I mean no offense by the question. It's not a remark. I believe it's valid. I'm confused by the application of existing political contexts to anarchism, and how left/right political theory within the context of economics is legitimate authority, and not simply leverage. Or simply illegitimate. Why must we simply accept that without an invented or radically altered economic framework, we cannot apply anarchism? Or that we cannot have a successful implementation of anarchism. Why do we reinvent the wheel in that manner, when it might be a plausibly acceptable anarchist position to completely refute that idea. Or believe that economics, as we currently practice it, has failed us in both left and right liberal traditions. Why does anarchy require both a political framework based upon existing conventional left/right political theory and not, perhaps, either a complete disavowal of both or a mix of either? Why shouldn't these questions be based upon the needs and desires of the individual, or solved within the needs or desires of a specific community?
To say that anarchism is left or right contradicts, when it can also refute both. And to be honest I appreciate that because I feel it's critical that neither side wins. I believe I benefit from ideas within the arguments of all sides. And that these differences of opinion create a stasis where neither side can further their agenda; and in that stasis lies the inability of either side to lead, and in that deadlock lies an anarchy in a truer sense; one where there is no leadership.
