Welcome to /r/Anarchy101!

Still more new to Anarchism than I like since I'm still getting around to making Mental Space for reading Theory but in what I have come to understand Anarchism isn't saying "No Rules" (something more closely espoused by American Libertarianism). Instead it suggests that the overwhelming Majority of Hierarchy is unjustifiable and therefore exploitative.

What I'm still stuck on is where and how does Authority, Hierarchy, and Power fit into an Anarchist Society?

I’m trying to come up with realistic reactions from places like the EU, U.K, U.S , China and the other nominally Socialist countries over a nation with widespread support adopting non-state socialism. I’d assume the first reaction would be to try and destabilise the movement covertly or “sabotage” the progress so it ends at social democracy like with Weimar Germany.

As an ex muslim, i want to get perspectives from western leftists here. Why? What are some material and ideological explanations for it? Sure, Maybe through education and increase of science but why didn't same happen in muslim World? Even in rich gulf countries with higher standards of living than America, they're still pretty religious. Why is western Europe so irreligious?

Do you think the same would happen to muslim world? That people would become less religious over time and athiesm might become more common?

Hi all. I had a mostly drunk convo/debate with a friend tonight about the systems that construct and codify language.

Her position is that since language is a human construct, the act of codifying language is primarily just an act of domination from a ruling class to subjugate lower classes of people to certain societal consequences and barriers. Therefore, concepts of “correct” and “incorrect” language are meaningless since language is a fluid conception.

My position is that codification is a human phenomena and is just a tool for human personal and interpersonal interpretation of the surrounding environments and experience. We can have non-hierarchical and non-authoritarian developments of language without the arbitrary social punishments and consequences.

So yeah idk. Maybe we’re both wrong and that’s fine lol. Just wanted to get other opinions and insights.

Thanks all ❤️

I’m still reading and educating myself, wouldn’t yet call myself an anarchist as to not embarrass myself with my lack of knowledge.

I was talking with someone about the vanguard. We both agreed that it and historical materialism are flawed concepts but then they said about this:

"Yeah, that idea doesn't work out. The state needs to be coopted and limited with democratic oversight. I don't believe the state can be removed. If you remove the state a new one will replace it.”

I’m just not sure how to fully respond. I mean, the EZLN has removed part of the Mexican state, etc, but thats not very large scale grand scheme.

Thank you in advance.

Hey all, I wanted to reach out and see if anyone knows any good, comprehensive writings on the origins of the Zapatista movement, the uprising as it happened, and the continuity of their functioning in Chiapas? Definitely interested in books in particular, and not really into podcasts etc, but open to other written things as well.

I'm trying to read God and the State and whenever Bakunin mentions the materialists and idealists I start to suspect that his target audience may not have been 21st century Americans.

I do find some of Anarchist ideas appealing but I do have some questions?

First of all, I know there would be no "Crime" and I know the vast amount of violence would be reduced, but how would an anarchist society deal with serial killers, rapists, or thieves? I know that punishment doesn't really work but what would the alternative be? What about someone who's just generally destructive to the society they're in, destroying someone's property or threatening them? It's just that there's so many awful and antagonistic people beside just the state it's hard to imagine how they'd be dealt with.

Second, how would people have their needs met? For instance, how would my friend get his insulin, or me my glasses?

Third, as far as I'm aware, the only way conflicts can be solved is through compromise, some sort of direct democracy, or have a third party settle it for you, as long as you're not coerced into anything. But what if that doesn't happen and an agreement isn't come to? I admit I doubt this would happen often, but still, is there no solution to the dispute?

Also how are people able to collaborate meaningfully on a global scale? Won't decisions take incredibly long? It just seems ineffective if there's some sort of issue that needs to be addressed swiftly.

Finally with how people are today, It feels hard imagining anarchism even coming to be. There's just so many people with beliefs contrary or antagonistic to anarchism, and people are so cynical when it comes to others, I feel like it's holding us back. How can we ever achieve anarchism? I get it though. I read "Anarchy works" and it was talking a lot about the views of certain societies and cultures, and it just feels impossible to have anarchism without our society adopting vastly different views, it just seems impossible.

side question: what black leaders do anarchists look up to?

From the examples Max Stirner gave in "Stirner's Critics", I interpret it as a friend group of sorts, or at least socialization between people, but I feel like I'm missing something. Is there more to it or am I overthinking it?

I want to hear an anarchist opinion on this. Thank you.

As much as I dislike the hierarchist educational system, I also wonder if lying and being fraud is ethical or good. I want to hear your opinion.

To my understanding, autonomy is key to anarchism and there is little time given to people who are incapable of reasonable autonomy.

I think it's fair to accept that mental illness exists and we have to sometimes intervene to protect people from harming themselves and/or others. Sometimes such illness is acute and people become intensely ill for a short period. Sometimes it's permanent, sometimes it's intermittent, sometimes it's continual. Severe depression, anorexia nervosa, paranoid schizophrenia, oppositional defiant disorder, psychopathy etc will not go away if capitalism vanishes overnight, so what is the most ethical approach to people who have lost a reasonable awareness of self and priority?

How does anarchism deal with people who are fundamentally compromised when it comes to the basics of autonomy?

I constantly see this being said by MLs yet as a Māori I see in practice a long history of the opposite, like in 1980 when the police were called on Māori activists and the Polynesian Resource Center was closed down by Auckland trade union members because the Māori activists wrote a document criticising the trade union for cashing in on capitalistic expansion and exploitation of the Pacific Islands, they used the liberal media to demonise Syd Jackson for calling for intersectionality in the left, there was a declassified document by the SIS (New Zealand's intelligence agency) praising Workers Communist League and how the WCL was essentially just using Māori activists for dangerous tasks to get them arrested and in 2007 anarchists and Māori activists were getting arrested nationwide during the Tūhoe raids because the capitalist state saw both as a threat to the capitalist colonial system.

Why do they accuse anarchism of being for the ruling class? Is it deflection, dogmatism of their own ideology or something else?

Ok, long post, tldr in the end.

First of all, this is not a troll question. I am educating myself about anarchism for some months now, leaning to anarcho-communism altough lots of other tendencies seems cool, and reading some anarchist literature as well as hanging out in this subreddit.

The problem is, me and a friend discuss a lot about politics and society. He is more individualist leaning, and is getting into righ-wing libertarianism. We end up agreeing in lots of things regarding freedom and liberty, that everyone should live as they like, that the current economic system is shitty and will get us either under slavery or killed by climate crisis if we give it more 100 years (or less). He even agrees that corporations and monopoly is bad for society. He also agrees that free association is good.

But when I talk about private and personal property, he says that there's not such difference in libertarianism. That he advocates for a society where he can do whatever he wants in his property (this is what freedom means for him), and that people should respect this. He also says that any society will eventualy evolve into some sort of capitalism (wich is something i found strangely similar to marxist tought) and that competition would be good for inovation and uhhh... ""progress"".

To him an anarcho-communist society could easily exist near an anarcho-capitalist society and any other anarchist society. That the ancap principles doesn't exclude, but protects other free ways of living. And that "an"caps would side with anarchists if police try to cease their freedom.

Now, how can I discuss things that show him that such ancap society is pure utopia? That poverty would remain pretty much the same, and corporations would be even more free to take over the world?

I mean, I could go full on saying that freedom requires equality (or equity, anyway), or that anarcho-capitalist praxis would just turn into neo-feudalism instead of that utopia, that it's not actual anarchy cus hierarchy, etc. But none of these things would resonate with the average "libertarian". How can I show him the contradictions of capitalism without turning the conversation into a agressive debate?

TLDR: friend of mine is turning into "anarcho"-capitalism. How can I discuss the contradictions in the money money libertarian project in a way that resonates with the average ancap?

Also sorry for bad english, i'm brazilian

I’ve heard of horizontal organization or “flat” organization, and I was wondering what it is and how it compares with democracy.

Basically, how does anarchism see itself on the economical subject?

Is there an anarchistic way to approach the economy?

What are the methods, opinions and ideas on how anarchism affects the economy?

​

I've been doing a bit of reading and writing and imo, I do actually believe that this could be possible. Now of course, such a situation would certainly be a contradiction in terms to the Anarchist critique, and any anarchist worth their salt would be inclined to oppose it.

That said, I do believe that in a revolutionary scenario it may be possible if the circumstances were not ideal for opportunists to gain prominence and slowly begin to centralise itself. You only need to look at some of the aspects of the CNT with collusion with the state, Maletesta's critiques of Mahkno, and even the current day Rojava movement to see some of these vulgarities coming through.

Like I said however, the anarchist critique will still stand, but I fear that if a clique of Anarchists who behold a more populist understanding of Anarchism (E.g. Not all Hierarchy, just unjustified hierarchy) you could see this occurring. Even a friend of mine seemed to become more and more inclined towards allowing state or authoritarian actions and used that definition as reasoning for it.

What do you think?

I realize that what I'm about to ask could be perceived as a loaded question or otherwise an attempt at denigrating the anarchist outlook. However, I'm prefacing my question here to assure you (to the best of my ability) that I'm inquiring in good faith, as I learn quite a lot from dialogue, if not outright (friendly) debate, and by engaging in thorough dialogue I can better understand how a system of ideas might work or be applied. I have no affinity for the worldviews espoused by the right, and that's precisely because the ideals of meaningful co-operation, the dismantling of capitalism and the state, and the development of non-hierarchical structures of organization and community appeal to me in a serious way. Respect for human beings regardless of traits like ethnicity, culture, sexual orientation, or gender identity or presentation is also something I highly value—it's frankly the only thing that really makes sense to me, should we try and act in a way that is concienable—and I find it abhorrent that so many people are oppressed on the basis of these traits or, say, their economic class or religion. Additionally, the rapid destruction of the biosphere is incredibly concerning to me. All of these issues and concerns and more are a large part of what's driven me to begin to study libertarian socialism, anarchism, autonomism, and similar outlooks.

Anyway, I just want to understand something: at the risk of merely generalizing or even stereotyping, it seems that, based on what I've read so far about anarchism, many anarchists at once espouse Indigenous peoples' rights to their territories and ways of life and the dismantling of borders in general.

I'm just trying to square away how a person can value the free movement of people and their right to live where they wish and yet also call for Indigenous peoples and native cultures of various places to be kept intact and dominant over a certain area and its resources.

These are extremely hyperbolic examples, but bear with me here: it seems inevitable to me that if, say, 10,000,000 Nigerians were to suddely up and move to Liechtenstein, there wouldn't be a Liechtenstein anymore, in the sense of there remaining a native Liechtensteiner culture or sense of common identity. Similarly, if everyone in Liechtenstein suddenly up and moved to, say, Lesotho or Nauru, there wouldn't be much of a Mesotho or Nauruan culture remaining, if at all.

This perhaps boils down to the possibility, at least as it seems to me in my reading thus far, that there doesn't appear to be a standardized understanding of what makes a group Indigenous. I'm sure I may be misunderstanding here (which, to be clear, is why I ask any of this—if I can grasp the logical consistency of anarchism then I can actually find it adherable and I can defend it as a position!), but how is it determined who is descended from a culture that first inhabited a place, and whether that's actually a meaningful concern in a given situation under certain conditions? How does conflict and deprivation play a role? (Say, in the case of people moving from places of disaster and war to new areas.) How is all of this settled in a way that's beneficial to, and compassionate toward, all people?

Thank you for taking the time to read my post and respond. I appreciate your understanding and willingness to educate me. Please correct any assumptions I've potentially made here, should they be uninformed.

All the best and much love.

Autonomy as a concept is understandable at face value, but seemingly hard to delve into its nuances. I feel as though many anarchist types who boast of seeking autonomy do so in a a fairly shitty (dare I say maybe not even anarchist?) manner as a means to justify their behavior. It almost feels like we sometimes can't beat the "anarkiddie" allegations when many in our ranks can't seem to grasp that a group living together might require coming together and working out responsibilities that roommates or affinity group members might be held accountable for.

How do we go about promoting and studying autonomy without falling short by allowing it to be used in the name of "I do what I want at the expense of others"?

You wouldnt have a passport or anything like that so how would it work? for example if you wanted to travel to rome while you are having a vacation or something like that?

Edit: my question is assuming the country you want to travel too is not yet anarchist

Now I know this sounds odd, law and anarchism don’t go together. But here is my own view on how an anarchist society would defend itself from bad people, murderers, thieves, etc.

Contracts.

As a anarcho syndicalist every Commune should have a commune, these communes contracts. Stating rules. Not laws, rules. For example. Don’t murder people. People who breach this contract will be judged collectively by the commune and dealt with a democratic process.

For example, Jim stabs Billy. Uh oh, Jim might stab more people. So the commune asks Jim why he does this, Jim states his case, Billy if he survived states his, and the commune votes on how to deal with him. Maybe they could kick him out of the commune and relinquish his access to the commune, or simply punish him. Whatever the contract states is the punishment for breaking the rules.

“But what if Jimmy keeps trying to stab people?”

If he’s a threat to the commune, the militia of the commune shoots him, the end.

Now I know this might not be popular but I really just want a better understanding of anarchism from other point of views. And want to compare my own to other people’s views. As mine are much more a federal direct democratic version of anarchism. So thoughts?

Ethics often focuses on human core values, such as freedom, cooperation, pacifism, and welfare. It is the basis for human rights and is used to uphold fairness and civility.

Now of course, external factors such as religious and superstitious "morality" and ethical dilemmas play a role, but regardless, ethics by itself is a suitable framework for an anarchist society.

The reason why I make this comparison is because what is deemed "unethical" and actually unethical usually resides on things such as Social Darwinism by capitalists, racial and gender separation and eradication by the Nazis, the infringement of private and personal life by countries with high levels of authority, glorification of war, which is technically human suffering and causes human suffering, loaded/charged tradition, and economic apathy, classism, and cost of poverty by rightist economies; ALL OF THEM opposed by anarchism.

Anarchism values freedom, equality, self, cooperation, progress, and peace. Whereas 80% of all the political ideologies to ever exist are ethically flawed one way or another.

If it is like this, I love being a far-leftist.

So, I've been a lead/supervisor at my job for almost 2 years now, which predates me identifying and leaning towards Anarchism. I got into a leadership position to enact positive change within my company (positive shift environment, advocating for the workers, etc.), and in some ways, my employees tell me I've made a big difference in their lives, but not necessarily the company.

But I'll be honest, I've been struggling lately. If I believe in the abolition of hierarchical structures, why am I a supervisor? Can I even make a change? I'm obviously up against something bigger than myself, but should that stop me from trying? I've pushed back against changes at work, but no one above me seems interested in what I have to say, ESPECIALLY when it means advocating for the workers who literally are the backbone of the company.

TL:dr - Do you think it's possible to be a supervisor and an Anarchist?

I want to know why most anarchist hate this concept of synthesis anarchism??

In few comments on some posts I have seen people calling the presence of confederations as anti anarchist and are associating it with platformist anarchism but what I know of platformist anarchism is that it's a way to achieve the anarchist goal by means of protests and other groups but I have seen people hating both?

maybe it was just a dream, but i remember hearing a little segment in audiobook format about an author (dont know who) entertaining the possibility of extraterrestrial life

(i think it was an anarchist writer. thats how i remember at least)

anyone know anything about it?

Hey so I saw a post by Working Class History about how the bolsheviks attacked anarchists in 1918 but some people in the replies were saying that it was because the anarchists were attacking civilians and factories. I had never heard about that so I'm genuinely asking, is it true or not?

I live in Central America and am getting more involved in local community organizing. The indigenous community is large but fractured near me, and many profiteers from the city want to set up tourist centers in indigenous communities, and to get a booth in the main city market selling indigenous wares, but the catch being that most of the profits would be going to non indigenous organizers, who are really just in it for the profit.

Likewise the government has indigenous councils and indigenous rights organizations...where the representatives are white or Latino and not indigenous.

Some indigenous friends are working on trying to organize the community and work towards self sustainment. None of them have heard of chiapas/ELZN or other semi anarchist indigenous organization movements.

I would love to get them some literature that we could distribute. Stuff that is inspiration and practicalz especially from ELZN, discussing community organization and showing that this is possible.

Does anyone have favorite books from Chiapas, Marcos, or other communities that I could get in Spanish or translate to share? Not histories, but actual motivational and inspirational texts that someon with no exposure to anarchy or community can read and latch onto?

Federica Montseny was an anarchist who took part in the republican government during the Spanish civil war, specifically serving as the minister of health and social assistance.

What do modern day anarchist think of her? I'm asking this because most anarchist I met tend to reject parliamentarianism, as it is seen as a way of recognising the authority of the state, and thus goes against most anarchist principles.

I want to better understand what counts as eugenics and I don't really know a better leftist subreddit to ask this.

I understand that Nazi-style forcible sterilization of "undesirables" is most definitely eugenics. Something more insidious, like government programs that encourage sterilization or abortions for specific groups, also sounds like eugenics to me.

But if a pregnant couple decides to abort their child because there is reason to believe that the child would grow up with a developmental disability like Down syndrome, would that be considered eugenics? In India, we face an issue of female foeticide where (even after it's been criminalised), sex determination sonographies are done to abort female fetuses to avoid "bearing the burden" of raising a girl child. While this is obviously wrong, I don't know if it counts as 'eugenics.'

I'm starting to study pedagogy and it seems interesting, it makes me wonder if there's some anarchists writing about education, someone that studied "educational sciences" (idk the name for it outside of my country), an anarchist look on pedagogy, learning and teaching from someone who studied the field, if possible.