Duke Sigmund Igthorn wrote:I find it ironic. Wikipedia says "In addition to being anti-war, dada was also anti-bourgeois and anarchist in nature." I always find it hard to reconcile anti-war and anarchisim.
Even though that likely was a trolling attempt, I (being an anarchist) have to respond to this due to the huge misunderstanding of anarchist ideologies in the general public.
Anarchism is not, as many people tend to believe, about absolute opposition towards the mere existence of a state. This political stance exists - it is known as Political Nihilism, and if you've never heard about it, that is because almost nobody is of that opinion today. It was somewhat widespread among Russian intellectuals in the czardom, but its popularity has decreased since back then. Nowadays, there are two political movements that would identify themselves as "Anarchist".
The first one is the "classical" left-wing Anarchism, which wants to create an egalitarian society somewhat similar to a Communist society, but without going through the repressive state of socialism. Instead, left-wing anarchists (or libertarian socialists) want people to join non-hierarchical organizations (often referred to as "syndicates", but other names may be used) by their free will, to then manage property collaboratively. Law enforcement shall not be a matter of single individuals, but shall be done by the people, just as anything else. Anarchists reject all kind of power that individuals can impose over others, but they do not reject the occasional necessity of managing matters of public interest. This type of Anarchism is especially incompatible with the ideas of Capitalism and Nationalism. This stance has had its moments during the course of history, especially in Catalonia during and before the Spanish Civil War.
The second one is a newer movement, the proponents of which do often refer to themselves as "libertarians" or "anarcho-capitalists" as well, though their stance is entirely different and more comparable to Classical Liberalism. By left-wing anarchists or libertarian socialists, they are often referred to as "minarchists", and I will use that word in the following paragraph to avoid confusion. Minarchism's ultimate goal is, just like Anarchism's, as much freedom for the individual as possible. Unlike anarchists, who see a company with a boss who gives orders and workers who obey and unequal distribution of wealth in general as a kind of oppression, minarchists are of the opinion that individual freedom can best be achieved in a free market economy. They do therefore want to reduce state intervention as much as possible, leaving the state's only responsibilities law enforcement and the enforcement of contracts that were concluded by free individuals. Minarchism is incompatible with the ideas of Nationalism and each Socialism (because it's too repressive) and Communism (because they think it impossible or any redistribution of wealth an arbitrary intervention and therefore a form of oppression). This stance is widespread in the USA today, especially in the "Libertarian Party".
I tried to be as neutral as I could, but it may still be noticeable that I'm a libertarian socialist. Also, sorry for ranting.