system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
Is "anarchy" just an extreme form of "deregulation"? If yes, why is the first considered "leftist", while the second is usually supported by right-wing parties?
gpt
Because anarchism in the leftist sense of the word means abolishing capitalism *and* the state. It's a form of socialism that belives in organization without the hierarchy of the state. So, apart from your misconception, there's another common misconception, which is that anarchists are individualists or against organization. So, organize with your colleagues and fellow students, but don't have a boss (meaning, also don't *pick* a boss). 

For an anarchist (in the left wing sense of the word) the modern worker is being oppressed first by capitalism, and then by an oppressive and beaurocratic state. Their conflict with other socialists is that other revolutionary socialists believe the state can be replaced by a socialist state that eventually withers naturally when it served it's purpose. In the end though, you tend to come into a discussion about what a *state* actually is. But if you want to look at how left wing anarchism has been applied, Barcelona during the civil war is an interesting example. It's hard to use it as a general example since it was during wartime, but a short description is that it was very democratic in a good way and a bad way. The influence of "normal people" increased *a lot* but the it was also very chaotic. Again, in war time though.

In the right wing sense of the word, that's usually not called anarchism but instead libertarianism or sometimes anarcho-capitalism. For a libertarian, the conflict is not between *the worker* and his/hers oppressors. Instead the conflict is typically between *the individual* and the oppressor. Because the subject here is the individual and not the worker (who is part of a collective with similar goals) - the oppressor typically *is* the collective. Generally meaning the state. So the freedom you expect from abolishing the state is the freedom to do what you want with your money and your own body.  So yes, both of these movements are opposed to the state but for very different reasons. 

Both of them are kind of "correct" in their assessment of the state. Western modern states are very multifaceted and can be attacked from anyone basically. Western states generally have some kind of social safety net, which are generally paid by taxes. This is wealth distribution. Tax systems look slightly different around the world but the general idea is that poor people get more out of it than rich people - but the rich are still *forced* to contribute to them. This is a violation against their rights in the eyes of libertarians.

Socialists, however, don't consider the right to ownership a human right. Here, ownership means ownership of the means of production. Basically, because our economical system (capitalism) is unfair and naturally oppressive, the distribution of money that it spits out is also unfair and oppressive. Meaning, just because you have money doesn't mean that you deserve it or even that it's yours in a philosophical sense. In that sense, for a left wing anarchist, one of the few things that the state does *right* is taxes and wealth redistribution. The problem they have with the state is that it at the same time protects and serves the capitalist system.

There's a lot more to be said on the subject but that's the basic division. The two agree that the state should be abolished but for very different reasons, and at their core, they have very different philosophies where libertarians stand more on typical liberal thinkers - adam smith, john locke etc. and anarchists are still fundamentally standing on marx + someone criticizing marx (bakunin, kropotkin).

Your typical popular culture will get these to mixed up. Usually the anarchist "A" is still reserved for young punk gangs / people you'd generally suspect are leftists. But often enough, your stereotypical old man in a cottage saying he wants the state out of his pockets (or Ron Swanson from Parks and Rec) is referred to, wrongly, as an anarchist when what they really are, is libertarian.