Too much effort is spent debating what life will be like "under anarchy". Anarchy as a concept has become a semi-mythical unobtanium, a theoretical expression of conviction that distracts from the everyday struggle for freedom in the here and now.

"How will X work under anarchy?" Who the fuck knows? We are so, so far away from anything that looks like that. The state has never been more powerful. Capital has never been stronger. Stop fantasising about visions of utopia and discuss what really matters - How do we create more freedom in this world, right now? How can we extend love and solidarity to others, in the places we live? How can we build a movement that inspires people to join?

Veganism is not inherently better for the environment than a diet that includes animal products. Vegan diets are heavily dependent on soy and palm oil, which promote monoculture and deforestation. The environmentalist argument for veganism is based on the fact that it takes less monocrop (e.g. soy) to feed humans directly than to feed livestock raised to feed humans. However, the solution to this isn't veganism. The solution is to raise and feed animals differently (i.e. without the use of mass produced monocrop feed).

For example, 1 acre of forest cultivated by a local community could raise 3-4 pigs on a diet of tree nuts, vegetable waste, and surplus milk. This results in a far greater quantity of consumable calories (i.e. far more food) than that acre being used to grow soy. It's also better for the environment to do this than to use that acre to grow soy, because it doesn't involve deforestation and the pigs can rejuvenate the soil (via rooting and via fertilizing it with feces).

If you're trying to minimize suffering across species, then the diet most likely to succeed at that is one that is least destructive to ecosystems (i.e. something along the lines of what I described above, not veganism).

See here for empirical research supporting this argument (The vegan industrial complex: the political ecology of not eating animals by Amy Trauger): chrome-extension://mhnlakgilnojmhinhkckjpncpbhabphi/pages/pdf/web/viewer.html?file=file%3A%2F%2F%2FC%3A%2FUsers%2F19139%2FDownloads%2Fjpe-3052-trauger.pdf

So I've been thinking a lot about communism lately.

There's a lot of good there.

To me, the most basic organizing principle of communism is from each... to each... (from here on out i'll just call it FEATEN)

Now there are some practical issues with implementation but I do honestly believe that these can be overcome.

Needs are self-defined in this context (and contrary to the claims of some critics, needs go beyond like basic survival needs but include luxuries and the like).

The hang-up I have with communism is that the needs based model doesn't really account for individual input or sacrifice.

What i mean by this is that labor itself can be considered a sacrifice. It can be either unpleasant or have a time opportunity cost associated with it (any hour spent laboring to meet the needs of others is not spent doing something you enjoy more).

That time or effort is a real cost to the individual, and it just seems fair to me that that cost is equaled by a reward. The product of one's labor is one's own. Now, obviously, we don't want people's basic needs to be unmet. That would be bad.

So instead I am proposing a different organizing principle, a different motto if you will. Instead of FEATEN how about: To each according to the greater of their need or sacrifice. That seems more fair to me, that way is need is greater than sacrifice some basic needs are still met, but if sacrifice extends beyond needs then it is rewarded. I suppose this is a sorta communist-y version of the Cost Principle in mutualism.

So if I work extra hard for the community, the community works extra hard for me. That sort of thing.

To me this strikes me as more fair than FEATEN as basic needs remain met, but also individual contribution is rewarded in proportion to the basic sacrifice and effort that they put in. There's no shame in not working as hard or anything, the exact balance is left up to the individual to decide "how much effort do I want to put in in exchange for the community's efforts to help me beyond my basic needs?"

This connects rewards with contribution in a way that FEATEN doesn't without leaving anyone out to dry. It acts as a regulator on excessive demand as well, which is an added bonus for the management of common resources in a kind of cybernetic way (I find cybernetic economic analysis utterly fascinating)

Anyways, I'm curious as to your thoughts. FEATEN strikes me as missing that individual sacrifice, and an individual's control over the product of their labor in a way that my principle doesn't. Needs are met in both, but one also acknowledges the degree of sacrifice and scales reward based on that sacrifice which the other does not. And that just strikes me as fairer.

​

To the communists here and supporters of FEATEN would you disagree with my assessment? Why/why not?

“Must redefine utopia. It isn’t the perfect end-product of our wishes, define it so and it deserves the scorn of those who sneer when they hear the word. No. Utopia is the process of making a better world, the name for one path history can take, a dynamic, tumultuous, agonizing process, with no end. Struggle forever. Compare it to the present course of history, if you can.” Kim Stanley Robinson, Pacific Edge

I often see the question posed of what, specifically, an anarchist society will look like, when we get there. I think that’s broadly missing the point of anarchism. We know some things it won’t look like - hierarchies of dominance - but what exactly it looks like will always be in flux as it is a continually being created. This is true of any political system but most fight against it, trying to reach or return to some point of supposed perfection. Any kind of functioning anarchism needs to be made up of people who are aware of it being an ongoing utopian struggle where at least some of the people intentionally engage in that struggle.

This is just due to two reasons:

1. Metastability

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metastability Ancient h-g egalitaria societies were (1), agricultural revolution pushed the ball to (2), now we're in the andro hegemon (3)

2. (Military) force being the real driver of history (as Simone Weil said once); it doesn't matter if your small "matrilinear" society have better principles than that nasty invasor: If their army is powerful enough, you're basically done.

"Real political power comes from the barrel of a gun", Mao Zedong

Haven't you ask why the few matrilinear/matrifocal societies you find are basically uncontacted tribes (or at least marginal and struggling to not disappear)?

Edit: I wanted to put this on "r/debatefeminism", but this subreddit is restricted, so I chose the most similar one. BTW, this also applies to "Primitive communism" or "Classless/non-hierarchical societies": Once the state rules, there's no turning back.

Hello all - I've been researching Integral Theory recently, with Ken Wilber's Sex, Ecology, Spirituality on its way via mail - and after searching this sub, I was surprised to see no posts or mentions of the way in which Integral Theory presents hierarchies. Namely, that hierarchy comes in two forms; growth and domination. Allow me to present relevant terminology to explain:

Holons: an entity or concept that is both an entity on its own, and part of a larger whole. Such as atoms > molecules > proteins > cells > organs > organisms > superorganisms; or letters > words > sentences > paragraphs > chapters > books; where one level of the "hierarchy" includes, and transcends, the layer "below" it to create something new with its own emergent properties. The term holarchy is used to describe this "Russian nesting doll" of holons.

Growth vs Domination: Growth hierarchies are organically-driven, where the physical properties of the deeper layers of holons interact and result in emergent layers of complexity as the systems develop. The term "transcend and include" is used a lot to describe growth hierarchies (such as molecules being bonded by the electrical charge of atoms, a new holon created out of the emergent properties of the underlying layer; the atoms do not "intend/plan" to create molecules).
Domination hierarchies are artificially-created, and do not "transcend and include" the lower holons, but stifle them to maintain a status quo of power inbalance and superiority, and to reinforce desired behavior, rather than creating the foundation for further development.
Growth is organic and bottom-up, Domination is artificial and top-down.

-------

As someone who has spent the majority of their adult life describing themselves as anti-hierarchy and anti-domination, who has always hated the term "justified hierarchy" (per Chomsky), but also as a lifelong 'science-enjoyer,' I have conflicting feelings on the way that hierarchy is presented in this theory. Growth hierarchies/"holarchies" do seem to pop up quite often in the natural world (in biology, ecology, particle physics, and cosmology especially), but "justified" seems to fall short of describing these (although I know this is not what Chomsky intended by the term). And of course, I would expect anyone interacting with this post to have a deep opposition to domination hierachies.

My question is, does this change or better inform your view of hierarchy? How so?

!To clarify, this post is not an endorsement of Ken Wilber or Integral Theory, an attack against anarchism, or an attempt to "remediate hierarchies." It is to discuss a different interpretation of a concept that is at the core of so many debates in anarchist spaces. If you have opinions/criticisms of Integral Theory, feel free to share, but that's not the purpose of this post.!<

At a time when there is no one to regulate them wouldn't the holders become the Rulers?

More the weapons you have, more the powerful you become.

And even if Govt. is abolished, armed organizations exist and more would be created, doesn't that mean that Government is not getting abolished but only getting fragmented in parts?

I got a lot if Confusions duckin my head...

PS: I believe Anarchy is where there are no organizations whatsoever that govern you. Every individual can think and act for itself. No Power or Authority over anyone else

The individuals rule there community, and this only single community do they have voice and power to make laws if they so wish.

a community is 100 to 200 people, and you need at least 20 peploe to start one.

If the community choose pure anarchy, then so be it, if they chose not to have a speaker or noblemenny representatives then that is there choice, but it will coast there voice in the larger government, but they wont be bothered in there community.

The can choose to work for the union, or they can choose to be self efficient in there own ways.

And no there is nothing stopping them from attacking, well besides each community bing built against invasion.

Needs are a given for all who work for the union, and those that are self efficient can find market places to trade or barter.

The union is the workers voice. there strength against capitalistic explosion, there protection from dictator ship.

It is a volunteer militia, its split into two parts, medical and desater relife and defence of the nation.

both parts act as a tool of order, with the medical and disaster relife being for most civil conflict matter.

As violence begets violence.

When one turns of age, and decides to forgo the union and republic, they are gifted with some resources if there education to use them, to help start them in the economy if they want to open a mom and pop shop or something.

The republic is the main body of the nations capitol and resources, held by a two sets of chairs, low for more communal nuance and to handle the contracts between the union and the communities there in, and regional, to handle the larger scail of economy and production, including any depts or disputes with the state.

The crown is the higher government. The lower government is the representatives of the comunity. there only job is to speak the consensus of there people. They have no power to set law or policy. But have more legal authority over the crown, as long as what spoke is consented amongst there people, and furthered amongst there seat. The representatives vote amongst them self to have a higher chair of voices. The usa would have five such high chairs while a stete california could have millions of communities.

The high chairs same amount of power and authority as low chairs, all there job is, is to repeat the consensus of there sector.

The crown has no power over the domains of the union, republic or community.

He has responsibilities to make sure all parties play nice, diplomacy, and making sure all the affairs of each sector are handled, and to shape the nation with there cut of the economy. To maintain and rep'ir what needs it.

And lastly they handle all affairs abroad in government and trade. The hair is picked not by birth, but by abilitys and deeds, with the high courts of law meeting with the high chairs in debate, like the cardinals pick the pope in rome.

The coats hold the american constitution, for as written it is the most libral if not also the most ignored document ever written.

Sublemited by a code book for nobility. outlining there duitys and obligations to the people.

They are not rulers but representatives of our power and might. They may call us to defend our community, but they can not ordec us to march, for we only march if our blood calls us to battle. for home and country, not becuse some doofus on a thrown wills us.

Only the community has laws, and only the republic may dictate laws into there contracts, though i bet there will be plenty that vill write one without, for i hope many anarchist would take some joy as a boss in such a republic, if only to sow more anarchy.

Yes I said crime , you know exactly what I'm referring to . Why do anarchist answers in general and in particular the question of crime,absolutely suck?

I started with economy and community. spent almost five years on that puzzle.

Chose community, for that is when the individual has the most strength.

i thought of the republic of capitol and labor, for i agree with the captilist, compition is good for innovation.

low and high chairs. They are the economy, a free agent of the state.

The labor is never to trust the republic. They work for there community, the union negotiate your contract with the republic, making sure you get what you want and need out of your labor.

The people have representatives that they vote for, and id still ague making that family nobel.

Nobel in the fact that he is there voice, nobel in that he has there respect and trust to hald there word upwords.

If he should ever fail his nobility. he shell be chucked out the tallest window of his estate.

crimes high enuff, all members of such houses could face suck penalties for neglecting there people.

The courts are the highest authority in law, all bows to there rule.

Few other fractions that make up this whole. but this is the whole.

The crown has no power of rule on anyone.

You can chose to opt out and run your community on anarchy and have your own markets and militia.

that is no one but your business.

The system as a whole, is anarcho.

"Fucking off into the woods" can and should be viewed as a prefigurative tactic, depending on the context and intention behind the action. For those individuals that do exercise this option, they are creating a small-scale model of the kind of society they envision, one that prioritizes freedom from arbitrary societal constraints.

When viewed through the lens of a prefigurative tactic, "Fucking off" embodies the ideal of creating alternative spaces or practices that reflect desired social values. By withdrawing from mainstream society and its norms, individuals and communities can experiment with different ways of living, organizing, and relating to one another.

"Fucking off" can serve several purposes:

• Creating alternative models: By living according to principles of sustainability, cooperation, and self-governance in secluded or intentional communities, individuals can demonstrate the viability of alternative social structures, particularly anarchist ones. Critics of "Fucking off" will often make exhortations about the inability to influence society when one withdraws from it, but I think this very line of thought presumes that society is something like a machine that can be seized. Indeed, it seems less like an anarchist project to suggest one can seize the imagination of society than to engage in the creation of a parallel society which actually reflects those anarchist values.

• Cultivating autonomy: Withdrawal into nature or solitude can be an act of reclaiming autonomy and agency from systems of control. It allows individuals and communities to prioritize their own well-being and values outside of broader societal expectations and pressures.

• Cultural critique: By rejecting mainstream systems of domination and the exploitation of the natural world, those who "fuck off" are challenging dominant cultural narratives and systems of power. These actions can be seen as a response against the injustices and inequalities of contemporary society, but also as a generative process: I think Graeber and Wengrow really offer a compelling argument that two of the original three "freedoms" were the freedoms to withdraw from the existing order and negotiate a new one.

Withdrawal itself may not directly lead to large-scale societal transformation, but it can inspire others to question the status quo and explore alternative ways of living. The visibility of intentional communities and individuals living off-grid or in harmony with the natural world can spark conversations and imaginations about different possibilities for the future, including anarchist ones.

Additionally, there are historical parallels to draw from which demonstrate the efficacy of this tactic:

• The Secession of the Plebs in ancient Rome

• The use of maroonage by enslaved people in San Domingue

• The Lahu people of the Golden Triangle

• The Seminole people of the Everglades

While none of these examples should be taken as emblematic of a holistic strategy, the point here is that withdrawal from broader to society is 1.) a time-honored tactic, 2.) achieves tangible results, and 3.) fundamentally prefigurative.

It is important to recognize that this tactic may not be accessible or desirable for everyone, and its effectiveness in promoting broader social change can vary, but it is nonetheless a valid tactic in the diversity of tactics.

(I learn best from criticizing and having my criticism refuted, and then deciding whether the rebuttal makes sense or not. Yeah, I know I sound like an asshole but thats just how i learn)

First, some common talking points;

In the previous ML post, the anarchist guy (decodecoman) said that under Marxist communism there is still stuff being enforced and rules and that someone is ordering people around. Thats cap. Under communism there is no need for authority because there is no need for combined labor. Authority is only needed under socialism, because labor is required to produce goods to be consumed. Under capitalism, the amount of labor required to produce an object will go down due to innovation, thus reducing its demand, thus reducing its value. This would lead to a society where those who own production would just have machines producing shit for them to consume and everyone else would just starve. If we set up communism, because virtually no labor is required to produce anything, nobody would have to work and just get their shit to them free. That pretty much puts aside 99% of your argument about marxism being 100% anti authority. While Marxism is not inherently anti authority it still seeks to abolish it at the very end. You have to understand that marxism views history as a gradient, and that global change has not historically, and is not just going to happen immediately, but is a gradual change of events, and we need temporary solutions to fight capitalism before we can just jump to anarchy.

Also, in order to do anything there needs to be a direction and a goal, and you can't just take all of society and expect them to be able to act in unison. They will have condescending views and ideas of how to get towards anarchy and one cannot form a plan to reach there without either democracy or a dictatorship. How will resources be allocated and how will execution of plans be carried out? How can an unorganized group of workers find the mathematically and economically most perfect way to go about production so that they can survive the massive sanction and embargo imposed by capitalist governments? How can they fight the fascists? The ruling class is incredibly organized. They control governments, they control the press, they control the media, they control what you want to buy, they create consumer cultures, incentives to buy things which generates new industry, which creates more capital. This is essentially a dictatorship, because businesses are not controlled democratically, and they control more of your life than the state as they literally control the government through lobbying and bribery. In order to counter it we need our own dictatorship.

I heard the fact that a state cannot be deconstructed after it is produced. Apon examining history we see thats cap. How was the divine right of kings and monarchs dissolved if it is impossible to bring down a state and replace it with a better one? How was slavery abolished?

Hi all,

For context to this question, I read a post a few days ago about someone asking if they should read the Turner Diaries to form some sort of antifacist action by understanding it. Most of the replies said do what you want, but it wouldn't be worth creating any meaningful action by engaging in good faith with bad faith works such as that Neo-Nazi drivel.

The post got me thinking about access to literature and knowledge, and how as an Anarchist, I believe that no one has any right or dominion over anyone, so you need no permission to read any book you want.

So my question for you all is this. How do we as Anarchists deal with inherently hateful opinions?

If I stick to what I believe above, then people with hateful opinions are free and allowed to have them, but to what extent do we deal with that? Where do we draw the line?

I think it was Christopher Hitchens who said something along the line that: the moderate religious person provides defense/shelter for the hateful religious extremist. Don't quote me on that, but the idea seems sound as to why inaction in some religious communities can allow extremist and hateful ideas to break through.

I'm struggling because I don't want to provide that moderate defense for harmful, hateful ideas and views that aim to hurt and limit the freedoms of my fellow anarchists.

Obviously, I know I don't have to, and I would never support or defend harmful rhetoric and views. But do I have to defend the ability for someone to have that view? If so, what does the extent of that look like?

EDIT: Formatting and grammar

I used to be an anarchist (am now some flavour of Marxist, maybe liberatarian), and what stopped me from being an anarchist was a few things, but partially that I think anarchists have a tendency to glorify/romanticise primitive pre-state society too much. These societies were riddled with disease, death, murder, and masses of social authoritarianism. If we were to return to a way of life like this, it is very possible we would not have the productive power to create deeply important technologies and quality of life would reduce massivley. It's also very unlikely a society in this form would be able to defend against either outside or inside capitalisf attacks using more top down methods of organisation.

I've noticed that many people who call themselves anarchists support some form or another of involuntary holding of persons.

I cannot see how involuntary holding of persons could possibly be compatible with anarchy, as it seems to clear that any form of involuntary holding necessarily involves the creation/use of authority.

Most examples in which I see people who call themselves anarchist defend involuntary holding, is as an alternative to violence against individuals who have committed anti-social acts (i.e. the notion that it is more moral to subject someone to compulsory rehabilitation than it is to kill them) or for protecting individuals suffering from mental health ailments against their own impulses (such as individuals trying to attempt suicide).

I would argue that any form of involuntary holding is incompatible with anarchy, simply because it creates/uses authority of some kind.

This may come down to a simple disagreement on priorities and goals from one's political philosophy. I am an anarchist because I want to maximize freedom. I value freedom more than I value preserving life. This is why I am in favor of women having full and completely unrestricted access to abortion. It is also why I am against the involuntary holding of persons, regardless of the context (even if it is to stop someone who is acutely suicidal from taking their own life). Yes, this means individuals who are acutely suicidal (who we of course believe may be fewer in number in the setting of a less toxic socio-economic environment) may end up taking their own lives. It also means individuals who are committing anti-social acts who are unable to be dealt with effectively via restorative justice or labor dissociation practices (see here: https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAnarchism/comments/1axcfc6/comment/krn7uec/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button) may simply end up being killed off (as opposed to held involuntarily for mandatory rehabilitation).

I simply do not believe human life is worth preserving at the expense of human freedom.

To those who disagree (supporters of involuntary holding of any kind) but still call themselves anarchists... I would be interested in hearing your rationale as to how your view is compatible with anarchy.

" I oppose factory farming but there is nothing wrong with killing animals outside of capitalism. i.e. “Killing and eating animals is not the problem, killing and eating animals under capitalism is the problem.”
This objection to veganism assumes that under capitalism factory farming is the only harmful experience attributed to non-human animals. While yes, slaughterhouses look better up in flames, at the core of speciesism is a hierarchical relationship between human and non-human animals (which is reflected in their everyday use for entertainment, pharmaceutical testing, and fashion trends involving their skin and fur) which justifies their oppression beyond just capitalism. Since the social relationship to non-human animals has been heavily shaped by capitalism, they are viewed as manufactured commodities rather than living beings capable of experiencing pain and suffering. While the elimination of capitalism and factory farming will end the institutionalized manifestations of speciesism, only an elimination of human supremacy on a personal level will create new relationships with non-human animals-relationships based on respect for their right to bodily autonomy and freedom from human domination.

or " Veganism is only a consumer activity and not inherently anti-capitalist. Boycotts don’t change anything. i.e. “There is no ethical consumption under capitalism.”
All too often this objection comes from a perspective that mistakenly assumes liberal veganism represents veganism as a whole. On an organized level, radical vegan groups and cells like the ALF, Animal Liberation Brigade, Animal Rights Milita etc. have destroyed hundreds of thousands of dollars in property and terrorized the state into creating the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act. On an individual level, veganism is an attack on the day to day speciesist power structure, a power structure invisibilized by social normalcy.

"Imposing veganism is a colonial practice because killing and eating meat is an essential aspect of many indigenous communities. i.e. “Killing and eating animals is not the problem, a colonized relationship to killing and eating animals is the problem.”

This is a common position we have seen many anarchists take. Interestingly enough, we find it is most often evoked as a response by white anarchists assuming a position as an “ally” to indigenous people. Many anarchists believe they are somehow speaking on behalf of indigenous people or seeking to further the traditions of indigenous people. This simplistic use of identity politics is nothing new. One need not look far to realize that there are a great number of indigenous people who are vegan today as well as a number of indigenous people whose customs never centered on consuming animals. There is no monolithic indigenous culture to evoke and therefore the gesture is meaningless. There are only multitudes of indigenous people with their own beliefs and customs. Attempting to justify hunting and/or non-human animal consumption by romanticizing Indigenous people only plays a role in homogenizing the experiences of all indigenous peoples.

Anyone who has attended enough anarchist gatherings that excluded vegan food knows how quickly discussions/arguments over speciesism and non- human animal oppression disrupts the atmospheric peace surrounding the consumption of animal flesh and secretions. While it seems tempting to dismiss veganism as merely a consumer activity, veganism challenges the oppressive hierarchy (speciesism) in radical spaces by acting as a wrench in the gears of speciesist conformity. By existing as such, dialog is created which brings the issue of non-human animal oppression to the surface and calls for an extended examination of internalized oppressive tendencies and behavior.

Speciesism is normalized through individual participation in a broader social program that objectifies non-human animals and places them below humans as commodities to consume. Taking part in this process of objectification normalizes the existence of oppressive thinking and ideology in anarchist spaces. It is an incomplete observation to say veganism is only concerned with food; it opens new avenues of thinking in terms of our relationship to non-human animals, while challenging a socially constructed hierarchy of human supremacy that normalizes our consumption of them.
Veganism is not merely a dietary choice, but a challenge to the dominant anthropocentric narrative. It is not about purchasing different products but cultivating new relationships with non-human animals which are not based on hierarchies and oppression. While there are still anarchists who feel waiting for the collapse of capitalism and supporting the ALF is a sufficient enough approach to anti-speciesism, many of us recognize the social and dietary framework which enables speciesism and the need for its total destruction.

Veganism is not merely a dietary choice, but a challenge to the dominant anthropocentric narrative. It is not about purchasing different products but cultivating new relationships with non-human animals which are not based on hierarchies and oppression. While there are still anarchists who feel waiting for the collapse of capitalism and supporting the ALF is a sufficient enough approach to anti-speciesism, many of us recognize the social and dietary framework which enables speciesism and the need for its total destruction.

Anarchists are quick to recognize that racism, sexism, and homophobia will not simply go away upon the collapse of capitalism and they must be fought here and now. These same anarchists, however, are often unwilling to apply this logic to speciesism. If we want total freedom, we must cultivate new relationships in our everyday lives. This means fighting oppression on every line, including the line of species. Refusing to do so is not coherent with anarchist and autonomist practices.

We are not asking for bigger cages but the destruction of all cages along with the ways of thinking that create them. Towards anarchy through individual and collective negation of this society and all its internalized roles, in solidarity with the wild against the prison world of human supremacy: vegan anarchy means attack everywhere!
Definitions:
Anthropocentrism:
The moralist belief that human beings are the most significant entity on earth.

Speciesism:
Speciesism, like many other isms, is based on a line of thinking which views certain unchosen traits as inherently superior over others. Racists think they are superior because of their race, sexists think they are superior because of their sex, speciesists think they are superior because of their species. Speciesism arises out of an anthropocentric view of the world in which an individual holds the belief that the human is the most important animal and therefore has the right to subjugate other animals based on species.

Veganism:
The avoidance, as much as possible, of cruelty to and consumption of non-human animals and products derived from them for food, clothing, and entertainment. Vegans view all animals (human and non-human alike) as beings with their own desires and potential for freedom.

Radical veganism:
is a logical extension of anarchist thought which recognizes the situations faced by all beings under attack by oppression, not only the human. Veganism in this respect proposes the constant reflection and deconstruction of personal positions, behaviors, and actions in the forever changing relationships between individuals, the world around us, and the dominating systems imposed onto us.

​

source: https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/biting-back-a-radical-response-to-non-vegan-anarchists

I don't know what category I would fit into, whether I should call myself a 'Marxist' or what (note, I posted this in a couple Marxism forums, and I'm being censored or ignored). It is similar to some kind of anarchism. I'm 49 years old, and after decades of experiences, and after being influenced by particular books I've read, I've developed an anti-landownership attitude. I just don't know what to call myself. I haven't read any books by Marx, except I have read one or two paragraphs that were quoted somewhere, and I know that he described how farmers were forced off their land, not by choice, and had no alternative but to work in factories because they didn't have their farms anymore.

The book I read that influenced me was actually 'Nutrition and Physical Degeneration,' by Weston A. Price. It started leading me down a pathway of believing that everything in our modern society, our whole way of life, and capitalism, is not good for us, but bad for us, bad for our physical and mental health, and bad for communities and families. In that book, he visited several different primitive societies and documented how healthy their bodies were, when they developed with proper nutrition (and, I would add, when they weren't exposed to the chemicals and drugs that we also have in modern society).

I am now in favor of a 'subsistence lifestyle,' and I believe that it is a universal human right to be legally allowed to live on the land for free, maybe on some designated piece of land, without being required to pay taxes, mortgages, cash down payments, rent, or utilities. You use the land directly to get what you need. This is appropriate for a low density population, but I do not know how I would design the system to work if it were a high density population. For instance, I couldn't just walk over to China or India and tell them to completely get rid of all landowernship, while everybody was still living in multistory skyscrapers. But it could work in an isolated, forested area, where people would live as hunter-gatherers, along with subsistence fishing, herding, and subsistence farming.

You would not be obligated to earn revenues by selling anything for money, because you wouldn't be required to pay any expenses by living on the land. A lot of capitalism isn't even about so-called 'profit,' it's about simply earning revenues, earning anything at all, so that you can simply pay the bills and avoid losing your land, avoid having someone foreclose your mortgage, avoid being evicted from your apartment.

I've been through several evictions and am in the middle of one right now, which is why this is fresh in my mind.

People who don't already own land will have a terrible time buying any, because the down payment is so enormous, and it has to be in cash. Who has tens of thousands of dollars in cash just lying around? Certainly not the people who are working at fast-food jobs and living paycheck to paycheck. They can get help from some government programs to maybe buy just an ordinary house to live in, but I don't want that. I want land, actual land, with a forest - I'm in Pennsylvania, and I want to live on the wooded mountains, but I'd like to have a little bit of cleared land, too, where I will plant native fruit trees.

Who has time to sit around waiting for fruit trees to grow, and start producing fruit, whenever you have to have instant revenues RIGHT NOW or else you won't be able to make payments on your land, and you'll lose it? The result is that all the farmers are forced to do get-rich-quick farming operations, where you can sell something as soon as possible, instead of waiting years and years for any long-term crops like fruit trees. I hate ractopamine use in pigs, for instance, but I can see why the farmers are doing things like that: they need their pigs to grow up as big as possible, as fast as possible, so that they can start selling them and earning some money, merely just to pay the bills first and foremost, before they even can think about making any profits or having any money left over. Everyone only grows 'fast crops' or fast-producing animal products because paying the bills is an urgent emergency.

Just what the title says. Seems like many of you believe in abolishing animal farming and hunting but I don’t understand how that would work post revolution. How can you prevent someone from raising chickens in their backyard for example? Community defense of the chickens?

Hi, I'm a liberal who thinks that anarchism is a terrible idea.

I've heard some anarchists say that people should be rehabilitated instead of put in prison but what is society supposed to do when someone who is extremely dangerous refuses to go to rehabilitation? For example, let's say a murderer is a home when some people knock on their door and say that they need to be rehabilitated. What if the murderer just refuses to live their house. Does that mean that they should be forcefully moved to the rehabilitation place or whatever it's called. If that's the case, then wouldn't that be similar to prison because they are physically forced to go there and wouldn't that also be limiting there freedom?

Edit: I have gotten a variety of different responses from different people and I think I've got a pretty good idea of how rehabilitation in an anarchist society would work. It seems like in the very rare scenario where someone refuses to change them it is the communities job to defend themselves from that dangerous person and control them / stop them from doing more harm. Or that's what I took from these responses at least. Anyway if think that's also wrong feeling free to correct me again in the comments.

Haiti is the ultimate example of a breakdown in hierarchical structures. Organized crime just takes over.

Ragtag militias are no match for an organized drug cartel, much less a State military.

An Anarchist society means one that is effectively subservient to whatever Warlord, crime syndicate, or Nation State that wants to take over. It would also be incapable of supporting itself for any extended period of time until a new force takes control.

The worst problem of Anarchism, is that it takes people who are genuinely concerned about abusive powers in our society, and makes sure that they never focus on achievable solutions.

In that sense, Anarchists directly support the continued dominance of the Oligarchy by focusing solely on unviable alternatives.

The best real life example of Anarchism playing out is in Haiti, where gangs are currently indiscriminately killing innocents in their bid to take full control over the country.

Anarchism exists for the briefest sliver of time before another force takes over. Blink and you will miss it, sneeze, and it will fall apart.

I'm a left-anarchist, but I wanted to copy the questions of a bio-primitivist here who thinks the only hope for humanity is an anti-tech revolution. I'll link this post to them so they can see any answers people give and they might reply themselves or I could potentially quote some of their replies for them. And obviously if you sympathise more with them, then I can offer my two cents too.

Their ideology is essentially just burn everything down to try and get as close to hunter-gatherer life as possible, 'hiding between the cracks' of the feudal war-lords that would rise up. They accept the history of some tribes keeping slaves and like the idea of the able-bodied male dominance hierarchies that would likely occur:

It’s true that pre industrial societies did significant damage to the environment, but the damage they did was nothing compared to the damage that industrial societies do to nature. An anti tech revolution would be a great leap forwards for nature. Overtime nature would recover from the damage industrialism has done to it. It is true that in certain places authoritarian systems such as feudalism will be set up. But by means will we be limited to Feudalism, the potential for freedom will have sparked. True Freedom will be possible, and even in these authoritarian systems there will be far more freedom then exists in modern society. And if you want to bad enough you could escape, but in industrial society there is nowhere to run.

Anyway, they think all social anarchists are either council ancom dreamers where every step a person takes in any direction will need to first be deliberated on by a 100 councils, or mutualists, but in both scenarios they think the society would descend into feudal-capitalist hell-holes.

I've abbreviated some of their questions for clarity and to save time reading, but I'll quote their messages in full at the end also:

---

How would you hope to bring down current governments like the US?

With violent revolution, all historical precedent suggests that you will fail at this. The ELZN has stopped trying to do so.

With peaceful revolution, you wouldn't be able to get hundreds of millions to go on strike, especially with all the pressure the government would put on them and the rewards they would receive for being scabs.

As for gradual reform and dragging the Overton window leading to reform, I don’t think there is any historical prescient suggesting that this is possible.

This certainly is not happening when it comes to economic issues, and it’s highly unlikely that anything a left anarchist movement could change this. Even in the realm of social issues where this was happening for a while pushback from the right has subverted it. Less people support transgenderism now then did a few years ago. The culture and politics of a society is something that is influenced by far to many factors for it to be simply dragged consistently in one direction for decades and decades.

This plan relies on far left political parties maintaining consistent power. Given the dominance of one political party has never shown itself to be insurmountable over long periods of time, it is highly unlikely that this is a realistic goal. People are different and will always vote for different ideas, this is a fact of life and cannot be changed. Whenever a left wing party were to lose power, their polices could be revoked.

The idea that the united state’s government, or any government for that matter has the power to eliminate capitalism let alone achieve left anarchism is beyond asinine. Even the most skilled American politicians with the largest majorities haven’t been able to achieve universal healthcare. The prospect of the entire elimination of capitalism through democratic government is completely unimaginable. Combine this with the fact you will have to be competing with other parties with contradicting views who will stifle your plans every step of the way.

----

How would you ensure these communes stay true to left anarchist principles?

How do you expect to successfully organize a society as complex as the united states (let alone the world of 8 billion) into autonomous communes of 150 people that make all decisions through voting? Historical examples of left-anarchist societies far less populous and complex then the united states have already failed to do anything of the sort. The CNT-FAI was a totalitarian state that sent it's political opponents to labor camps. The free territory of Ukraine didn't even collectivize it's land. All Historical precedent suggests that you will fail at this.

If centrally planned economies tend to be less efficient than market ones, wouldn't de-centrally planned societies that are planned by everyone voting on everything in a nation as advanced and populous as the united states be even less efficient and utter chaos?

If the anarchist revolution was achieved in one country, but not anywhere else, how would you deal with people wanting to buy from corporations outside of the country if they're cheaper and more efficient than the locally run anarchist coop. There is nothing stopping people from shopping/working from coops rather then large corporations. Yet basically everyone including most socialists chose to shop from amazon, and not their local coop.

How would you prevent worker coops that are most successful growing to be larger then other coops? The larger these coops grow the less patience they will have for democratization and other such socialistic methods as they will continuously get in the way of the success of the business. We've already seen this with coops such as Mondragon, which are essentially run as a regular cutthroat corporation. We'd see this far more in a society where only coops are allowed. Some businesses are simply to large to be run democratically. Large businesses would be necessary for providing the needs of a nation of hundreds of millions, so corporations like Mondragon would inevitably form.

---

Finally, here's the full context of their comments, though obviously I don't think they were accurately describing my positions, like I'm not a pacifist or solely in favour of reform through elections.

Lets go down the list of all of the hoops we would have to jump through to make Left-Anarchism a reality shall we? First of all, you'd have to somehow overthrough the most powerful government in the world without using violence. That's a pretty extraordinary task, and we've never seen any historical examples of such a thing being done. The only arguments i've heard from you guys about how you'd do such is by "striking when they're weak". I assume your strategy would be a general strike if your not using violence, but this would hardly bring down the US government. first of all you wouldn't be able to get hundreds of millions to go on strike, especially with all the pressure the government would put on them and the rewards they would receive for being scabs. So it's extremely left anarchists would successfully take out the US, or any other nation for that matter. It's worth noting that left anarchists (even those who were willing to use violence) have never successfully taken out any government, and that the ELZN has stopped trying to do so. All Historical precedent suggests that you will fail at this.

How do you expect successfully organize a society as complex as the united states (let alone the world of 8 billion) into autonomous communes of 150 people that make all decisions through voting? How will you ensure that these communes will stay true to left anarchist princibles, historical examples of left-anarchist societies far less populus and complex then the united states have already failed to do anything of the sort. The CNT-FAI was a totalitarian state that sent it's political opponents to labor camps. The free territory of Ukraine didn't even collectivize it's land. All Historical precedent suggests that you will fail at this.

But lets be extremely generous and assume that you've succeeded in both taking out the united states government without the use of violence, establishing a left anarchist society, and keeping it true to it's princibles with a population of hundreds of millions. Well, there are still more problems. History has shown us that centrally planned economies tend to be less efficent then market ones, decentrally planned societies that are planned by everyone voting on everything in a nation as advanced and populus as the united states would be utter chaos. So lets assume that you went with the Worker-Co-opt model. If left-anarchists were able to take over a nation as large as the united states then in all likelyhood corporations would be interested in trading with a nation as large as this. These corporations could offer far more then any worker co opt could dream of. If given the choice between worker co opts and corporations, people chose corporations. Corporations have proven themselves to be far more economically efficient then coopts are. There is nothing stopping people from shopping/working from coopts rather then large corporations. Yet basically everyone including most socialists chose to shop from amazon, and not their local coopt. When given the choice between direct material wealth and abstract political ideals people chose the former. There's no reason to belive people will act differently in a left anarchist society, so in all likelyhood corporations will take over. So, even in the absurdly unlikely event of the successful establishment of a left-anarchist society the most likely outcome is a corporate feudalist hellhole.

Even if you've somehow managed to get over all of these hurdles, you aren't out of the clear yet. The worker coopts that are most successful will grow to be larger then other coopts. The larger these coopts grow the less patience they will have for democratization and other such socialistic methods as they will continuously get in the way of the success of the business. We've already seen this with coopts such as Mondragon, which are essentially run as a regular cutthroat corporation. We'd see this far more in a society where only coopts are allowed. Some businesses are simply to large to be run democratically. Large businesses would be necessary for providing the needs of a nation of hundreds of millions, so corporations like Mondragon would inevitably form. Through this the left-anarchist society would crumble into a capitalist hell hole. Historical precedent suggests that this would happen.

As for your plan of gradual reform and dragging the Overton window leading to left anarchism or even socialism. I don’t think there is any historical prescient suggesting that this is possible and it is certainly not plausible in North America or Western Europe. There are many problems with this, but I’ll just name a few.

The idea that you can consistently drag the Overton Window in one direction is asinine. This certainly is not happening when it comes to economic issues, and it’s highly unlikely that anything a left anarchist movement could change this. Even in the relm of social issues where this was happening for a while pushback from the right has subverted it. Less people support transgenderism now then did a few years ago. The culture and politics of a society is something that is influenced by far to many factors for it to be simply dragged consistently in one direction for decades and decades.

This plan relies on far left political parties maintaining consistent power. Given the dominance of one political party has never shown itself to be insurmountable over long periods of time, it is highly unlikely that this is a realistic goal. People are different and will always vote for different ideas, this is a fact of life and cannot be changed. Whenever a left wing party were to lose power, their polices could be revoked.

The idea that the united state’s government, or any government for that matter has the power to eliminate capitalism let alone achieve left anarchism is beyond asinine. Even the most skilled American politicians with the largest majorities haven’t been able to achieve universal healthcare. The prospect of the entire elimination of capitalism through democratic government is completely unimaginable. Combine this with the fact you will have to be competing with other parties with contradicting views who will stifle your plans every step of the way and the prospects of achieving any of your goals through democracy is nil

No matter how good anarchism* is we will still have dipshits who want only the worst, we may have less evil but it will not be a utopia because utopia just cannot be, and that is a thing we just gotta chill with that

[I consider myself somewhat of an anarchist but not fully jsyk]

*or any ideology for that matter

The Ego/"Self" is an emergent phenomenon arising from the interplay of neurochemical processes, which themselves are emergent phenomena ultimately arising from the interplay of more fundamental units of matter/energy. And even the most fundamental units of matter/energy are in fact non-static/non-discrete metaphysical entities.

In the same manner, all semantic entities (e.g. "I", "you", "dog", "rock", "chair", "horse", "lake") are emergent phenomena arising from the same fundamental, non-static/non-discrete metaphysical entities.

What, then, is the basis by which we split up the metaphysical reality around us into discrete conceptual/semantic entities (e.g. "I", "you", "dog", "rock", "chair", "horse", "lake", "ship", "cup")? On what basis do I consider bacteria that comprise my gut microbiome a part of my body, yet do not consider myself part of a larger entity that includes other humans, other animals, plants, the Earth, or the Universe as a whole?

The perceived differences in the aforementioned conceptual/semantic entities (i.e. the basis of their differential labeling as "I" vs "you" or "rock" vs "chair" or "ship" vs "cup"), are due to culturally-derived differences in their function (i.e. it is useful to differentiate the aggregate of matter we label as a "ship" from that which we label as "cup", because we humans have different uses for ships vs cups).

The distinction between "being" and "non-being" is therefore delineated by cultural context & social convention. In other words, ontology is a subcategory of epistemology rather than of metaphysics. Ontologies are therefore conceptual frameworks that serve to facilitate our going about our lives, not accurate categorizations of metaphysical reality.

So the most sensible ontological framework is that which best facilitates achieving one's goals. In other words... if thinking of "I" and "you" as separate entities is what is most effective at achieving a particular goal, then it is most sensible to consider "I" and "you" as separate entities. But if thinking of "I" and "you" as parts of a greater metaphysical entity is more effective at achieving said goal, then that is the most sensible conceptual framework to adopt.

The ideal aim of political philosophy, it seems to me, is to formulate a social context best able to promote contentment in the lives of human beings.

Though the Ego is not a metaphysically distinct entity, reification of the Ego/"Self" (by being overly attached to its goals - e.g. the desire to escape suffering, the desire to be good at a particular skill, the desire to acquire a particular thing, the desire to have a particular experience, etc... ) is the root of human discontent that persists despite satisfaction of the lower strata of Maslow's hierarchy of needs.

A dualistic ontology of discrete entities ("I" vs "you" or "rock" vs "chair" or "ship" vs "cup") is bound to reify the Ego/"Self" and thus facilitate ongoing discontent in perpetuity.

In contrast, I propose Xu (https://www.theoryculturesociety.org/blog/interviews-zones-of-indeterminacy-peng-yu) as an alternative ontology. Xu emphasizes the indeterminacy of conceptual borders between what we perceive to be discrete entities, instead enabling us to conceive of reality and all it comprises (including oneself) as dynamic intermingling emergent phenomena. Adopting this mindset enables us to significantly reduce our attachment to the desires of the Ego, thus enabling contentment.

However, one's likelihood of successfully transcending Egoistic desire is greatly influenced by the socio-political context in which one lives. For example, it is essentially impossible to avoid reifying the Ego if you are a slave on a plantation or a sweatshop worker. After all, in such scenarios discontent is so ever-pervasive in one's daily lived experience (taking up too much of one's cerebral bandwidth) that transcending the Ego just isn't feasible.

This is why it is essential to cultivate an environment that facilitates and enables Ego transcendence - an environment that minimizes the frequency of discontent that keeps us attached to our Egos. In fact, devising and advocating for a social context that would produce such an environment should be the ultimate goal of political philosophy.

In pursuit of this ultimate goal, Xu is a more appropriate ontological framework than conventional ontology.

Xu makes it hard to justify any form of absolutism (https://www.libertarian-labyrinth.org/contrun/notes-on-the-development-of-proudhons-thought/), whether that be various forms of authority (e.g. property, the State, etc.) or even purely ideological fixity (e.g. Moral Realism). It encourages an embrace of anarchy.

I searched the r/anarchy101 sub for what anarchists have to say about the potential of psychopaths causing problems for people and I'm disappointed in the answers that were there. All they were doing was dodging the question and saying how the diagnosis was "ableist". Even if you could argue that these medical labels are just constructs, they exist because experts notice patterns with these people. Their traits are observable and useful to understand. The most recent thread I saw on this were full of answers that would dodge the question by reducing it to mental illnesses in general and talk about how they're "the real victims", or just say that they'll simply just prevent psychopaths from appearing because there will be no bad and manipulative people under anarchy.

If you don't want to believe it's real, fine, let's just say we're talking about people who's brains are wired in a way where their empathy works differently than everyone else. I saw a quote from the Anarchist FAQ about how we should reorganize society to reduce the impact these sorts of people will do which sounds great, but that is all in "the anarchist future", but I'm not concerned about how it would work in this hypothetical anarchist society. What I and many others would want to know is the control of harmful people that exist today. I think the best way is to beat them to death. Cull them like the pests that they are. Destroy the wreckers that bring disharmony on the peace. Not enough anarchists are saying that.

The best antidote to psychos is either an object you can swing, an object you can pierce with, or an object you can shoot.

I'm a socialist who does share some anarchist views, I think it it explains why teh socialism of the 20th century failed.

But I've been wondering what do anarchist think of yugoslavia's model of worker self determination where workers were more directly controlling the means of production and traded their products similar to market socialism (but not totally), that opposed the more common centraly planned economy?

Do you view it similarly to other marxists who view this model as revisionist and inherently capitalist, or do you view it as more democratic since the workses were directly controlling the means of production instead of the government controlling everything? What would be the main differences between this model of worker self determination and an anarco-syndicalist society?

My personal ideal model of economy would be where workers would run the factories/shops etc that they work at and trade with the products they produce, but I still think that there should be some sort of a government to prevent the inequalities between those worker syndicates, the accumulation of capital within syndicates and also highly regulate their effect on the environment.

Observing nature/history one can see that social Darwinism is the most plausible theory as human history was a succession of conquests and dominations that led to a balance of power with the US and Europe balanced against Russia China for total global hegemony... the tribes of humans that were not able to develop an advanced civilization with centralized government and military were conquered .. survival of the fittest... the anarchist notion therefore would inevitably lead to a new hierarchy just as the bolsheviks tried to set up an equal society and it inevitable became a hierarchy with the powerful at the top

One thing that I think is under-discussed in modern discourse is just how much of our economy is built on various scams and cons. I grew up in a conservative family and so I lived in and regularly see the right wing media world, and I cannot emphasize the degree to which it exists as a scam/grift. I'm almost convinced that if there wasn't a way to scam right wing types, the right would basically be dead in america (not totally convinced, cause racism and sexism would still exist, but not nearly to the extent we see today).

The reason most people give for why these scams happen is simple: profit.

But it's not exactly unheard of for scams to be done for other reasons as well. Social prestige, fame, to amass influence, or just plain old narcissism, etc.

Social prestige is one thing in particular I wanted to focus on here.

So let's assume a communist style gift economy. One of the ways this works is that you get prestige for providing a lot, so like person A brought in 12 tons of wheat, whereas everyone else brought in 10, that makes him cool or he's held in high regard right?

But wouldn't it be easy to do that with a scam as well? Sure it won't work on everyone, but if you get a very devoted group of people you can convince them of all sorts of stuff.

Another version of this I was thinking of is the idea that you can convince your community that you're providing a real service, when in actuality it's not something useful at all. Like, say I "invent" some device that "helps you balance". If I can convince enough people that it works then they will be willing to support me (via doing labor on some socialized capital asset) while I build more right? Or I can churn out all sorts of fancy devices that are just scams in reality.

We can see a similar sort of dynamic in market anarchism or decentralized planning as well (if I can convince planners that my new "innovative idea" is worth investing in, I can maybe get a reward for that).

So what I am wondering is: to what extent would/should we expect this to be a problem? What are potential solutions?

On the one hand, I do think there are always gonna be con-men types, but their influence will be far more limited without the structures and norms of the capitalist system, so their damage will be much lesser.

But they will still exist.

I really like this old comment: https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAnarchism/comments/141ckf2/comment/jn0qvla/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3

though I worry about how something like that would work in implementation details, because depending on community good will can be liable to manipulation via con-men or via mob justice, though I do like the general idea it lays out.

Hello everyone. I have a moral debuckle over a potential job offer. My worldview is anarchist for many years now and I don't know if my possible new job would be morally okay in this instance...

So, few years ago I was quite active within my hometown, I had a friend working in the council and she was in charge of urban planning. Additionally, I used to be in the young council too, which was a non-political project where basically all we did was organize small events for holidays, participate in charity etc.

A few days ago I received a message, inviting me to participate in elections to become a council member. The thing is, the president candidate used to be a right-wing party envoy. I really would like to join the council to help my town because its like, really bad right now. I don't think there's any directly political activities to do. I just mostly would like to join from my passion for urban planning and my interest in discuss the budgeting. I also work a minimum wage job at this moment so it would help me a lot to become a part of the council.

I've always seen city presidents as city presidents first, because some presidents are genuinely good for their cities despite being right leaning. From what I noticed city presidents rarely participate in politics, focusing on local matters, but I dont know. Is it morally bad for me as an anarchist to join the council? Does it really matter that much that the president candidate is right leaning? How does this matter look in your country? Important note is that my hometown is in Poland.

I often see authoritarian entryists into the anarchist movement, including those like anarcho-capitalists and anarcho-democrats, try to argue that their preferred hierarchies like capitalism or direct democracy are find because they are "voluntary". They say, after all, if you don't like how things work at a business or commune you can just leave. Thus, it is completely voluntary and thus in line with anarchist ideas.

Now, we can attack this in all sorts of ways. We can talk about how anarchism has nothing to do with voluntarity at all but an opposition to hierarchy, discuss the high costs associated with leaving that deter leaving, etc. But we do not need to do that at all because within their very own position there is a contradiction in their own beliefs.

These entryists say that their preferred hierarchies are fine because obedience to command is voluntary. However, they simultaneously believe that authority is necessary. In other words, they believe that someone needs to order others around in order for coordinated or group labor to happen. I've seen this phrased in all sorts of ways, the main one being "someone needs to make decisions". Someone or something above people must dictate what they do.

Now, leaving out how this is just a mere, unsubstantiated assertion, if something is necessary then it obviously isn't voluntary. I am forced to do it by necessity after all. I am forced to eat if I want to survive. I am forced to take steps if I want to walk. If something is necessary then it is by definition coercive. As such, these entryists, by declaring their hierarchies necessary, are imagining a social order where they are ubiquitous and thus people have no choice, either in their societies or in reality, to cooperate differently.

As long as there is no alternative to obeying the orders of others and people must simply choose whose orders to obey, then your entire system is not voluntary. It is completely and utterly coercive. Your hierarchies cannot be necessary and also voluntary. As such, even if anarchism were to be defined by voluntarity rather than opposition to hierarchy, the hierarchies of these entryists would not qualify.

I think that, if true anarchism was estabilished (the complete annihilation of states, countries and the institutions), one way or another (in my examples, I'm using the collapse of civilization), that institutions would quickly resurface in the form of religious organization, familial relationships and protection agreements between settled communities in this post-collapse world.

Take, for example, Fallout: Even without the vault dwellers, the survivors of the Great War organized in tribal communities and settled cities, eventually forming proto-states that evolved into organized states, tribal, republican, monarchic or something else.

The After the End mod for CK3 also progresses the same way: the cataclysmic event that destroyed the old world leaves survivors that unite to form various states, through the help of surviving institutions (ex: Iowa and the DoT), religion (even warped by centuries of disorder) and plain determination.

These are flawed examples, but my question still stands: what prevents the reestablishment of organized states after the complete destruction of the state? How can you make it last?