most socialists are focused on the goal of redistributing the means of production and commonly owned means of production

its a quite restricted economy compared to others

wouldnt the needed enforcement of that require a state?

I will also say that anarchism is focused on the destruction of hierarchies. This includes all hierarchies, not just economic hierarchy. As such, any self-proclaimed anarchism that fails to meet such criterion is ignoring the political project of anarchism.

anarchy as a term simply means the lack of authority and/or laws or rules

Economic hierarchy including but not limited to: private ownership of capital, waged labor, exploitation, etc.

the less rules you have, the more anarchy you have

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism

and the more hierarchy

hierarchy exists everywhere

Wikipedia is an incomplete assessment, but it's even written there into the first sentence.

in all animals

Hierarchies are fairly natural. Denying them tends to mean informal hierarchies of social status spring up.

it's the new anti science from anarchist kiddies on the left

the abolishment of all hierarchy is utopian, yes

We're not really discussing hierarchy rn. Just clarifying the definition of anarchism.

If you would rather discuss that topic, we can try.

you need a state to enforce anti-hierarchy @lolo

the wikipedia mentions "voluntary institutions". how can socialism be voluntary? if it's voluntary, it means you can opt out?

that itself is needing a hierarchy to enforce anti hierarchy

It would be prudent to first start with an evaluation of neo-positivist objectifications of "natural law" and how they reproduce the given state of affairs, disguising social opposition as immutable and creating a one-dimensional system of thought and confirmation of thought.

capitalism is a voluntary institution

you can be a fucking commie or a anarchist or an anarcho syndicalist if you like

Can we kinda stick to a more coherent conversation? It's very difficult to keep up with 2+ people spewing their thoughts without any structure. It's not a constructive form of communication.

you can start with indigo

i need to take a shower

Okay, then indigo, can you respond to my lead in?

if you're interested in discussing hierarchy and "naturalness"

you can make a company with whatever system you like, whether it be anarcho syndicalist or communist in a capitalism.

The opposite is not true in those leftist utopias.

that's not engaging with anything I've said.

It's ideological ranting that has little to do with the topic at hand, and I can't really respond to.

hence liberty and leftism are oxymorons

"liberty" as a concept has been destroyed in the real discourse of capitalism. All emancipatory dimensions of the concept have been repressed and the meaning has been reduced to a reflection of behavioralism and operational definitions/instances.

The inherent contradictions of, for instance, American liberty and a *true* liberty may be masked, but can be critically determined.

Liberty would imply freedom, individual emancipation, and the furthering of a historical project of humanism. At the very least: satisfaction of material needs and the development of real needs beyond those.

This is impossible in the operational logic of capitalism, in which repression must be furthered (even when it is named liberty) to satisfy particular interests and the creation of surplus value.

so do you agree that there is no libertarianism or freedom or whatever in leftism.

You cannot take a discussion of liberty down to black and white. This sort of abridgment stunts any contemplation.

There is no *true* liberty in capitalist society. True liberty can only be achieved in a society that has transcended, at the first, the capitalist mode of production.

Only if there isn't ANY liberty in leftism

Actually existing socialisms (which I assume you refer to? Such as the USSR?) have also failed to transcend the capitalist mode of production and failed to result in human liberty and emancipation.