A - I n f o s

a multi-lingual news service by, for, and about anarchists **
News in all languages
Last 40 posts (Homepage) Last two weeks' posts Our archives of old posts

The last 100 posts, according to language
Greek_ 中文 Chinese_ Castellano_ Catalan_ Deutsch_ Nederlands_ English_ Français_ Italiano_ Polski_ Português_ Russkyi_ Suomi_ Svenska_ Türkçe_ _The.Supplement

The First Few Lines of The Last 10 posts in:
Castellano_ Deutsch_ Nederlands_ English_ Français_ Italiano_ Polski_ Português_ Russkyi_ Suomi_ Svenska_ Türkçe_
First few lines of all posts of last 24 hours | of past 30 days | of 2002 | of 2003 | of 2004 | of 2005 | of 2006 | of 2007 | of 2008 | of 2009 | of 2010 | of 2011 | of 2012 | of 2013 | of 2014 | of 2015 | of 2016 | of 2017 | of 2018 | of 2019 | of 2020 | of 2021 | of 2022 | of 2023 | of 2024 | of 2025 | of 2026

Syndication Of A-Infos - including RDF - How to Syndicate A-Infos
Subscribe to the a-infos newsgroups

(en) France, SocLib: RIGHT-WING ANARCHISTS: A BOURGEOIS FANTASY (ca, de, fr, it, pt, tr)[machine translation]

Date Tue, 20 Oct 2026 07:58:35 +0300


"What the bourgeoisie calls 'right-wing anarchism' is not a doctrine; it is a fantasy, a costume. A term to make things look respectable. A label used to pass off exploitation as 'freedom.' - They claim that 'right-wing anarchism exists.' As if anarchy could be mere window dressing, a slogan in a shop window, or a perfume sprayed over the same old machinery of capitalism-a system that issues orders, enforces hierarchies, and subjects workers to exploitation.
Well, it isn't.
Anarchy is the rejection of domination, not a 'respectable version' of domination sporting a mustache and a tie.

We could stop there, but let's look at some examples-absurd ones, precisely because the system loves serious explanations delivered by 'serious' people (like them) who are caricatures of thinkers; these examples help us finally see the fraud for what it is. The funniest part is when reality contradicts the label...

Researcher Ben Little says this regarding Big Tech figures like Musk or Thiel:

'Libertarianism is actually a form of right-wing anarchism. In a sense, it advocates for a minimal state. Libertarianism places much greater emphasis on the individual and their freedom to do as they please without government restrictions. But the key takeaway regarding libertarianism-and this is especially true if you consider someone like Thiel-is that it generally does not aim to abolish the state entirely. They highly value institutions like the military, and they do not want everyone to be free.'"» (Source)

The researcher's pronounced U.S.-centric perspective is evident; he no longer questions the words he uses-the prevailing orthodoxy reigns supreme. He engages in conceptual conflation, equating libertarianism with "a form of right-wing anarchism." As if "Right" or "Left" held any meaning within anarchism, or as if anarchists harbored a preference for one side of the political spectrum over the other. "Left-wing anarchist" or "right-wing anarchist"-these are merely projections of what anarchism *ought* to be according to their own worldview. While such absurdity isn't fatal, it clearly aims to sow confusion, ultimately seeking to neutralize revolutionary anarchist thought and practice.

Their concept seizes upon certain libertarian demands-such as reducing the size of the state, individual liberty, and criticizing the government-and treats them as if they were sufficient to define an anarchist identity. Yet, anarchism is not characterized by "less state"-as is the case with economic liberals (a term that might well suffice to describe these so-called libertarians)-but rather by the *absence* of the state altogether. Anarchism is a comprehensive political theory centered on the rejection of domination (encompassing not only the state as a coercive structure but also social and economic hierarchies, such as theism, nationalism, and capitalism). Political scientist Asma Mhalla describes one of the Big Tech players as follows:

"He is truly the Joker from *Batman*; there is an 'agent of chaos' side to him, a tragic-comic side; he is a right-wing anarchist. He taunts the system-a system whose flaws and weaknesses he sees, plays with, and exploits. It is as if he were saying, 'When are they going to wake up? When are they going to come and catch me?' There is an almost suicidal streak in him-pushing the journey to the limit, taking risks to the extreme, playing the story out to the end, even at the cost of losing everything; that is the side of him that exists." (Source)

This resembles an argument built on atmosphere, stringing together terms like "Batman," "agent of chaos," "tragic-comic," "right-wing anarchist," "taunts the system," "almost suicidal," "pushing risks to the limit," and so on. It is an accumulation of ideas that creates an impression of depth but lacks internal criteria or evidence. It is hot air-the sort of thing graduates of the *École Polytechnique* and Sciences Po excel at when they appear in the media. Yet this billionaire boss simply wants to privatize the system for his own benefit; the workers or employees he exploits in his companies are not billionaires. Therefore, he is not taunting the system; he is developing it and wants to extend it right into our neurons (Neuralink). He is not an agent of chaos; together with his billionaire friends, he is organizing a more efficient, totalitarian capitalist system. He is not suicidal; he is preparing for a potential escape into space for billionaires should problems arise from the very capitalism they seek to accelerate. Is an emotionally charged Nazi salute tragic or comic? That is what "grand anarchism" amounts to: freedom for oneself and obedience for others. In the real world, we call that something else: bossism, authoritarianism, tyranny. The State when it serves their interests, the absence of the State when it suits them. This isn't anarchy. It's opportunism.

For what these bourgeois figures are defending is clearly not "anarchy," but rather:

? property as authority,
? money as sovereign,
? the boss as arbiter,
? the enterprise as a mini-state.

However, there is also an older version of right-wing anarchism-one that partly overlaps with the version mentioned earlier. This is the version defined by certain French intellectuals who label figures like Micberth, Céline, and others from the artistic world as such (just look at their Wikipedia pages!). We are talking about non-conformists-figures in the mold of the Barrèsian individualist-who are anti-materialist, moralistic, and anti-parliamentarian. These are far-right figures, or those ideologically close to the far right, whom the bourgeoisie seeks to equate with anarchism; yet it is their own narrow-mindedness and a desire for publicity that compel them to use words they have no intention of actually understanding. Need one even mention the ties these figures maintained with far-right groups-groups that view anarchists as people to be eliminated?

Take, for instance, the sovereigntist Michel Onfray, who for years has played both sides of the fence-defending de Gaulle (and the coup d'état that birthed the Fifth Republic) one moment, Blanqui (a proponent of coups d'état) the next, and then Proudhon-all while toying with ideas he does not actually stand for. He spouts bourgeois Girondin morality while trying to don a Proudhonian guise, yet also defends the NPA, cozies up to Sarkozy-and lately Zemmour-hosts a show on CNews (a TV channel championing reactionary ideas, or worse), and remains a staunch advocate of the "sovereignist" agenda... Recently, he was even invited aboard a nuclear aircraft carrier to promote it (the military needs to prepare for the coming capitalist-statist war) in a *JDD* special edition... He is launching a magazine called *Front Populaire* that features numerous far-right authors. He has made remarks deemed racist, authoritarian, and so on. Yet this gentleman-whom the media elevates to the status of an intellectual (because it suits their own views)-spouts so much nonsense (or things very close to it) that he takes it upon himself to define anarchism single-handedly; he claims to be a "left-wing" anarchist-specifically Proudhonian-though the "left-wing" label doesn't bother him, as it's an empty term that the bourgeoisie loves. But then, this "left-wing bourgeois" chimes in to declare that libertarians are "right-wing anarchists"!!? Yet another subject he doesn't understand... In fact, by constantly playing with ideas he hasn't mastered, he will eventually be labeled a "right-wing anarchist" by his fellow bourgeois-and there won't be a thing he can do about it; it's a label used for people like him, and, come to think of it, he might even like it.

You could say the bourgeoisie has a lot of fun with words-and that looking ridiculous pays well."

PM

SOURCE: Le Café anarchiste

https://www.socialisme-libertaire.fr/2026/09/les-anarchistes-de-droite-une-fantaisie-de-bourgeois.html
_________________________________________
A - I N F O S N E W S S E R V I C E
By, For, and About Anarchists
Send news reports to A-infos-en mailing list
A-infos-en@ainfos.ca
Subscribe/Unsubscribe https://ainfos.ca/mailman/listinfo/a-infos-en
Archive: http://ainfos.ca/en
A-Infos Information Center