- 25 Jul 2013 06:42
#14277910
They seem to be a very mixed bag. The wikipedia article doesn't gel with some NA manifestos I've read which portray it less as an active, aggressively racist, racial segregation movement and more of a consequence of a larger overall ideology that treats self-identifying groups or tribes as having "national sovereignty" and being able to exclude others, under a non-universalist system of ethics. Like, you could have a gay black jewish commune tribe with its own law under NA.
It's interesting as there is now a socially "right" anarchy system to join the economically "right" anarchy of anarcho-capitalism. Although the old battles about what even counts as anarchy are rife again here. Personally, an absolutist conception of anarchy renders it even more impractical, when a decentralizing towards the local away from the state should vary according to local conditions. After all, the only way to not allow it to have local variation would be if there was some kind of centralized force, or "anarchist association" which enforced its set of rules religiously on everyone, everywhere, which sounds a lot like... a government.
The only thing that I approve of here is the use of centralism-decentralism, if only they'd apply it correctly. If we can start calling NAs, national-decentralists, and anarcho-capitalists as decentral-capitalists, then we can gain back some of the distinct meaning of anarchy as being "without hierarchy" and not just "without state".
It seems the other main difference between it and other forms of "anarchy" is that they don't seem to believe in universalist ethics, whereas "left" anarchists very much do, and even anarcho-capitalists do when it comes to A: all physical property, and B: the right to life. Oh, and it attracts race war nutters. There's that.
A society without toil. A society of robotic property.