher when dealing with a small-scale group of people in one place. Like most radical political ideologies, it is not, let's say, "properly optimized" to work as it should on a large basis, but the more you shrink the size of the populace/area involved, the more practical it becomes.
I'm curious how you would come to classify Anarchism as leftist. Would you define free-market, laissez faire as leftist?
Well, that's the funny thing about Anarchism: it's traditionally classed as a radical left-wing ideology, but its emphasis on lack of control and central governance lends it a definite laissez-faire-esque feel. No, I wouldn't define free-market/laissez faire systems as being leftist. The left generally entails more social and governmental control and regulation of many aspects of daily life, while the right generally favors the utmost amount of personal, financial, and economic freedom coupled with opposition to the intruding of government into daily life. At least, these generalizations are true on paper. In reality and in practice, both hard-left and hard-right political systems seem to share more in common with one another than each would like to believe, while the moderate-left and moderate-right display more of a contrast between themselves than the hardcore left/right politics (for example, National Socialism & Marxism have much in common when compared to the contrasts between less radical ideologies)... at least in my eyes. So while Anarchism has at its core a laissez-faire, unrestrained attitude that eschews control in favor of the random divergence that unrestrained and uncontrolled freedom tends to contribute to, it is/has historically been classified as being a left-wing ideology. Depending on what particular flavor of Anarchism is being discussed (depending on how economics are viewed and the status of a free market), I could easily see it as leaning toward right of center, with its rejection of governmental authority and emphasis on freedom, especially if we're talking about something like Anarcho-Capitalism. Which, in my opinion, is a favored pick out of the many anarcho-stripe ideologies, despite anarchism being traditionally anti-capitalist, because it retains free-market economics and the belief in private property, but rejects governmental authority over all aspects of life.
im sure someone said this, but anarchy is not what happens when the government collapses and the world falls apart. thats what the propaganda tells us it means, but in reality it doesnt mean no rules. it means no rulers. its not going to happen, not anytime soon, because we're all way too dependent on the way things are. but when i think of anarchy i think of a world with no power structers, no heirarchical pyramid schemes. everyones equal, everyones work is valued equally. in an anarchist society we all care about eachother and value eachother instead of fearing each other and competing with everyone around us out of a fear of not having enough. its not going to happen though, because we're way too far down this path. governments have the power. they make the big decisions, to start wars or raise taxes or whatever, and the people follow the rules that have been laid out for them.
Anarchy is a Right on the political spectrum, being it is the system with the least amount of government.
Right does not equal least amount of government as far as I know. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing You, sir, really stretch the limits of honest opinion.
Is it fair to say political groups fall into stereotypes? The original right wing meant Ancien Régime or Old Order. The original right was meant as people who were for the kings and church(more government) and the Left were the people for the free market and for "less government". They have changed hands since basically the bourgeoisie has been able to gain power and are the new governing powers. The right are now the people for less government and for the free market. That paragraph you quoted explains it perfectly. Right on the polical spectrum today means someone is for less government, because now the ruling class are the bourgeoisie, while Kasu would love to disagree with that, that is the case.
The most commonly proposed political spectrum makes no sense, and I feel it is purposefully done so to confuse voters into accepting the two party system. Communism and Socialism on the left, and Fascism and Dictatorship on the right... Then what's in the middle, and how is that even an efficient scale? They say Republicans are right wing because they want a larger more fascistic government, and Democrats are left wing because they want a larger more socialistic government... are you telling me people that want a smaller, more limited government (classic liberals) are centrists? Do you disagree with the short video I posted? I think that lays out my argument perfectly.
a traditional anarchist doesnt believe in money I think thats what he was gettin at. Anarchism is very much a leftist principle, its the ultimate goal of communism...achieve a classless, authority less and wealthless society. ideally its great...pragmatically its useless
No.. An anarchist CANNOT use money. Money is commerce. Commerce is a system of power and order which needs governing and regulations. Commerce contradicts the idea of anarchy completely. Bartering however does not but money sure as hell does. Perhaps you should learn more about what you think you were.. Just because you draw an anarchy symbol on your clothes doesn't mean you understand the concept..
I think that the reason for the greatest disparity in this debate over anarchy is the fact that its definition is ambiguous. To actually get somewhere in developing the idea, we all need to agree on the definition of the word itself. Given that not all anarchists are alike in their thought/philosophy, I don't know if defining anarchy itself can be done. At least to the point of arguing over it effectively.
An anarchist who is completely consistent with her principles does not use money. Do you tell communists you see making a purchase at a store that they're not communists because they have to live in a capitalist system? Feel free to continue throwing stones if you've never ever compromised on a principle for purposes of practicality.
Okay so can you please explain to me how you can be a "sort-of" Anarchist? Or even an Anarchist living and abiding by the rules of a Capitalistic society?
To clearifay for all of you that don't understand/know anarchist. <---click the link communist still use money system. Anarchist don't. It is a society that does not use money nor gov system. It simply rule by people.