this post was submitted on 20 Aug 2023
0 points (NaN% liked)

askchapo

22764 readers
460 users here now

Ask Hexbear is the place to ask and answer ~~thought-provoking~~ questions.

Rules:

  1. Posts must ask a question.

  2. If the question asked is serious, answer seriously.

  3. Questions where you want to learn more about socialism are allowed, but questions in bad faith are not.

  4. Try [email protected] if you're having questions about regarding moderation, site policy, the site itself, development, volunteering or the mod team.

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Basically all I can think of for Red/Brown are the liberal members of the Boogaloos, Tucker on Ukraine but I'm not up to speed on this potential problematic alliance thst seems class reductionist. What are your takes? Is it because anti-govt leftists will search for allies. Do y'all consider Ancaps as Brownies. The biggest Red/Brown alliance I see is the toilet bowl after taco Tuesday

top 4 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

No, basically nobody in the US on either side has any interest in a red/brown alliance unless they're extremely weird and brainwormed like the PatSocs who everyone hates. Many ancaps are harmless idiots who are mostly dangerous to themselves because they're constantly doing stupid shit like getting run out of town by bear attacks they caused or getting themselves killed by drug cartels. But many of them are cryptofascists who correctly understand that the real aim of the ideology is to create an ethnostate where the proletariat have no rights whatsoever and landowners have absolute authority.

As for Ukraine, most of those on the right either only oppose it because Biden's in charge and will flip as soon as it's their guy doing it, or they just want to focus on China instead. There's little to be gained from cooperating, and much to lose from associating with them because they're shitty people who alienate actual comrades.

Generally it's just not really a thing. Read Blackshirts and Reds.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I dont think ancaps want to create ethnostate (although they might anyways). That implies they care about other people of their own race which I doubt.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

A lot of them do. "Anarcho-Capitalism" is a completely non-nonsensical idea that requires that you don't understand anarchism and you also don't understand capitalism. It's adherents have an enormous variety of brainworms because they're just kind of extending American hyper-individualism to it's illogical extreme based on whatever poorly thought out whims seize them.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Like I said there's two camps, the more innocent gullible ones and the cryptofascists who know what they're doing and use the language as a cover to make their ideas more palatable, and AFAIK every major figure falls into the second camp. The point of it is to pipeline people to the right. The conditions that anarcho-capitalism advocates for are ideal for creating an ethnostate, and many of the tactics and laws used to combat racism including sit-ins and the Civil Rights Act are considered "acts of aggression" against property owners by the "logic" of anarcho-capitalism, and may be answered with violence.

Here's Hans Hermann Hoppe, from Wikipedia:

His belief in the right of property owners to establish libertarian communities that engage in racial discrimination, and his assertion that communities could establish exclusive criteria for admission and acceptance, have proven particularly divisive.

In Democracy Hoppe describes a fully libertarian society of "covenant communities" made up of residents who have signed an agreement defining the nature of that community. He writes that "There would be little or no 'tolerance' and 'openmindedness' so dear to left-libertarians. Instead, one would be on the right path toward restoring the freedom of association and exclusion implied in the institution of private property". He argues that towns and villages could have warning signs saying "no beggars, bums, or homeless, but also no homosexuals, drug users, Jews, Muslims, Germans, or Zulus".

Hoppe also makes plain that he believes that practicing certain forms of discrimination, including the physical removal of people whose lifestyle is deemed incompatible with the purpose of establishing certain communities, is completely compatible with his system.

Hoppe writes: "In a covenant concluded among proprietor and community tenants for the purpose of protecting their private property, no such thing as a right to free (unlimited) speech exists, . . . naturally no one is permitted to advocate ideas contrary to the very purpose of the covenant of preserving and protecting private property, such as democracy and communism. There can be no tolerance toward democrats and communists in a libertarian social order. They will have to be physically separated and expelled from society. Likewise, in a covenant founded for the purpose of protecting family and kin, there can be no tolerance toward those habitually promoting lifestyles incompatible with this goal. They – the advocates of alternative, non-family and kin-centered lifestyles such as, for instance, individual hedonism, parasitism, nature-environment worship, homosexuality, or communism – will have to be physically removed from society, too, if one is to maintain a libertarian order."

Commenting on this passage, Martin Snyder of the American Association of University Professors said Hoppe's words will disturb "[t]hose with a better memory than Hoppe for segregation, apartheid, internment facilities and concentration camps, for yellow stars and pink triangles".

And here's Murray Rothbard, who first coined the term anarcho-capitalism

Rothbard opposed egalitarianism and the civil rights movement, and blamed women's voting and activism for the growth of the welfare state. Later in his career, Rothbard advocated a libertarian alliance with paleoconservatism (which he called paleolibertarianism), favoring right-wing populism and defending David Duke. In the 2010s, he received renewed attention as an influence on the alt-right…

Michael O'Malley, associate professor of history at George Mason University, describes Rothbard's tone toward the civil rights movement and the women's suffrage movement as "contemptuous and hostile". Rothbard criticized women's rights activists, attributing the growth of the welfare state to politically active spinsters "whose busybody inclinations were not fettered by the responsibilities of health and heart". Rothbard argued that the progressive movement, which he regarded as a noxious influence on the United States, was spearheaded by a coalition of Yankee Protestants (people from the six New England states and upstate New York who were Protestants of English descent), Jewish women and "lesbian spinsters".

Rothbard called for the elimination of "the entire 'civil rights' structure", which he said "tramples on the property rights of every American". He consistently favored repeal of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, including Title VII regarding employment discrimination, and called for overturning the Brown v. Board of Education decision on the grounds that state-mandated integration of schools violated libertarian principles. In an essay called "Right-wing Populism", Rothbard proposed a set of measures to "reach out" to the "middle and working classes", which included urging the police to crack down on "street criminals", writing that "cops must be unleashed" and "allowed to administer instant punishment, subject of course to liability when they are in error". He also advocated that the police "clear the streets of bums and vagrants."

Rothbard held strong opinions about many leaders of the civil rights movement. He considered black separatist Malcolm X to be a "great black leader" and integrationist Martin Luther King Jr. to be favored by whites because he "was the major restraining force on the developing Negro revolution." Jacob Jensen writes that Rothbard's commentary from the 1960s, approving of both "black power" and "white power" in separated communities, amounted to support for racial segregation. In 1993, Rothbard rejected the vision of a "separate black nation", asking "does anyone really believe that ... New Africa would be content to strike out on its own, with no massive "foreign aid" from the U.S.A.?". Rothbard also suggested that opposition to Martin Luther King Jr., whom he demeaned as a "coercive integrationist", should be a litmus test for members of his "paleolibertarian" political movement.

Rothbard is described by the historian John P. Jackson Jr. as espousing antisemitism despite Rothbard's own background as a secular Jew. One former student described Rothbard as privately using the anti-Jewish slur "k---s" repeatedly. Rothbard also befriended the Holocaust deniers Willis Carto and Harry Elmer Barnes.

As you can see, the intellectuals behind the ideology (if you can call it that, "cult" is more accurate) fully understand what it is they're trying to do. It is a scheme to sugarcoat fascist ideology and tie it into the language of liberalism. It starts by doing things to attack the rights of minorities and then playing the "I'm not touching you" card and when people call bullshit they play the "I'd be fine if they kept it to themselves but now they're shoving it down our throats" card. The "libertarian“ to fascist pipeline is real, though some people don't realize they're in it.