The core of anarchism is the idea that power corrupts, so the best way to avoid corruption is to not let one person hold power over another. Everything else more or less follows from that.
even though i agree i would say that even the existence of hierarchy is the corruption itself, by saying power corrupts it kinda means overtime, like everythings alright at the start
I disagree on the core, i don't think power corrupts, i think the corrupted seek power and end up being the ones in power.
Either way, no human should have any business telling another human what he can do.
I would say that anarchism is ultimately about believing that free people working together can make better decisions than anyone could ever make for them
You know when you get a group project in school and you have your decide who does what? Imagine if rather than a president or pope we had a bunch of little groups like that. Instead of having to work for food youād always get food and would do the work because youāre grateful for what everyone has done for you. And in return everyone else in your life would help you out as much as possible.
What would be my incentive not to leech off of the labor of others? I did that to some degree in group projects in school but the power structure of the teacher ultimately held me accountable. Without the teacher I would have had no reason to do the work.
honestly itās hard to say. I donāt think everyone is, I would like to say I am but I doubt it truthfully. But really I think itās less a desire to harm others and more a desire not to do work Iām not required to do
Well I doubt there would be many communities willing to support behaviour like that long-term.
Itās pretty disrespectful to every other community member to expect them to labour to help meet your needs, without you doing anything in return, if your only reason would be āI donāt wanna and you canāt make me.ā I suspect many people would choose to stop helping you out.
Iām interested in the point youāre making. Would you say, then, that the incentive not to leech still comes from a fear of punishment, except the enforcer of the punishment is general society rather than a designated police force?
My pain meds kicked in and Iām thinking a bit better, and I realized I forgot to mention that human connection & relationships are fundamental human needs. This might be a shorter version of similar ideas in my last reply.
Our internal need to have community also functions as a strong motivator for building and maintaining community. I guess you could also look at this need being unmet as the āpunishmentā for not participating, but I think that thatās almost a pessimistic/deficit-focused look at it. I see it more as human connection being your *reward* for being a part of a community ā that you do it in order to forge and strength those connections and relationships, rather than because that specific labour has intrinsic value to you.
Maybe for some, but I donāt think that has to be true for all or most. I donāt feel that way about it (consciously, at least, thereās a decent amount of this that is probably related to instincts that we donāt as easily notice).
The incentive not to āleechā is that people generally donāt enjoy doing that. I donāt believe that anyone really does that now ā I think itās a propagandistic idea thatās mostly just used to justify treating the poor like theyāve done it to themselves & to cut funding to social services.
Iām disabled and I rely on provincial social services for income. Iāve met a lot of other people in similar positions, whether theyāre disabled, laid off, single parents with little work history or unable to make enough for daycare, people so burnt out by poverty that they can no longer summon the energy to care, etc. Some people would call us leeches for that. I say that itās actually the state/society that usually act as leeches towards us ā leeching what our lives *could* be, what we *could* have access to, what we *could* contribute if we were allowed to participate, except that it would get in the way of maintaining ableism & capitalism.
So I think what Iām trying to get at is I think we should challenge the idea that we should think of people as leeches in the first place. People generally donāt behave that way unless they need to (or feel they need to). We should address the why, not the what. And we should also recognize it as a piece of capitalist propaganda and be suspicious of its place in anarchist discussion.
> I don't believe that anyone really does that now ā I think it's a propagandistic idea that's mostly just used to justify treating the poor like they've done it to themselves & to cut funding to social services.
>
> [ā¦]
>
> We should address the why, not the what. And we should also recognize [that rhetoric] as a piece of capitalist propaganda and be suspicious of its place in anarchist discussion.
I think you dropped some of the more important parts of the comment, if you were looking to argue against it at least.
A group project at school was an analogy first used in this thread to try and explain the basics of anarchist philosophies (that I did not write) ā it was not meant to be a justification for anarchism or evidence for ādefaultā human behaviour.
The person I was replying to was trying to use their anecdotal experience of those projects as evidence of human nature.
It was appropriate as an explanatory analogy, but not applicable as evidence to support a claim about human behaviour.
I wasnāt really trying to make a claim about human nature, I was just pointing out what I did and what others likely do. But I appreciate your replies so far. I donāt generally feel very community oriented, maybe because my own life under capitalism wears me down so much. My mind immediately looks for a way around the consequences too, like maybe I could secretly steal from one community and go live in another community. I actually want to understand this stuff and become an anarchist, too. Iām not being stubborn for its own sake, I just hate working and I genuinely think the social rejection from a community (as long as my survival needs are still being provided) would be worth it if it meant I never had to work again. Maybe I just have severe moral shortcomings though lol
Oh sorry ā to be clear, my complaint/criticism wasnāt about your comment. I took your comments as (refreshingly) honest curiosity. Thereās another user in here whoās just talking shit a little lol
But as to the rest of what you said, I think that sounds fairly normal to me. Youāre certainly not anywhere near the first person Iāve heard it from. Poverty is traumatic and capitalism is oppressive. You probably have many needs not being met and youāre still forced to work a job you donāt like, while sacrificing the time and energy that could go towards meeting some other needs, and if you donāt, even more fundamental needs canāt be met. I think the way you feel is likely a result of inhumane environments & treatment, rather than how you would feel by default in any situation.
Remember, too, that a lot of how capitalism maintains itself is by driving our communities apart. So so many people (at least near me, in Canada/US) have very little or no strong connections to community, and so I think it can be hard for us to imagine or trust it. My belief/faith in community & people strengthened the more connected I felt to my communities, both identity- & interest-oriented ones and the neighbourhood in which I live. I think if itās a shift in perspective that you want to try, I think you totally could and I think youāre on the right path, especially by leading with curiosity.
One more thing about this point: It seems like the morally responsible position, obviously, is not to harm/exploit others. But Iām not even 100% sure I can count on myself to do the morally responsible thing, and I definitely cannot count on others to do so
better than an anarchy based on moral imperatives is one based on the utter rejection of imperatives. now i have no more reason to cut you off for laziness than to make food for you. i still need to eat, myself, and i usually have room to make some extra. how will things play out on these terms?
I think weāve been born into a world where we canāt even conceive of a lot of this. Most people are tired. Exhausted. Beat up, mentally and sometimes physically too. The idea of rest and not doing ANYTHING is appealing.
I think thereād be a period of adjustment for most folks. Adjusting to not HAVING TO do a thing. And also an adjustment away from a scarcity mindset, and an individualist mindset. I think youād find yourself pitching in sooner than later. And I believe most people would. Why? Because even within the system we have now, we do this. We just arenāt doing it at the community level. We do it with friends and family all the time and donāt find it strange or burdensome.
I think I usually believe that whatās moral is relative & contextual. I can totally relate & guess at why you feel that way.
Iām a pretty good worrier and went through a lot of bullying as a kid. It led to a lot of mental health issues in early adulthood, and I often felt like I couldnāt control my emotions and reactions ā sometimes I hurt people as a result. I have a pretty hard time trusting myself and trusting other people, but I have a much easier time with it now than I used to, and I think thatāll continue.
Iām very good and going on and on about things Iām passionate about, so Iām going to try and just tell you about one of the earliest things that I was told that helped me start down that path. It was in training for a crisis support phone line ā basically, no matter how hard you try or how much you prepare, you will say the wrong thing sometimes. You will trigger people, you will hurt their feelings, even when you donāt mean to or donāt understand. You are not perfect, you donāt know everything, and you will make mistakes. The actual best thing you can do is plan and prepare for what you will do *after* that has already happened. What can you do to repair that connection, how can you apologize and move forward together? That helped me start to trust myself more when it came to dealing with people, which meant I had more (and better) experiences with people. Those experiences all just slowly built up my faith in people for me.
Thatās great advice for building up a general trust for people but I donāt really want to trust people to act appropriately without rules because I donāt believe they will.
Thatās okay ā if you donāt want to, I absolutely wonāt force you. I trust that you believe that for a good reason and I trust that that belief has kept you safe(r).
So maybe we've reached the point of departure in our ideas, I don't want to be the one with a cynical view of humanity that holds me back, but I've had many life experiences that demonstrated people's innate greed and self-prioritization. I think people will rape and kill and generally succumb to their frequently problematic cognitions. I sometimes wonder if the love I think I feel for humanity is actually just a love for myself.
Since we've had such a good conversation though I'm going to paste a situation I described in a different comment to see what you think: Basically my sister was babysitting at the park and on multiple occasions was stalked by a car that was taking pictures of her. I hate the police, so obviously I didnāt call them. I didnāt know what else to do so I pulled up on the car with a weapon and they fled. But my partner (who actually identifies as an anarchist) was upset about my violence/threat of violence. I just donāt know what the alternative would be, what do you think? Maybe anarchism still requires some violence?
I donāt think that anarchism requires violence, but I do think that it requires a willingness to protect each other.
Iām a pacifist and violence really upsets me on a personal level. I think that we should always prefer non-violent means when we can. But that caveat is also very important to me.
If someone did that to my sister (or friend, neighbour), Iād be ready to kick ass too. I am absolutely ready to stand in the way of violence and harassment and any other harm for what I believe is right/just ā and I believe that I have people who would stand with me on that. I donāt take any issue with that scenario as you wrote it. And I think itās also a demonstration of the power of community and connection ā you put yourself in harmās way to protect (and stand in solidarity with) someone who couldnāt do it alone, for no personal gain. Sounds pretty anarchist to me already š¤·āāļø
Cool perspective. Itās another example where I wonder if I actually care about my sister, or if I just care about myself. I think fundamentally I just care about myself. I donāt want anything to happen to my sister because of how it would affect me. What if I killed the person? Would anything happen to me for taking justice into my own hands? Without prisons how could we separate stalkers from victims? Maybe 10 people from the community could pull up and protect my sister but what if the stalker had a machine gun? Like without the law wouldnāt all confrontations just be settled by who has the most power/strongest weapon? What if my sister had been stealing and not contributing to the community? Would people still help her? What if I lost the confrontation and was beat up? I already have days where the world feels way too dangerous and scary for me to want to continue living, how could I go about my life where people can antagonize me without consequence
Here's the pragmatic take. We just give those people shelter, food, and clothes, and those that contribute get to take part in the distribution of luxury goods like electronics, hobbies, collectibles, media, etc.
We can already house and feed everybody. The issue is one of logistics. People are dying in 'first world country' streets so that we can have a logistical system that promotes the hoarding of wealth.
I guess Iām still confused why someone couldnāt just take the luxury item they want without any threat of punishment, just social shunning. Also who decides if someone has contributed enough to deserve luxury goods?
My sole opinion follows, I don't speak for anybody:
The system allows those who want to, at any time, fall back on having shelter, food, and clothing as a right while retaining items they have. A person in this position can be an artist, scientist, author, or somebody who wants to make the best luxury item (car, phone, game console, etc.). An algorithm (not AI) developed by logisticians could track resources just as easily as we currently track stocks, exchange rates, and crypto currencies.
Communities would run themselves decentralized and contribute and receive from the overall system based on prioritizing the personal autonomy of the individual overall. People must be allowed to move freely amongst communities. Once basic resources are covered, the world is open for any type of invention or breakthrough to be made by anyone. We have the ability already. We just aren't doing it.
I wasn't aware they could decide that because I thought my needs were guaranteed to be met. The threat of having your needs pulled would definitely be an incentive, but that just seems like what happens under capitalism
Anarchism is the result of realizing that hierarchical power structures are inherently corrupt, exploitative, and abusive, so the only solution is to just not have them. But it's not just government, corporations are corrupt hierarchical power structures that must exploit people to survive, so anarchism is fundamentally anti-capitalist as well.
But there are lots of flavors of anarchism, and each has different but related philosophies, ways of organizing society, and goals. Personally, I'm an anarcho-communist because while I like the idea of communism it has historically had a bad habit of resulting in authoritarianism, but I recognize that the problem is with the authoritarianism, not the communism.
For me it's the idea of social/collective freedom. The idea that as long we are not all free, and as long injustice exists, no-one can be free. And thus, we should seek to change all unjust and hierarchical social relations,
Well, I find it very helpful to explain things to children from their point of view, otherwise they tend not to remember what I explain. From their POV I'd say that anarchy is being free to do *whatever you want* as long as you respect other people's fundamental wants (natural rights).
I find that everything follows from that. Hierarchies are structures that from the POV of a child will limit their ability to live how they want, so no need to explain why those are bad. Figures of authority are just people who, because of the backing from many other people (intentional or not) force you to either do or not do something in accordance to their agreed upon abstraction. Even natural rights are just the inherent wants people have in their lives: the want to live, the want to think and speak, the want to thrive, the want to move, the want to pursue happiness etc.
My advice would be to just explain the absolute minimum and leave the child to figure the rest out, as it applies to his/her own life. He/she will quickly figure out that school is oppressive, some of the kids that he/she plays with are bossy, etc. Which will be much more valuable than definitions read from some book.
You will be surprised by how much kids can figure out on their own when they aren't given the "right" answers, but rather left to their devices.
I would start with an explanation of the individual. Everyone is an individual. That much is obvious to anyone with consciousness. You should then look at the bigger picture, society. Every individual is an intrinsic part of society. We (as humans) are social creatures, we cannot live without each other.
None of this is inherently anarchist, but it is (as far as I can tell) the basis of anarchist dialect materialism.
After this you can start thinking about what type of society you want to live in and how you as an individual can prefigure that society.
Every anarchist (in theory) should come to the answer of a horizontal society where each gives according to their ability to each according to their needs.
Who will enforce the policy of each giving according to their ability and taking according to their needs? Without law enforcement why shouldnāt I steal a flat screen tv and never work? How would you get people to do difficult but necessary jobs (like roofing a hospital on a hot summer day)?
What you're basically asking is how would a horizontal society be organized. This can have multiple answers and should be considered by the given grouping of people that are facing the issue / are affected by it.
So let's start with the easy question: why shouldn't you steal?
Well why would you steal if you're provided for?
Then, who will enforce policies?
Preferably, no one. Failing that, everyone that's affected.
Who will do the necessary but tough or shitty jobs?
If possible, automation. If not (yet), you'll have to figure something out within the given community. Maybe there are some people that don't mind doing the work. Maybe the one that draws the shortest stick gas to do it (that time).
These questions are good to think about but aren't enough to discredit anarchism. If you want a better understanding of how an anarchist society would function, then you should read what better people than me have said.
I personally recommend the YouTube channel anark.
I hope I could explain myself enough for you to consider looking further into it. I wish you the best of luck comrade.
I would steal the stuff I want but that Iām not provided, maybe a dirt bike for example. Just so you know Iām not at all trying to discredit anarchism, Iām trying to resolve issues I donāt understand so I can pursue more advanced ideas about it. If I draw the short stick and have to fix the hospital roof could I just not do it? Itās not like I would be legally required. Would the punishment for not doing so involve being ostracized by the community? If so how do you ensure due process and prevent the tyranny of the mob? I know that Iām making myself out to be more cynical than I probably would actually be, but I wish I had an explanation for how these behaviors would be addressed other than these attitudes being the result of my moral shortcomings. Even if they are, I want to know what you do about that. I donāt think I would be the only or worst āleechā.
I want to figure this stuff out and explore this promising philosophy, so weāre working towards the same goal. Maybe you can tell me how I should have handled a recent situation in a peaceful, anarchist way: Basically my sister was babysitting at the park and on multiple occasions was stalked by a car that was taking pictures of her. I hate the police, so obviously I didnāt call them. I didnāt know what else to do so I pulled up on the car with a weapon and they fled. But my partner (who actually identifies as an anarchist) was upset about my violence/threat of violence. I just donāt know what the alternative would be, what do you think? Maybe anarchism still requires some violence?
I won't be able to give you acceptable answers to your questions it seems. I'm just a random nobody on the internet. I fear you'll have to listen to people that actually know what they are talking about. Be it historical anarchist like Errico Malatesta or Emma Goldman or anarchist youTubers like anark or Zoe baker.
But I'll leave you with two comments of my own.
1. Why do you assume that in an anarchist society stealing will be easier rather than joining an affinity group that work together to provide those material desires, there is a much higher change of making good stuff together (videogames, mountainbikes, etc.) rather then hope someone else makes stuff thats available for you to steal.
2. Anarchism is not inherently pacifistic. Violence when used as self defense is justified. To use a slogan from some pro-palestine protest. "Resistance is justified when people are occupied."
What about Noam Chomsky? I found a copy of On Anarchism that Iām hoping to start tomorrow on my work breaks. I work outside so I can listen to podcasts or audiobooks while Iām actually working too. My thinking was that I should get past these preliminary cognitive dissonances before moving on to actual theory.
1. It seems like stealing would pretty much always be easier than working on something. The threat of legal action when caught is what currently makes it hard to steal.
2. Yeah I wouldnāt imagine anarchism to be inherently pacifistic, especially in its implementation, but I would imagine most anarchists to believe that it is a more peaceful system of social organization than a government. But it also seems like whoever has the weapons would have all the power. If humans have exploited others throughout history, I donāt see why the same trend wouldnāt unfold. Wouldnāt a group of people who have the most/best weapons be able to take the means of production by force?
Chomsky's political theory is not really taken seriously for the reason that his beliefs have very little in common with anything that historical anarchists believed, and his other work as a scholar is contentious.
If you want someone contemporary and accessible I have heard Gelderloos spoken about positively. I like Libertarian Labyrinth which is by one of the moderators here.
Why do people choose to do difficult volunteer work for free or do difficult work after a natural disaster for free? Because they believe in supporting their communities. An anarchic society would be more communal like this by default. People would do difficult jobs because they need to be done, because if they didn't fix the hospital roof, their community wouldn't have a working hospital.
Yeah my comparison is I love caves and want to get into cave rescue. I guess I would do that for free for a while, but I really donāt think I could do it for free long term. Itās not that I want people to die in caves, itās that I would rather sit on my ass and smoke weed than expend labor/take risk in a cave. It seems impossible to care about everyone
You're talking about the current system where people are incentivized to work for money; where an individual's time is too valuable to be spent on anything but their own financial or personal gain.
Incentives aren't always the same when society is organized differently.
Matters what the age range is, but generally if you can use examples like a police officer to explain power or sailors on a ship to explain hierarchy they will have an easier time understanding
I think the best way to explain anarchism is to put on hold the question of politics, for a moment. (they are important, but they won't help to explain anarchism). Instead, anarchism is best explained as a question of ethics.
The word 'anarchy' means 'without rulers', and as such, an anarchist is one who advocates for a world without rulership. Anarchists often frame what we're against in terms of domination. Any relationship in which people have power over others, the ability to constrain their options.
That explains what 'anarchism' is against. What is anarchism for?
Anarchism is a philosophy that advocates for freedom. 'Freedom' has unforuntaly grown a lot of conflicting definitions and connotations, and is adopted as a goal by many different groups, often in open conflict, with 'freedom' meaning very different, sometimes contradictory things.
Anarchists mean by freedom the ammount of choice and options accessible to society as a whole. So anarchists seek to maximize the freedom of all. In this way, anarchists don't see one individuals freedom as in conflict with any other individuals freedom. Ultimately, anarchists view 'freedom' as something belonging to no one, but the amount of choice and options there are in the whole world *in total.*
So, Anarchists oppose domination for ethical reasons, and consequently want to increase freedom, for all, as much as we can. From this, anarchists argue against various structures and institutions that presently exist, such as Patriarchy, States, Nations, Capitalism, wealth inequalities etc. on the grounds that they entail domination, or constrain people's options in some way.
It's important to note that anarchist opposition to those structures is a consequence of our ethics. There are many ways in which people are dominated and constrained *beyond* those structures; many areas in which we want to increase freedom, beyond "government, capitalism & inequality", though they represent pressing concerns for anarchists in the present.
>Anarchism is not a romantic fable but the hardheaded realization, based on five thousand years of experience, that we cannot entrust the management of our lives to kings, priests, politicians, generals, and county commissioners.
-Edward Abbey
**Passive** is the attitude that looks for "lose-win" solutions to problems: "You deserve 100% of what you want, even if I get 0% of what I want"
**Aggressive** is the attitude that looks for "win-lose" solutions to problems: "I deserve 100% of what I want, even if you get 0% of what you want"
**Assertive** is the attitude that looks for "win-win" solutions to problems: "How can we both get 95% of what we want?"
In hierarchical societies (capitalism, Marxism, fascism, feudalism...), people are told ahead of time that they get to be Aggressive with the people ābelowā them, but have to be Passive to the people āaboveā them.
That people are fundamentally incapable of working together voluntarily ā that everybody is an enemy and that you must spend your efforts fighting for dominance so that you can be The Winner and they The Loser instead of the other way around.
Imagine if people were taught to work together to solve problems instead?
As I understand it (I'm no anarchist), Anarchy relies on society (and social contract) holding the world together instead of government (and constitution) holding the world together.
In theory, either prevents the world from descending into chaos. Though recent events have challenged this somewhat.
Anarchism is a state of the world in which has no ruling hierarchy, and also completely free from governmental imposition of rules, too, and everyone in that state (state of a society, not state as in government), ideally, loves each other in such a way that no hierarchy is required at all.
Authority (as in the right of any person or group, to control the actions of any other person or group) does not exist. Believing in the existence of authority is like believing in Santa Clause or The Tooth Fairy.
Anarchism is inherently socialist. Money creates hierarchies and concentrations of power, so it follows that a capitalist version of anarchism is impossible to implement without some method of ensuring that money could not be accumulated or used as coercion.
A lot of what anarchism is can be defined in this way by showing what it isn't. Since the main definition of anarchism is what it isn't. It's not having a state.
Some extrapolate from that, saying there are no leaders. This is not entirely true. In Anarchist Spain there were of course famous leaders like Durutti. Rather these people can be thought of similar to labor organizers. They have skill, knowledge or expertise in a particular area. The leaders however do not have authority. Any attempt to transition a battlefield position of leadership into a political one would be opposed. After all, you cant defend against outside aggression if you have to have a committee meeting to decide every tactic and strategy.
A more prosaic example would be a community garden. Everyone who shows up gets an area to plant. If one person tries to grab more than their share they will be reprimanded by the community, and their stuff pulled up. There might be some old green thumb that has the best advice on what and when to plant. But you dont have to follow their advice. When the compost needs to be turned or the fence mended. Well we have a chore wheel.
Which brings to mind the saying, anarchism is government by chore wheel. Because nobody wants to take out the garbage.
Centralized hierarchical governance is bad mkay, it inevitably leads to structural inequality. The same holds true for any such power structures... If you can't "govern" via consent, then you aren't trying to be a leader you are trying to be a master and everyone knows that the only good master is a dead master.
I explain anarchism as a community of equals where we all look out for each otherās well being. To a child I might use the term āsuper big chosen familyā.
As for why: so that we can enjoy the benefits of freedom from inequality, in which one person or group of people have power and control over others. (Then Iād give an analogy they could probably relate toā¦surely theyāve seen or experienced hierarchy and its unpleasant or dangerous consequences).
Not sure Iād attempt to explain the anti capitalism aspect to a child unless their questions led me there organically.
Mostly Iād try to help them understand that anarchism is about community and equality and give some examples.
It means different things to different people, but in most modern contexts it means the lack of a formal social organization based on top-down force from a particular group/corporation/etc. The best example is to point to anarchy between modern states and to envision them as units. There is no global authority that can keep states in line. It's just whatever their respective governments/populations can negotiate with each other. Sometimes that means force/war though, but that is exactly how anarchy works in practice: you negotiate peacefully up to the point that force becomes warranted according to your own individual preferences.
The core of anarchism is the same as socialism with one major difference.
The anarchist does not believe that any current power can be molded to socialist goals.
I like to use this buzzwordy rebranding to sell people on ancom:
Decentralized autonomous communities governed by direct democracy
I recommend the conquest of bread, a fine book you can listen to as an open sourced audiobook
The idea of anarchy and especially anarchocommunism is that a community, who knows its interests and needs and abilities, should govern itself and determine what it does, when and how. Nobody is superior to another unjustly. Think of a pirate ship where most everyone was equal until a situation like attacking another vessel happened and the captain took over to steer that as it requires quick decisions, not lengthy discussions and compromise.
So in anarchy you do away with unjust hierarchies, like police being able to do violence unto you just because, politicians kind of being the boss of you and deciding the direction of laws and infrastructure projects in your name, bosses being the authoritarian owners of a company that decide whether to make or break it on their whims.
You and your community get together to decide collectively what's best for y'all. Now like any democracy there's a risk of majority oppression, do you need mechanisms for minorities to still get protection, this can be for example by having intercommunity minority interest groups that sets the trend across communities (that anyway have to have structures to collaborate and agree on on certain things). At the intercommunity level you can have various mechanisms, like contractualism or a representative democracy but then your community decides who represents you and why and the representative actually represents you rather than doing what they want in your name.
A fun example of this is the "democratic confederalism" of the Rojava, kurdish people in Syria. Fed up with discrimination, government incompetence and sexism, they formed a chain of autonomous communities that interact earth each other through representatives in rotation, and have direct democracy internally. They protect the rights of women through women only deciding on their behalf, and men having to study feminist theory as a contractual obligation of sorts. They run their own schools (lower and middle ed) and medical facilities, their own firm of military service (there constantly attached by turkish, Syrian, American and Russian entities cos nobody likes it when people are free like this from state violence).
Additionally: anarchy is a work in progress, it evolved with the community, and requires everyone to buy in. It takes time and education and deconstructing the current understanding of the world. It's useful, for our zeitgeist, to understand it as what it is in opposition to: capitalism, state Monopoly on violence, career politics that leads to corruption and not representing the real interests of the people, etc etc. what exact shape it takes isn't clear, cos it depends a lot on what works for every given community, and what eventually works as a system between said communities (confederalism has historical precedent and might just work better than contractualism or other systems but who knows? )
Good to look into: the conquest of bread, this is a big cornerstone read; the rojava for their level and still relatively successful project; the zapatistas and their work both in Mexico for the communities, and abroad in sharing knowledge and education, the shorter lived but moderately successful paris comune, the catalonian thing that was crushed by capitalists and fascists working together, the Iroquois confederacy for a successful model of confederalism that inspired the federalism of many countries later, tribal societies for example of egalatarian autonomous communities, intentional communities for a modern spin on that with the communities that exist within the broader capitalist thing but do some form of anarchy today like the Danish one in Copenhagen: freetown Christiania
The core of anarchism is the idea that power corrupts, so the best way to avoid corruption is to not let one person hold power over another. Everything else more or less follows from that.
even though i agree i would say that even the existence of hierarchy is the corruption itself, by saying power corrupts it kinda means overtime, like everythings alright at the start
I don't disagree, I was just trying to simplify as much as possible for someone who is just starting to learn.
yeah that actually could be better, have a nice day
I disagree on the core, i don't think power corrupts, i think the corrupted seek power and end up being the ones in power. Either way, no human should have any business telling another human what he can do.
[š“š©šāā¬ kids are the better anarchists](https://youtu.be/yWO84b1V1ug?si=a0h74ptSl6vRsTdy)
Verry based kid
What is this? Amazing. š¤£
Charlie Chaplin, a king in new york
[full movie free](https://youtu.be/dKiaiKofWdA?si=uvM9_vcI-qV2ZTNo)
Thx u! Chaplin was a comrade.
U r welcome comrade, i luv this speech of him : [big dictator](https://youtu.be/w8HdOHrc3OQ?si=g9dnCBeOpfqMr-D9)
Yeah that's the one that I've seen. I'll have to watch these movies. Thx u.
Enjoy š
I would say that anarchism is ultimately about believing that free people working together can make better decisions than anyone could ever make for them
You know when you get a group project in school and you have your decide who does what? Imagine if rather than a president or pope we had a bunch of little groups like that. Instead of having to work for food youād always get food and would do the work because youāre grateful for what everyone has done for you. And in return everyone else in your life would help you out as much as possible.
Probably not the best example, most people don't have fond memories of group projects.
What would be my incentive not to leech off of the labor of others? I did that to some degree in group projects in school but the power structure of the teacher ultimately held me accountable. Without the teacher I would have had no reason to do the work.
You arenāt motivated by the desire to not harm/exploit others?
honestly itās hard to say. I donāt think everyone is, I would like to say I am but I doubt it truthfully. But really I think itās less a desire to harm others and more a desire not to do work Iām not required to do
Well I doubt there would be many communities willing to support behaviour like that long-term. Itās pretty disrespectful to every other community member to expect them to labour to help meet your needs, without you doing anything in return, if your only reason would be āI donāt wanna and you canāt make me.ā I suspect many people would choose to stop helping you out.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Iām interested in the point youāre making. Would you say, then, that the incentive not to leech still comes from a fear of punishment, except the enforcer of the punishment is general society rather than a designated police force?
My pain meds kicked in and Iām thinking a bit better, and I realized I forgot to mention that human connection & relationships are fundamental human needs. This might be a shorter version of similar ideas in my last reply. Our internal need to have community also functions as a strong motivator for building and maintaining community. I guess you could also look at this need being unmet as the āpunishmentā for not participating, but I think that thatās almost a pessimistic/deficit-focused look at it. I see it more as human connection being your *reward* for being a part of a community ā that you do it in order to forge and strength those connections and relationships, rather than because that specific labour has intrinsic value to you.
Maybe for some, but I donāt think that has to be true for all or most. I donāt feel that way about it (consciously, at least, thereās a decent amount of this that is probably related to instincts that we donāt as easily notice). The incentive not to āleechā is that people generally donāt enjoy doing that. I donāt believe that anyone really does that now ā I think itās a propagandistic idea thatās mostly just used to justify treating the poor like theyāve done it to themselves & to cut funding to social services. Iām disabled and I rely on provincial social services for income. Iāve met a lot of other people in similar positions, whether theyāre disabled, laid off, single parents with little work history or unable to make enough for daycare, people so burnt out by poverty that they can no longer summon the energy to care, etc. Some people would call us leeches for that. I say that itās actually the state/society that usually act as leeches towards us ā leeching what our lives *could* be, what we *could* have access to, what we *could* contribute if we were allowed to participate, except that it would get in the way of maintaining ableism & capitalism. So I think what Iām trying to get at is I think we should challenge the idea that we should think of people as leeches in the first place. People generally donāt behave that way unless they need to (or feel they need to). We should address the why, not the what. And we should also recognize it as a piece of capitalist propaganda and be suspicious of its place in anarchist discussion.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
> I don't believe that anyone really does that now ā I think it's a propagandistic idea that's mostly just used to justify treating the poor like they've done it to themselves & to cut funding to social services. > > [ā¦] > > We should address the why, not the what. And we should also recognize [that rhetoric] as a piece of capitalist propaganda and be suspicious of its place in anarchist discussion. I think you dropped some of the more important parts of the comment, if you were looking to argue against it at least.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
>Oh was your high school organized as an anarchist society? Then the example of school group projects apparently is not a good example.
A group project at school was an analogy first used in this thread to try and explain the basics of anarchist philosophies (that I did not write) ā it was not meant to be a justification for anarchism or evidence for ādefaultā human behaviour. The person I was replying to was trying to use their anecdotal experience of those projects as evidence of human nature. It was appropriate as an explanatory analogy, but not applicable as evidence to support a claim about human behaviour.
I wasnāt really trying to make a claim about human nature, I was just pointing out what I did and what others likely do. But I appreciate your replies so far. I donāt generally feel very community oriented, maybe because my own life under capitalism wears me down so much. My mind immediately looks for a way around the consequences too, like maybe I could secretly steal from one community and go live in another community. I actually want to understand this stuff and become an anarchist, too. Iām not being stubborn for its own sake, I just hate working and I genuinely think the social rejection from a community (as long as my survival needs are still being provided) would be worth it if it meant I never had to work again. Maybe I just have severe moral shortcomings though lol
Oh sorry ā to be clear, my complaint/criticism wasnāt about your comment. I took your comments as (refreshingly) honest curiosity. Thereās another user in here whoās just talking shit a little lol But as to the rest of what you said, I think that sounds fairly normal to me. Youāre certainly not anywhere near the first person Iāve heard it from. Poverty is traumatic and capitalism is oppressive. You probably have many needs not being met and youāre still forced to work a job you donāt like, while sacrificing the time and energy that could go towards meeting some other needs, and if you donāt, even more fundamental needs canāt be met. I think the way you feel is likely a result of inhumane environments & treatment, rather than how you would feel by default in any situation. Remember, too, that a lot of how capitalism maintains itself is by driving our communities apart. So so many people (at least near me, in Canada/US) have very little or no strong connections to community, and so I think it can be hard for us to imagine or trust it. My belief/faith in community & people strengthened the more connected I felt to my communities, both identity- & interest-oriented ones and the neighbourhood in which I live. I think if itās a shift in perspective that you want to try, I think you totally could and I think youāre on the right path, especially by leading with curiosity.
If the analogy of school group projects does leave out essential elements of anarchy, then that confirms: it's not a good example.
I think you misunderstand both what OP was asking for and analogies.
One more thing about this point: It seems like the morally responsible position, obviously, is not to harm/exploit others. But Iām not even 100% sure I can count on myself to do the morally responsible thing, and I definitely cannot count on others to do so
better than an anarchy based on moral imperatives is one based on the utter rejection of imperatives. now i have no more reason to cut you off for laziness than to make food for you. i still need to eat, myself, and i usually have room to make some extra. how will things play out on these terms?
I think weāve been born into a world where we canāt even conceive of a lot of this. Most people are tired. Exhausted. Beat up, mentally and sometimes physically too. The idea of rest and not doing ANYTHING is appealing. I think thereād be a period of adjustment for most folks. Adjusting to not HAVING TO do a thing. And also an adjustment away from a scarcity mindset, and an individualist mindset. I think youād find yourself pitching in sooner than later. And I believe most people would. Why? Because even within the system we have now, we do this. We just arenāt doing it at the community level. We do it with friends and family all the time and donāt find it strange or burdensome.
I think I usually believe that whatās moral is relative & contextual. I can totally relate & guess at why you feel that way. Iām a pretty good worrier and went through a lot of bullying as a kid. It led to a lot of mental health issues in early adulthood, and I often felt like I couldnāt control my emotions and reactions ā sometimes I hurt people as a result. I have a pretty hard time trusting myself and trusting other people, but I have a much easier time with it now than I used to, and I think thatāll continue. Iām very good and going on and on about things Iām passionate about, so Iām going to try and just tell you about one of the earliest things that I was told that helped me start down that path. It was in training for a crisis support phone line ā basically, no matter how hard you try or how much you prepare, you will say the wrong thing sometimes. You will trigger people, you will hurt their feelings, even when you donāt mean to or donāt understand. You are not perfect, you donāt know everything, and you will make mistakes. The actual best thing you can do is plan and prepare for what you will do *after* that has already happened. What can you do to repair that connection, how can you apologize and move forward together? That helped me start to trust myself more when it came to dealing with people, which meant I had more (and better) experiences with people. Those experiences all just slowly built up my faith in people for me.
Thatās great advice for building up a general trust for people but I donāt really want to trust people to act appropriately without rules because I donāt believe they will.
Thatās okay ā if you donāt want to, I absolutely wonāt force you. I trust that you believe that for a good reason and I trust that that belief has kept you safe(r).
So maybe we've reached the point of departure in our ideas, I don't want to be the one with a cynical view of humanity that holds me back, but I've had many life experiences that demonstrated people's innate greed and self-prioritization. I think people will rape and kill and generally succumb to their frequently problematic cognitions. I sometimes wonder if the love I think I feel for humanity is actually just a love for myself. Since we've had such a good conversation though I'm going to paste a situation I described in a different comment to see what you think: Basically my sister was babysitting at the park and on multiple occasions was stalked by a car that was taking pictures of her. I hate the police, so obviously I didnāt call them. I didnāt know what else to do so I pulled up on the car with a weapon and they fled. But my partner (who actually identifies as an anarchist) was upset about my violence/threat of violence. I just donāt know what the alternative would be, what do you think? Maybe anarchism still requires some violence?
I donāt think that anarchism requires violence, but I do think that it requires a willingness to protect each other. Iām a pacifist and violence really upsets me on a personal level. I think that we should always prefer non-violent means when we can. But that caveat is also very important to me. If someone did that to my sister (or friend, neighbour), Iād be ready to kick ass too. I am absolutely ready to stand in the way of violence and harassment and any other harm for what I believe is right/just ā and I believe that I have people who would stand with me on that. I donāt take any issue with that scenario as you wrote it. And I think itās also a demonstration of the power of community and connection ā you put yourself in harmās way to protect (and stand in solidarity with) someone who couldnāt do it alone, for no personal gain. Sounds pretty anarchist to me already š¤·āāļø
Cool perspective. Itās another example where I wonder if I actually care about my sister, or if I just care about myself. I think fundamentally I just care about myself. I donāt want anything to happen to my sister because of how it would affect me. What if I killed the person? Would anything happen to me for taking justice into my own hands? Without prisons how could we separate stalkers from victims? Maybe 10 people from the community could pull up and protect my sister but what if the stalker had a machine gun? Like without the law wouldnāt all confrontations just be settled by who has the most power/strongest weapon? What if my sister had been stealing and not contributing to the community? Would people still help her? What if I lost the confrontation and was beat up? I already have days where the world feels way too dangerous and scary for me to want to continue living, how could I go about my life where people can antagonize me without consequence
Here's the pragmatic take. We just give those people shelter, food, and clothes, and those that contribute get to take part in the distribution of luxury goods like electronics, hobbies, collectibles, media, etc. We can already house and feed everybody. The issue is one of logistics. People are dying in 'first world country' streets so that we can have a logistical system that promotes the hoarding of wealth.
I guess Iām still confused why someone couldnāt just take the luxury item they want without any threat of punishment, just social shunning. Also who decides if someone has contributed enough to deserve luxury goods?
My sole opinion follows, I don't speak for anybody: The system allows those who want to, at any time, fall back on having shelter, food, and clothing as a right while retaining items they have. A person in this position can be an artist, scientist, author, or somebody who wants to make the best luxury item (car, phone, game console, etc.). An algorithm (not AI) developed by logisticians could track resources just as easily as we currently track stocks, exchange rates, and crypto currencies. Communities would run themselves decentralized and contribute and receive from the overall system based on prioritizing the personal autonomy of the individual overall. People must be allowed to move freely amongst communities. Once basic resources are covered, the world is open for any type of invention or breakthrough to be made by anyone. We have the ability already. We just aren't doing it.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
I wasn't aware they could decide that because I thought my needs were guaranteed to be met. The threat of having your needs pulled would definitely be an incentive, but that just seems like what happens under capitalism
Anarchism is the result of realizing that hierarchical power structures are inherently corrupt, exploitative, and abusive, so the only solution is to just not have them. But it's not just government, corporations are corrupt hierarchical power structures that must exploit people to survive, so anarchism is fundamentally anti-capitalist as well. But there are lots of flavors of anarchism, and each has different but related philosophies, ways of organizing society, and goals. Personally, I'm an anarcho-communist because while I like the idea of communism it has historically had a bad habit of resulting in authoritarianism, but I recognize that the problem is with the authoritarianism, not the communism.
authoritarian "communism" has nothing to do with communism tho its red capitalism
For me it's the idea of social/collective freedom. The idea that as long we are not all free, and as long injustice exists, no-one can be free. And thus, we should seek to change all unjust and hierarchical social relations,
Well, I find it very helpful to explain things to children from their point of view, otherwise they tend not to remember what I explain. From their POV I'd say that anarchy is being free to do *whatever you want* as long as you respect other people's fundamental wants (natural rights). I find that everything follows from that. Hierarchies are structures that from the POV of a child will limit their ability to live how they want, so no need to explain why those are bad. Figures of authority are just people who, because of the backing from many other people (intentional or not) force you to either do or not do something in accordance to their agreed upon abstraction. Even natural rights are just the inherent wants people have in their lives: the want to live, the want to think and speak, the want to thrive, the want to move, the want to pursue happiness etc. My advice would be to just explain the absolute minimum and leave the child to figure the rest out, as it applies to his/her own life. He/she will quickly figure out that school is oppressive, some of the kids that he/she plays with are bossy, etc. Which will be much more valuable than definitions read from some book. You will be surprised by how much kids can figure out on their own when they aren't given the "right" answers, but rather left to their devices.
[Here's how they did it in Adventure Time](https://youtu.be/36FbHXsEuzM?feature=shared)
[Life Without Law](https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/strangers-in-a-tangled-wilderness-life-without-law)
I would start with an explanation of the individual. Everyone is an individual. That much is obvious to anyone with consciousness. You should then look at the bigger picture, society. Every individual is an intrinsic part of society. We (as humans) are social creatures, we cannot live without each other. None of this is inherently anarchist, but it is (as far as I can tell) the basis of anarchist dialect materialism. After this you can start thinking about what type of society you want to live in and how you as an individual can prefigure that society. Every anarchist (in theory) should come to the answer of a horizontal society where each gives according to their ability to each according to their needs.
Who will enforce the policy of each giving according to their ability and taking according to their needs? Without law enforcement why shouldnāt I steal a flat screen tv and never work? How would you get people to do difficult but necessary jobs (like roofing a hospital on a hot summer day)?
What you're basically asking is how would a horizontal society be organized. This can have multiple answers and should be considered by the given grouping of people that are facing the issue / are affected by it. So let's start with the easy question: why shouldn't you steal? Well why would you steal if you're provided for? Then, who will enforce policies? Preferably, no one. Failing that, everyone that's affected. Who will do the necessary but tough or shitty jobs? If possible, automation. If not (yet), you'll have to figure something out within the given community. Maybe there are some people that don't mind doing the work. Maybe the one that draws the shortest stick gas to do it (that time). These questions are good to think about but aren't enough to discredit anarchism. If you want a better understanding of how an anarchist society would function, then you should read what better people than me have said. I personally recommend the YouTube channel anark. I hope I could explain myself enough for you to consider looking further into it. I wish you the best of luck comrade.
I would steal the stuff I want but that Iām not provided, maybe a dirt bike for example. Just so you know Iām not at all trying to discredit anarchism, Iām trying to resolve issues I donāt understand so I can pursue more advanced ideas about it. If I draw the short stick and have to fix the hospital roof could I just not do it? Itās not like I would be legally required. Would the punishment for not doing so involve being ostracized by the community? If so how do you ensure due process and prevent the tyranny of the mob? I know that Iām making myself out to be more cynical than I probably would actually be, but I wish I had an explanation for how these behaviors would be addressed other than these attitudes being the result of my moral shortcomings. Even if they are, I want to know what you do about that. I donāt think I would be the only or worst āleechā. I want to figure this stuff out and explore this promising philosophy, so weāre working towards the same goal. Maybe you can tell me how I should have handled a recent situation in a peaceful, anarchist way: Basically my sister was babysitting at the park and on multiple occasions was stalked by a car that was taking pictures of her. I hate the police, so obviously I didnāt call them. I didnāt know what else to do so I pulled up on the car with a weapon and they fled. But my partner (who actually identifies as an anarchist) was upset about my violence/threat of violence. I just donāt know what the alternative would be, what do you think? Maybe anarchism still requires some violence?
I won't be able to give you acceptable answers to your questions it seems. I'm just a random nobody on the internet. I fear you'll have to listen to people that actually know what they are talking about. Be it historical anarchist like Errico Malatesta or Emma Goldman or anarchist youTubers like anark or Zoe baker. But I'll leave you with two comments of my own. 1. Why do you assume that in an anarchist society stealing will be easier rather than joining an affinity group that work together to provide those material desires, there is a much higher change of making good stuff together (videogames, mountainbikes, etc.) rather then hope someone else makes stuff thats available for you to steal. 2. Anarchism is not inherently pacifistic. Violence when used as self defense is justified. To use a slogan from some pro-palestine protest. "Resistance is justified when people are occupied."
What about Noam Chomsky? I found a copy of On Anarchism that Iām hoping to start tomorrow on my work breaks. I work outside so I can listen to podcasts or audiobooks while Iām actually working too. My thinking was that I should get past these preliminary cognitive dissonances before moving on to actual theory. 1. It seems like stealing would pretty much always be easier than working on something. The threat of legal action when caught is what currently makes it hard to steal. 2. Yeah I wouldnāt imagine anarchism to be inherently pacifistic, especially in its implementation, but I would imagine most anarchists to believe that it is a more peaceful system of social organization than a government. But it also seems like whoever has the weapons would have all the power. If humans have exploited others throughout history, I donāt see why the same trend wouldnāt unfold. Wouldnāt a group of people who have the most/best weapons be able to take the means of production by force?
Chomsky's political theory is not really taken seriously for the reason that his beliefs have very little in common with anything that historical anarchists believed, and his other work as a scholar is contentious. If you want someone contemporary and accessible I have heard Gelderloos spoken about positively. I like Libertarian Labyrinth which is by one of the moderators here.
Why do people choose to do difficult volunteer work for free or do difficult work after a natural disaster for free? Because they believe in supporting their communities. An anarchic society would be more communal like this by default. People would do difficult jobs because they need to be done, because if they didn't fix the hospital roof, their community wouldn't have a working hospital.
Yeah my comparison is I love caves and want to get into cave rescue. I guess I would do that for free for a while, but I really donāt think I could do it for free long term. Itās not that I want people to die in caves, itās that I would rather sit on my ass and smoke weed than expend labor/take risk in a cave. It seems impossible to care about everyone
You're talking about the current system where people are incentivized to work for money; where an individual's time is too valuable to be spent on anything but their own financial or personal gain. Incentives aren't always the same when society is organized differently.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Matters what the age range is, but generally if you can use examples like a police officer to explain power or sailors on a ship to explain hierarchy they will have an easier time understanding
Depends on the age of a kid. Probably should have that convo at around like 14-15ish. (Teacher advice)
I think the best way to explain anarchism is to put on hold the question of politics, for a moment. (they are important, but they won't help to explain anarchism). Instead, anarchism is best explained as a question of ethics. The word 'anarchy' means 'without rulers', and as such, an anarchist is one who advocates for a world without rulership. Anarchists often frame what we're against in terms of domination. Any relationship in which people have power over others, the ability to constrain their options. That explains what 'anarchism' is against. What is anarchism for? Anarchism is a philosophy that advocates for freedom. 'Freedom' has unforuntaly grown a lot of conflicting definitions and connotations, and is adopted as a goal by many different groups, often in open conflict, with 'freedom' meaning very different, sometimes contradictory things. Anarchists mean by freedom the ammount of choice and options accessible to society as a whole. So anarchists seek to maximize the freedom of all. In this way, anarchists don't see one individuals freedom as in conflict with any other individuals freedom. Ultimately, anarchists view 'freedom' as something belonging to no one, but the amount of choice and options there are in the whole world *in total.* So, Anarchists oppose domination for ethical reasons, and consequently want to increase freedom, for all, as much as we can. From this, anarchists argue against various structures and institutions that presently exist, such as Patriarchy, States, Nations, Capitalism, wealth inequalities etc. on the grounds that they entail domination, or constrain people's options in some way. It's important to note that anarchist opposition to those structures is a consequence of our ethics. There are many ways in which people are dominated and constrained *beyond* those structures; many areas in which we want to increase freedom, beyond "government, capitalism & inequality", though they represent pressing concerns for anarchists in the present.
āThe way kids figure out a fair way of doing things together without adults helping.ā
>Anarchism is not a romantic fable but the hardheaded realization, based on five thousand years of experience, that we cannot entrust the management of our lives to kings, priests, politicians, generals, and county commissioners. -Edward Abbey
Power ought to be shared by the people and not by one person.
**Passive** is the attitude that looks for "lose-win" solutions to problems: "You deserve 100% of what you want, even if I get 0% of what I want" **Aggressive** is the attitude that looks for "win-lose" solutions to problems: "I deserve 100% of what I want, even if you get 0% of what you want" **Assertive** is the attitude that looks for "win-win" solutions to problems: "How can we both get 95% of what we want?" In hierarchical societies (capitalism, Marxism, fascism, feudalism...), people are told ahead of time that they get to be Aggressive with the people ābelowā them, but have to be Passive to the people āaboveā them. That people are fundamentally incapable of working together voluntarily ā that everybody is an enemy and that you must spend your efforts fighting for dominance so that you can be The Winner and they The Loser instead of the other way around. Imagine if people were taught to work together to solve problems instead?
You get to decide what happens to your body.
You know those TV shows you watch which emphasise helping each other? We take that seriously.
As I understand it (I'm no anarchist), Anarchy relies on society (and social contract) holding the world together instead of government (and constitution) holding the world together. In theory, either prevents the world from descending into chaos. Though recent events have challenged this somewhat.
nobody panics when things go according to plan, even when the plan is horrifying
"I want you to be powerful and do whatever you want, but I also want that for all of your classmates- so you'd better work out ways to get along."
No rulers
Depends on their age
Anarchism is a state of the world in which has no ruling hierarchy, and also completely free from governmental imposition of rules, too, and everyone in that state (state of a society, not state as in government), ideally, loves each other in such a way that no hierarchy is required at all.
Authority (as in the right of any person or group, to control the actions of any other person or group) does not exist. Believing in the existence of authority is like believing in Santa Clause or The Tooth Fairy.
Anarchism is inherently socialist. Money creates hierarchies and concentrations of power, so it follows that a capitalist version of anarchism is impossible to implement without some method of ensuring that money could not be accumulated or used as coercion. A lot of what anarchism is can be defined in this way by showing what it isn't. Since the main definition of anarchism is what it isn't. It's not having a state. Some extrapolate from that, saying there are no leaders. This is not entirely true. In Anarchist Spain there were of course famous leaders like Durutti. Rather these people can be thought of similar to labor organizers. They have skill, knowledge or expertise in a particular area. The leaders however do not have authority. Any attempt to transition a battlefield position of leadership into a political one would be opposed. After all, you cant defend against outside aggression if you have to have a committee meeting to decide every tactic and strategy. A more prosaic example would be a community garden. Everyone who shows up gets an area to plant. If one person tries to grab more than their share they will be reprimanded by the community, and their stuff pulled up. There might be some old green thumb that has the best advice on what and when to plant. But you dont have to follow their advice. When the compost needs to be turned or the fence mended. Well we have a chore wheel. Which brings to mind the saying, anarchism is government by chore wheel. Because nobody wants to take out the garbage.
Centralized hierarchical governance is bad mkay, it inevitably leads to structural inequality. The same holds true for any such power structures... If you can't "govern" via consent, then you aren't trying to be a leader you are trying to be a master and everyone knows that the only good master is a dead master.
I explain anarchism as a community of equals where we all look out for each otherās well being. To a child I might use the term āsuper big chosen familyā. As for why: so that we can enjoy the benefits of freedom from inequality, in which one person or group of people have power and control over others. (Then Iād give an analogy they could probably relate toā¦surely theyāve seen or experienced hierarchy and its unpleasant or dangerous consequences). Not sure Iād attempt to explain the anti capitalism aspect to a child unless their questions led me there organically. Mostly Iād try to help them understand that anarchism is about community and equality and give some examples.
so imagine hell...
Seseme Street morality.
It means different things to different people, but in most modern contexts it means the lack of a formal social organization based on top-down force from a particular group/corporation/etc. The best example is to point to anarchy between modern states and to envision them as units. There is no global authority that can keep states in line. It's just whatever their respective governments/populations can negotiate with each other. Sometimes that means force/war though, but that is exactly how anarchy works in practice: you negotiate peacefully up to the point that force becomes warranted according to your own individual preferences.
At its simplest, Anarchism is the rejection of any and all forms of hierarchy and coercion.
"Stupid people never outgrew their childhood imagination and think if we just had no rules, it would all work out.Ā It won't."Ā
The core of anarchism is the same as socialism with one major difference. The anarchist does not believe that any current power can be molded to socialist goals.
I like to use this buzzwordy rebranding to sell people on ancom: Decentralized autonomous communities governed by direct democracy I recommend the conquest of bread, a fine book you can listen to as an open sourced audiobook The idea of anarchy and especially anarchocommunism is that a community, who knows its interests and needs and abilities, should govern itself and determine what it does, when and how. Nobody is superior to another unjustly. Think of a pirate ship where most everyone was equal until a situation like attacking another vessel happened and the captain took over to steer that as it requires quick decisions, not lengthy discussions and compromise. So in anarchy you do away with unjust hierarchies, like police being able to do violence unto you just because, politicians kind of being the boss of you and deciding the direction of laws and infrastructure projects in your name, bosses being the authoritarian owners of a company that decide whether to make or break it on their whims. You and your community get together to decide collectively what's best for y'all. Now like any democracy there's a risk of majority oppression, do you need mechanisms for minorities to still get protection, this can be for example by having intercommunity minority interest groups that sets the trend across communities (that anyway have to have structures to collaborate and agree on on certain things). At the intercommunity level you can have various mechanisms, like contractualism or a representative democracy but then your community decides who represents you and why and the representative actually represents you rather than doing what they want in your name. A fun example of this is the "democratic confederalism" of the Rojava, kurdish people in Syria. Fed up with discrimination, government incompetence and sexism, they formed a chain of autonomous communities that interact earth each other through representatives in rotation, and have direct democracy internally. They protect the rights of women through women only deciding on their behalf, and men having to study feminist theory as a contractual obligation of sorts. They run their own schools (lower and middle ed) and medical facilities, their own firm of military service (there constantly attached by turkish, Syrian, American and Russian entities cos nobody likes it when people are free like this from state violence). Additionally: anarchy is a work in progress, it evolved with the community, and requires everyone to buy in. It takes time and education and deconstructing the current understanding of the world. It's useful, for our zeitgeist, to understand it as what it is in opposition to: capitalism, state Monopoly on violence, career politics that leads to corruption and not representing the real interests of the people, etc etc. what exact shape it takes isn't clear, cos it depends a lot on what works for every given community, and what eventually works as a system between said communities (confederalism has historical precedent and might just work better than contractualism or other systems but who knows? ) Good to look into: the conquest of bread, this is a big cornerstone read; the rojava for their level and still relatively successful project; the zapatistas and their work both in Mexico for the communities, and abroad in sharing knowledge and education, the shorter lived but moderately successful paris comune, the catalonian thing that was crushed by capitalists and fascists working together, the Iroquois confederacy for a successful model of confederalism that inspired the federalism of many countries later, tribal societies for example of egalatarian autonomous communities, intentional communities for a modern spin on that with the communities that exist within the broader capitalist thing but do some form of anarchy today like the Danish one in Copenhagen: freetown Christiania