Humanitas

[IliaDN]

From WIKIPEDIA: Anarchism is derived from the Greek αναρχία ("without archons (rulers)"). Thus "anarchism," in its most general meaning, is the belief that rulership is unnecessary and should be abolished. All forms of anarchism oppose the existence of a State and favor what they percieve to be voluntary relations between individuals. Various types of anarchism devise particular organizations of society and economic systems that they belief are most consistent with the lack of "rulership" and most conducive to the maximization of freedom.

Anarchism comprises various political philosophies and social movements that advocate the elimination of the State. In the place of centralized political structures and invasive economic practices, these movements favor social relations based upon voluntary interaction. These philosophies use anarchy to mean a society based on voluntary interaction of free individuals. Philosophical anarchist thought does not advocate chaos or anomie — it refers to "anarchy" as a manner of human relations that is intentionally established and maintained.

While a voluntary society and opposition to the state are primary tenets of anarchism, anarchism is also a positive vision of how a stateless society would work. There is considerable variation among the anarchist political philosophies. Opinions differ in various areas, such as whether violence should be employed to foster anarchism, what type of economic system should exist, if wealth inequality between individuals should exist, whether social hierarchy is opposed, questions on the environment and industrialism, and anarchists role in various movements.
Moral is o.k.

Moral punks are rare IMO.

[Franconicus]

Moral punks are rare IMO.

You are wrong. Maybe they reject the middle class moral, but they have a moral.

[IliaDN]

You are wrong. Maybe they reject the middle class moral, but they have a moral.

OOPS, sorry, I mentioned exactly middle class ( normal human ) moral, not moral of their society.

[A.Saturnus]

I find this discussion pointless. I agree that someone who is best described as a fascist can hardly be a humanist, but generally it doesn´t matter so much into which category we can include someone. It has to be determined for every individual person whether his views are combatible with humanism. For example, you´ll find a good number of buddhists who are certainly not humanists.