Welcome to /r/Anarchy101!

i barely know anything about anarchism, i want to learn more but i only want to hear it from a radical leftist black perspective preferrably by a woman as well, are there any videos out there made by people like that? thank you

Do you think there is a connection between religious extremism and capitalism?

When you hear stories on the news about about people doing the worst shit, the usual response most people have is for them to be locked up in there for as long as possible. Every news story would be another reason to "lock em up for longer", the longer and harsher, the better, which would of course lead to a higher prison population to the point where we're running out of places to put people. Instinctively I have an aversion to these calls for more prison, harsh sentences and the tough on crime BS that is only a tool for politicians, but I find it hard to put it into words why it's not a good thing. I just need to see someone put it in a way that I'm trying to. I'm really not planning to change anyone's minds or anything, I just want to be able to articulate it for myself to understand it better.

Why do some anarchists oppose Bernie Sanders (and AOC)?

Edit to add: in a society that currently runs on capitalism. I once saw a comment on a post in this sub that said immediately switching to anarchy may not work. I am curious about “leaning off” capitalism and into anarchy and if his views could potentially aid us in doing so.

Another edit: My question, especially my original unedited, is not well-articulated. I am a disabled and very overworked, burnt out therapist, and I’ve joined an anarchist mutual aid org and would like to learn more on what I am not well-informed about from others in the community.

My nephew, soon to be 15, is showing interest in politics, specially socialism and communism because many of his professors have those leanings (I know it because I went to the same school some years ago) but I would like for him to know anarchism also. Unfortunately I live in another country and can’t talk to him as much as I would like, so I want to send him a book for his birthday.

So, I’d like to know if anyone knows a book(s) about anarchism that is aimed to teens, or at least not very difficult/charged with complex terminology for a 15y/o. +++ for books originally in Spanish but those translated to Spanish are OK. Books in English are fine, as long as they are not very complex for a non-native English speaker boy.

Thanks in advance!

Once when referencing an article by Howard Zinn I got a bit of an off reaction from some leftists. I unfortunately wasn't curious enough in the moment to ask any questions about their reaction, just noted that he didn't seem very popular with them.

I'm under the impression that he wasn't an anarchist even if he expressed solidarity with some anarchist movements but I was curious if it goes any deeper than that. The only real complaints I could see anarchists having about him is that he's found a lot of mainstream acceptance despite having some radical ideas because of his staunch pacifism and commitment to non-violence. And that might be it, but I guess if there's more to be concerned about in his writings I'd like to know about it.

TL;DR: How would people in anarchist societies would go on to make decisions that affect an entire community while making everyone happy and not doing one group's will over the other?

Hi everyone!

As the title mentions, as a beginner anarchist, I just can't wrap my head around a decision making process that does not end up in a majority's will being made over a minority's.

From what I understand, anarchism is against all forms of unjustified authority. Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but authority is defined as an the ability to make individuals do another individual's (or group's) will.

When it comes to individual-to-individual authority, it makes sense as to why it should be avoided in all forms. There's no real reason as to why any human being should possess authority over another. However, when it comes to majority-to-minority authority, I feel like altough unjustifiable (as again, there's no reason as to why any group of people should rule over the other), it is often the only way (as far as I know, I would love to hear any alternatives) to "get things done".

For example, let's say that there's an aparment building in an anarchist society in which 100 people live in. Due to a recent storm, the main entrance doors have broken, and thus it is necessary to replace them. All of the neighbours decide to go to the "door shop" in order to buy new doors, however, they have realized that the original design has long been discontinued, and the only designs left are brown doors and a red doors.

After some discussing, the neighbours come to the conclusion that 60 of the neighbours want a red door, while the other 40 wants a brown door. Now, this is somewhat of an urgent decision, so it's not like the neighboors can't spend a lots of time discussing the issue. At the same time, it is merely an aesthethic and completely subjective choice, as both doors are of the same quality, size, and price. The only difference is the color.

Our usual go to method of choosing would be doing a vote and choosing the color with the most votes. However, why should the majority's will be done? The other 40 neighbours still are affected by the choice, and there's no real reason as to why one group's will should be done over the other. The only argument one could make, is that since it is not possible to make everyone happy, the best choice is to make as many people happy, however, this is quite a utilitarian point of view, and it doesn't seem very in line with anarchist thought.

At the same time though, a door color needs to be chosen, and if all of the neighbours are stubborn and refuse to concede, then the building will be left without a door.

My point is, how would solve this hypothethical issue in an anarchist manner, considering that both groups are stubborn and without putting one group's will over the other. Is no door going to be built? Should we do the majority's will just for this one time? In an anarchist society, will people's knowledge of theory and solidarity will be so great, that no petty arguments like this will ever happen? Will new ways of organizing blossom when socities turn anarchic?

Or, are anarchist communes simply not going to have any apartment buildings? I mean, I guess that would be one way to solve the issue...

Anyways though, thanks in advance!

Hi all, Pretty new to Reddit, i've seen the dumbest people everywhere by now and the smartest people on r/Anarchy. My brain enjoys the comment section and i've learned a lot.

One thing i have tried to wrap my head around for the past 8 years since reading Marx is anarchocommunism. In my understanding of Marx communism literally means the state acting as the sole source of morality and owner of both production and the means of production. He literally states (😉) the state should take the place of religion as only source of morality. Which is something we can see with a lot of people who think legality equals morality. Pretty much expanding the power of the state to the literal position of a God. I do not understand how this can combine with anarchism in any way.

Please do enlighten me, i have so many questions

I have been thinking about how anarchist societies navigate around the problem of currency when it comes to the creation of an anarchist political economy, since currency is necessarily a centralised mode of exchange. Any thoughts/reading suggestions? Many thanks in advance!

Alright. So I am new to anarchism and I have yet to read any fundamental books about the subject and I’ve just been using “online articles” to research the principles and history of anarchism so far. So I won’t pretend I’m not super ignorant on this subject because I am.

From what I understand under an anarchist society, there would be a lot less incentive or reason to even commit crimes. Assuming we’re not talking anarcho-capitalism, there’s no currency. No poverty. No incentive to steal. The socio-economic factors that make some people more likely to commit acts of violence or what we call in our American democracy “crime” (crime legally won’t exist under anarchism either) just won’t exist.

However- poverty isn’t the cause of homicide or violent crimes all the time. Sometimes it’s because someone fucked someone else’s girlfriend or something. Sometimes, people are just psychopaths and just get a kick out of being sadistic. There’s always gonna be people causing problems. So, without a state or hierarchical authority to judge and “deal” with these people- then what? Does this look like the collective agreeing on some kind of banishment? I would love to know.

And if I’m coming out of any wrong assumptions about anarchal thought please correct me! Seeing how flawed democracy is in my own country has made me intrigued by alternate kinds of societies.

What exactly is to be done about rapists and murderers in the absence of prisons. I agree that prisons are terrible and should be abolished but I would like to know what’s to be done about people who commit the kinds of crimes that liberals and fascists fear monger about when prison abolition is brought up.

There have been other questions here that cover this broadly, I just have some edge cases and examples to ask about. The consensus among anarchists (as much as there’s ever an anarchist consensus) seems to be that expertise is not hierarchy and also is not authority, eg. your doctor’s advice is not enforced, your shoemaker knowing more than you about shoes does not necessarily confer power over you onto him, etc.

What about the authority of “facts” and “truth” in a broader sense? For a hypothetical, there is an anarchist society that believes in scientific principles and theory, and therefore when a scientist says something, the community cross-checks it and does their due diligence and then proceeds with that information in hand. So far it sounds good, until you consider that the “reality” (not the scientist himself) has coerced the community simply by being “true”. Surely then, the idea of “truth” and that an idea can be “wrong” or “right” is coercive, because the community generally wants to do what is good for the community and the people in it. Therefore, anything that causes them to act, including “facts” has provided a positive or negative incentive. I don’t think it’s a stretch to say that coercion need not be negative consequences, it can also be in the form of a promised lack of negative consequences, which “truth” provides. If an anarchist community accepts any “fact” to be “true”, mustn’t the facts be enforcing actions in the sense that action is based on information?

This is not an elaborate “gotcha” against anarchists, I am interested in anarchism and wondering how you resolve what I see as a contradiction between being against coercive hierarchy and the idea that facts and truth can and should impact behaviour?

There was a debate on this subreddit about whether or not an anarchist can believe in the concept of evil and the responses led me to conclude that anarchists don't believe that human nature exists.

The most common definition of human nature is a set of shared inborn characteristics or personality traits that all humans have.

There is also the less common definition of the range of inborn traits that human beings have as seen in the dictionary entry below. This is the definition I will be most often using. I would like to see if anarchists disagree with both definitions:

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition:

The fundamental set of qualities, and the range of behaviour, shared by all humans.

The definition above fits my perspective of human nature and this is the other dictionary entry that you are probably more familiar with:

The shared psychological attributes of humankind that are assumed to be shared by all human beings.

In other words, anarchists don't believe that the majority of people are born with a specific personality trait (a set of emotional predispositions) that limits the human species' behavior and its capacity to change for better or worse.

If people are not born evil or good or to be more precise, mostly good (inherently good) or mostly evil (inherently evil), then human nature probably doesn't exist. Likewise, if no one is born a serial killer or psychopath and no one is born an angel, then human morality cannot be an innate tendency and, therefore, human nature probably doesn't exist.

Do anarchists have to adopt the social constructionist view that human values and perhaps human nature itself are socially constructed? If morality is socially constructed and depends upon environmental conditions, then morality, however it may be defined, is not an innate human tendency.

Let's discuss the idea that humans have an innate tendency to reduce harm in other humans and nonhuman animals rather than debate what the correct definition of morality is. This is not a debate about semantics.

Is human nature so infinitely malleable by environmental constraints (or material conditions) that it practically doesn't exist?

When I use the term "human nature", I'm not referring to basic human needs and desires such as thirst, hunger, and sexual arousal. I've not seen anyone dispute the idea that humans generally dislike bitter-tasting food, but in some cultures bitter-tasting foods are popular. I've also not seen anyone dispute the idea that most cultures will eat whatever foods are readily available in their natural environment even if that means eating bugs. I've also not seen anyone dispute the idea that humans have evolved to not eat their own or other animal's bodily waste and that coprophagia in humans is not a medical disorder. And lastly, even though there are debates about whether or not humans evolved to be carnivores, herbivores, or omnivores, I've not seen anyone argue that human nutritional needs are socially constructed. So, all of these variables are not what this OP is about.

It may well be the case that most anarchists believe that humans are born to be carnivores or omnivores, but must strive to be vegans to fully align their behavior with their anarchist principles. This too is not what we seek to debate in this OP.

What s a matter of contention and what social constructionists actually argue is that things such as gender relations, gender norms, religion and spirituality or the lack thereof, sexual promiscuity, sexual preferences and sexual fetishes, marriage traditions or the lack thereof, the practice of incest, the choice between hunting and gathering or agriculture or horticulture, the structure of a nation's or culture's economy, and its legal system or lack thereof, are all socially constructed and are not innate human tendencies.

Psychologists have formulated theories that presuppose that human nature exists and that all humans have innate psychological tendencies that are not directly related to human biology such as Social Identity Theory, Social Dominance Orientation, and System Justification. If human nature does not exist, then all these psychological theories are wrong and the social constructionist theory of human nature is correct.

Another theory of human nature aligned with the anarchist rejection of human nature is the psychological theory of behaviorism.

Do anarchists reject the psychological theories of innate human behavior in favor of social constructionism and behaviorism?

And if so, is anarchism more in line with social constructionism or behaviorism, or would it be best described as some kind of cultural materialism - the theory advocated for by the Anthropologist, Marvin Harris?

Religions also presuppose that human nature exists. Even religions that espouse the idea that free will exists are still interpreted in such a way as to promote the idea that human nature exists. For example, the Bible says that homosexuality is a sin, therefore, most Christians assume that homosexuality must a be choice for God to consider such behavior a sin. They believe God only punishes humans for wrong choices, but not for innate tendencies or preordained desires crafted by God because they believe God is omnibenevolent.

Does anarchism, as a political ideology, reject all religions because all religions assume that humans have some sort of fixed human nature that is not malleable?

Do anarchists believe sexual orientation is a choice? And do anarchists believe that gender and racial identities are choices?

Does anarchism or anarchist literature have a coherent theory of what set of human values are choices and what set of human values are innate and non-malleable human tendencies?

I believe human nature does exist and I believe in a mixture of theories: Social Dominance Orientation and Cultural Materialism.

NB: Edited to remove my proposed definition of morality. You can use your own definition of morality, please explain what you mean.

"He's a nihilist," repeated Arkady.

"A nihilist," said Nikolai Petrovitch. "That's from the Latin, nihil, nothing, as far as I can judge; the word must mean a man who... who accepts nothing?"

"Say, who respects nothing," put in Pavel Petrovitch, and he set to work on the butter again.

"Who regards everything from the critical point of view," observed Arkady.

"Isn't that just the same thing?" inquired Pavel Petrovitch.

"No, it's not the same thing. A nihilist is a man who does not bow down before any authority, who does not take any principle on faith, whatever reverence that principle may be enshrined in."

This is an extract from Turgenevs Father and Sons from 1862. In the book it is clear that nihilism is seen as a form of radical skepticism towards everything in existence.

Juxtaposed to that I keep seeing another version of nihilism everywhere where it is synonymous with the word pessimism.

Is there any historical evidence that the latter usage of the term existed before it was popularized by Turgenev, or is it a neologism?

I have seen a comment on this sub recently regarding the US driving laws and culture and how driving culture is proof that anarchy is viable as it is largely unregulated as there aren't many enforcmemt mechanisms and people have by in large voulentairly decided to drive a certain way for everyone elses benefit.

My issue is that having a car based system in itself doesn't seem desirable as cars take up a lot of space whilst often not carrying their full capacity and so require large multi lane highways which require heavy recource extraction and cut through communities aswell as harm nature. having a lot of car based infrastructure also leads to loss of community as walking, cycling or any other alternative transportation method becomes more difficult for individuals without cars, not to mention that car based infrastructure results in a large amount of urban sprawl due to the amount and size of roads aswell as parking (resulting in places like the us suburbs). Car based infrastructure is only benefitial for drivers and inconvenirnces anyone who can't drive. In the current system if you are poor and can't afford a car it could be hard for you to function especially if you lack robust public transit infrastructure in your area.

In an anarchist society wouldn't it be better to re-shape our transportation system to prioritse public transport (trains, buses, bike lanes, trams etc, that our horizontally owned) rather than continue with the current car centric approach?

Hi, at the moment I am discovering the history of Action Directe (French group anarchist) , I find that it allows us to ask lots of questions as a means of activism, what are the limits of these acts. And I've discussed it with family members who knew AD and they are very demonized. I would like to know your opinion if you know anything about it? And how can we not encounter a sort of romanticization of the acts committed by AD.

I am currently reading Read On Authority by JudgeSabo, an essay that analyses Engels’ On Authority. In presenting the anarchist position, Sabo quotes Bakunin:

Suppose an academy of learned individuals, composed of the most illustrious representatives of science; suppose that this academy is charged with the legislation and organization of society, and that, inspired only by the purest love of truth, it only dictates to society laws in absolute harmony with the latest discoveries of science.

Sabo explains that:

this system not only corrupts the ruled by making them ignorant, but also corrupts the rulers both morally and intellectually thanks to their privileged position in society. Even if it begins as a benevolent dictatorship, as was granted before, the practice and habit of ruling will turn it into an institute dedicated to maintaining and expanding its own power and privilege. This state, controlled by this privileged class of rulers, will try to entrench itself rather than wither away.

In my developing understanding of anarchism and bourgeois politics, I’m yet to witness radicals enter politics only to be corrupted by the system. I have it in my mind that if we get the right people into parliament and enough people to support their party, we could transform society. There is a local socialist who is currently taking this route, but it could be years before we see a result and they’re only one example. I’d like to know, what evidence do anarchists have (contemporary or historic) to substantiate their claim that power corrupts?

So i think is common knowledge nowadays that humans aren't a rational species, this applies to capitalism, communism, but does it apply to anarchism?

Hi everyone,

I made a post here yesterday about being a beginner and looking for resources, and I later asked the same thing in a community chat in a prominent Indian left-leaning subreddit. Unfortunately, I was brutally trolled and cyber-bullied for it, with people accusing me of siding with the bourgeoisie or being a liberal. They went through my account, highlighted some of my comments, and began mocking me. I was told to read Marxism instead because anarchism was "nonsense," along with some other mean comments.

Needless to say, I was devastated because I had simply asked for guidance. I've had past experiences with bullying, and I am diagnosed with clinical depression and generalized anxiety disorder, which led to some awful panic attacks and left me feeling miserable.

Some people suggested I read On Authority by Engels, and I did—but I found it frustrating. Engels missed the whole damn point. He conflated self-defense and standing up to oppressive systems, calling it "the most authoritarian thing there is."

How can someone so blatantly misrepresent anarchists? That is literally called self-defense. He also conflated organizing with authoritarian systems, and for that, I found the perfect analogy on the Anarchist Archive to dispute it:

"To get the full meaning out of life we must co-operate, and to co-operate we must make agreements with our fellow men. But to suppose that such agreements mean a limitation of freedom is surely an absurdity; on the contrary, they are the exercise of our freedom.

If we are going to invent a dogma that to make agreements is to damage freedom, then at once freedom becomes tyrannical, for it forbids men [and women] to take the most ordinary everyday pleasures. For example, I cannot go for a walk with my friend because it is against the principle of Liberty that I should agree to be at a certain place at a certain time to meet him. I cannot in the least extend my own power beyond myself, because to do so I must co-operate with someone else, and co-operation implies an agreement, and that is against Liberty. It will be seen at once that this argument is absurd. I do not limit my liberty, but simply exercise it, when I agree with my friend to go for a walk.

If, on the other hand, I decide from my superior knowledge that it is good for my friend to take exercise, and therefore I attempt to compel him to go for a walk, then I begin to limit freedom. This is the difference between free agreement and government."

So, needless to say, this experience and this text have made me even more of an anarchist than I already was, lol.

Thank you for taking the time to read this, and I appreciate any support or guidance you might offer!

Title says most of it, although I'm also open to reccomendations that aren't directly relevant to anarchy but introduce concepts that are important to know.

Are there competing ideas regarding the concept of power in society among anarchists?

I came from a non-ML Marxist political background and while I don’t think the USSR etc were legitimate or viable ways to achieve social revolution (they were counter/revolutions imo) I also don’t find “power corrupts” to be very convincing and more of a thought-terminating cliche.

So I am curious if there are competing explaination an among anarchists that are less abstract and more sociological etc?

One of the most basic things needed for ANY society to work is coexistence with other people, some of which you may hate and despise for whatever reason. Putting aside ones own differences can be hard, especially if it's in relation to something you feel very passionate upon.

Now, I know Anarchists hate the police and military viewing them as nothing but puppets for governments to use to oppress others. I know a few anarchists who have this hatred on a more personal scale. Now, we all should know the police officers and soldiers merely think what they are doing is right, viewing it as serving their people, friends, family, and peers and protecting them. whether that is the case or not is up to ones personal, moral, ideological opinion as such a topic is debated upon as we all know. I already know your guys answer and it's a hard no.

What I am mainly trying to ask is how exactly do anarchists plan on coexisting with former soldiers and police officers when anarchists despise soldiers and police?

There is so much hatred between the two that I feel like even after the government is gone the hate would still be their because of what the former police and soldiers had done.

Now, I'm a dumbass, so please be gentle with me if I upset you or made a mistake, I am still somewhat new to this.

Hi everyone!

I’m exploring anarchism and love the vision of a society without hierarchies or centralized authorities. I’ve been reading up a lot lately (even if it’s just scratching the surface), but I keep coming up against what feel like vague answers when it comes to how we actually get there in practice.

I get the core idea - hierarchies and state power are inherently oppressive -but what concrete steps does anarchism propose for moving beyond them?

For instance, I know Marxist-Leninists have a mapped-out process (though I don’t like their reliance on a central authority). They have a clear plan to seize power, establish a vanguard, and move toward communism. With anarchism, I’ve read about ideas like direct action, mutual aid, and dual power structures, but I’m still left wondering how these scale up to create lasting, transformative change.

Another thing I’m curious about is whether I can still consider myself an anarchist if I feel like this vision won’t become a reality anytime soon. I’d love for all hierarchies to be done away with eventually, but for now, I’m mainly using anarchist principles to guide my life and question authority without necessarily believing we can eliminate all authority in the near future. To me, it feels like a gradual, slow process - and that we might need a transition into something like anarcho-syndicalism before moving further.

Does anarchism have specific, strategic steps for gradually replacing existing power structures without recreating hierarchy? Or is the idea that principles should stay flexible and adaptable depending on the context?

I’d love to hear your thoughts on this, especially if there are real-world examples of anarchist projects or if there’s a roadmap I may be missing.

Thanks for any insights!

How would a anarchist society get farmers to do more work than the minimum they need to feed themselves and their commune? In capitalist societies farmers have a incentive to produce more than they need to in order to make enough money to pay for their needs and desires, in state socialist societies have used a combination of this profit desire and requiring the farmers to do so by law (along with other more minor motivators such as the promise of the rewards like the USSRs famous badges). If an anarchist society can not successfully convince enough farmers to do this it will lead to mass starvation, as in the modern world its not possible for every commune to produce enough food to feed itself on its own. How would a anarchist society doe this?

I was just wondering if there is any Anarchist or just leftist youth groups in England that I could join

Hello, I am a leftist and believe that the current prison system needs to be abolished. This is an issue I'm passionate about and would like to know if there are any online groups/servers that discuss this topic. Thanks.

I have been lately interested in ageism.

How would you handle the hierarchycal relationship between parents and children?

On the one hand body autonomy is a huge issue in general, but also for me in particular.

On the other children (specially toddlers) are still immature members of the community that need much help and guidance.

I have to admit that have not delved much into theory but it looks like a pretty big conflict to me. Maybe you can help giving your opinion or what you know.

As always, thank you for your time.

How would they be like? Any anarchists have a whole detailed description of how school would be like in a anarchist society?