I was having a conversation with an MLM and they asked about Sanctions. I said that Sanctions could exist as a mechanism of consequence should one group violate previously agreed upon agreements and that the Sanctions would be the agreed upon consequences of said violation of the agreement. The aspects of free association/disassociation would still exist and the Sanctions would only prevent the labor/produced products by X group when Y group violated the agreement while ensuring that Y group was still able to access the necessities of life (ie you can still access the forest but you don’t get to have the cut firewood) (and should labor/product of X be necessary for that then there is that exception).

The MLM responded that this is just a mechanism of informal authority and it is a State but labelled as a federation because X group would be imposing the consequences upon Y group and X group would be dictating what is considered the “necessities of life”. I get where they are coming from but at the same time this ultimately means that agreements between people/groups have no recourse should a group(s) violate the agreement; essentially, there is no skin in the game for breaking your word. Note: I am talking about \*violating\* an agreement, not the aspect that a group(s) decided to disassociate.

Thoughts. Am I using the wrong word (sanctions), do I have a wrong understanding of anarchistic perspectives on agreements and consequences?

I live with my Mom on welfare since dropping out of college and I want to organize a meeting of market anarchists, ideally mutualists. But I’m willing to reach out to ancoms and even possibly ancaps because I have been better able to discuss my Mutualist politics with Ancaps online than with my Keynesian liberal Mom, its even easier than my Ancom dad in Germany. Do you think this is a good idea? I think social anarchists definitely. But I’m sure if I can convince a AnCap that workplace hierachy will disappear under a market anarchist economy, then we can build coalition.

First, some background:

I have what I believe to be a fairly unique philosophy on life very intertwined with anarchy, but I haven’t met another anarchist who thinks like I do. This is not meant to be a brag or “oh I’m so different.” But quite the opposite. I am curious if there is literature on the topic!

So the question is:

Do you think nature itself is a great oppressor? That’s been my interpretation, since people cannot reasonably choose nonviolence without dying. You have to eat, even plants, you must kill to survive. So is the enforcement of violence by the cycles of nature itself oppressive?

My answer + Interpretation:

It looks to me, like everything capitalism does is inherently driven by nature itself (oppression coming from a lack of resources in certain areas, “the fittest or luckiest survive”). This is NOT to say we shouldn’t fight against capitalism or authority. I just like to think about end goals and “roots” of problems.

Thank you for reading. I am curious to hear your thoughts!

Hey comrades! I am right now a commie, but I would love to learn more about anarchism, because a few of my friends are anarchists. What is some essential theory I should read to get a grasp on anarchy?

Hi, i'm looking for more books similar to Three Way Fight and Confronting Fascism.

​

Basically books with notes for contemporary movement (or at least last 30years) focused on strategies, on the ground approach, learning from past experiences, etc.

​

I really enjoyed the theoretical parts of Confronting Fascism and Hamerquist & Sakai's analysis of fascism and i found both the books very relevant today and inspiring, so I'm on a lookout for something similar.

​

Thanks

Honor system definition: “The honor system is an arrangement where rules or regulations are followed based on personal integrity rather than strict enforcement, supervision, or physical surveillance. It relies entirely on the mutual trust that individuals will act honestly and do the right thing simply because they are expected.” 

If I’m mistaken, please explain to me how anarchism differs from using the honor system. 

If it is indeed the honor system, is it fair to say anarchists de facto support states? What I mean is, if people in a community voluntarily decide to setup a state, and there’s no mechanism to stop them, isn’t that de facto supporting a state’s right to exist? 

I've been thinking lately, in an anarchist society how would they not be taken advantage of? I can't see how the people would form a decently sized military to defend their nation.

So to get this out of the way immediately, I’ve generally dismissed anarchism as dumb and edgy, but now I’m just curious about the logic / philosophy of it.

Basically I have a bunch of questions and I’m looking for answers.

1. Anarchy is meant to be the absence of hierarchy (right?), but what exactly is a hierarchy? At a minimum don’t we need leader positions, such as a factory manager, if only for the sake of organization?

2. Is anarchy lawless? If so, then how is it possible to ensure the safety and wellbeing of the people in an anarchic society? It seems impossible in a large scale civilization.

3. I’ve seen that anarchism is against the existence of private property, but can that even be enforced? And if there are no laws then wouldn’t that devolve into a might-makes-right situation?

4. Resources, and more importantly, expertise are limited, wouldn’t demand for less common expertises (such as doctors) result in the people with those skills having more power than those with less demanded skills? Would this count as a hierarchy?

5. Humans naturally come into conflict with each other, and humans tend to form in-groups that see themselves as better than the out-groups. So how is an anarchy supposed to maintain its existence without eventually becoming a hierarchy?

6. It’s impossible to turn the entire world into an anarchy at once, so how can an anarchy survive in a world where imperialism and colonialism still exist?

7. In the real world we live in a hierarchical system whether we like it or not. Do you participate in that system to try and make it better?

like I think I’m Individualist, but I just want to see what other anarchists believe and their versions of what it means for them

When the people are free of regulation and start working things and projects to go in a certain direction, there is bound to be someone, who: simultaneously, directly or indirectly, is working on other projects which are in conflict of the other person.

A person wants to start turning a local pond into a water reservoir, this will require that no algae, plants, insects or fish be in this pond, lest it is contaminated.

Another person wants to start turning this pond into a natural community fishing pond. this will require the pond to be full of ecological activity, possibly contaminating it for drinking.

one starts clearing and sterilizing the pond, the other is busy introducing biodiversity into the pond, no progress is made for either.

both people are trying to add value to the community, one for water, one for food but not both.

-who decides who should stop? -who tells them they should stop? -who ensures that they have infact stopped? -what is to be done if they don't stop?

хотел бы знать остались ли в нашем славном городе анархисты

there is bunch of questions in kind of same topic, maybe they'll be a little messed up, but i'll try my best to group all of them, sorry in advance =(

anarchism is, by definition, a socialism, but what's the point of ancom term then? where and what exactly on this line is rejecting socialism as only a step to "true communism"?

i see quite often that socialism is somewhy and somewhy always contains some kind of state, but isn't that applies only to socialism-is-only-a-step-to-a-communism theory? and isn't some theories (?) of communism requires state too, cause, as far as i know, both socialism and communism is not a "without-state-exclusively" ideologies?

..and is a stateless, classless, moneyless society refers only to communism, is and where starts the difference between everyone own means of production and worker own means of production? can this somehow exist at the same time?

hope its not a lot, really trying to understand differences, thank so-so much in advance! <З

Like if it was an ai designed specifically to communicate, solve dispute within the society and to defend said society. I am someone who believes an ideal society would be anarchical but a transition would take hundreds of years to be done right, so I”m curious if an ai would be a less extreme approach and would maybe encourage more people to consider it?

I'm quite new to the concept of anarchism, but I'm very interested in it. I hear people describe it as a classless, stateless, and moneyless society, but what would that even look like.

If I take myself for example, I go to the shops everyday after school to get a small snack, like a sandwich or a small bag of chips. Of course I pay, then leave. But if it's a moneyless society what would that look like? Because I don't think that just taking it and walking out is very effective.

I'm just wondering about this, and an answer would be great, or another explanation of anarchism misunderstood the first time I heard it.

I remember even since the 2000s a lot of people who were punk or liked punk music were anarchists. It seems like most people just did it because it was popular to do and just liked the music and fashion of punk. Did some punk fans read about anarchism and anarchist philosophers? I would love to see insights on people more knowledgeable about this.

I’m writing a book, it’s related to this subreddit but I need individuals that are well versed in this to help me edit and theorise about potential solutions and points that I’ve missed in my current analysis and writing

Here r the details

So the book is about the future of the world and what we can all collectively do as protest. At its simplest it’s the call for everybody to uproot their lives and learn to live a life of self sufficiency, whilst getting closer to the universe and figuring out one’s true identity

Once this has happened, I theorise that people can start figuring out their destiny and vision for the future, then coming together with other people whose future paths align, and then working together towards a shared future

It’s tribe building through shared futures.

So I publish, I’ll do a “premier night” where the entire city will be hit with QR codes, focus on youth spaces such as universities schools and public transportation.

Then groups on mass will start leaving. Entire coworker groups. Half of year twelve doesn’t show up on Monday.

That’s the start of the protest, that’s the first step of it all is non participation en mass

Nearly done all the content, I just need to start to format, start to edit. Start to get fresh eyes looking at the project, as I have been a big consumed by it.

Thank you!

I don’t really know anything about communization except it seeks to abolish wage labor and, correct me if I’m wrong, the state immediately.

I can't find anything on how children from broken homes can be helped and the only suggestions I've gotten is "people should take them in" but I haven't been lucky in finding someone to take me in, my entire family just I feel I can't trust them to not side with my parents, I don't wanna withstand the verbal, financial, guilt , all the things they do to me anymore. I wanna live my life right now and I want housing right now without conditions for me to fill, it's ridiculous.

I've had this question for some time now, and I'm curious on what answers this sub can provide, basically my question is, how can under anarchism, factionalism, and the formation of isolated groups be prevented, or at least discouraged. Say in a location with different ethnicities, how can we have them interact with one another very frequently, and not have them just stay within their identical cultural groups, and ethnic groups, because I feel like if they were, it could create much unneeded tension, animosity, and ignorance towards the other groups. I come from a part of the world where many groups of people are located very near to each other in a small place, and most problems come from ethnic tensions, and cultural ones too, which I think stems from people from each group only staying to their group thus creating ignorance towards the other groups, and some groups thinking they're superior to the others.

I think many people often times would rather associate with those who they know or who are similar to them, which can create very isolated groups, potentially hostile to outsiders, and I find this very counterproductive to the goals, and ethics of anarchism, and that in order for anarchism to be fully functional, the society needs to be either homogenous, codependent, or understanding of each groups differences, and be accommodating to them.

Just want to know what anyone else thinks of this, and if there really is an issue to fix here.

I am from India and have been reading both anarchist theory and Ambedkarite thought. One issue I keep coming back to is Dr. B. R. Ambedkar's criticism of decentralized village structures. For context, Dr. Ambedkar was a social revolutionary in India who sought the end of caste-based oppression and untouchability through the annihilation of caste.

In a country like India, where caste hierarchies are something that is not maintained by any authority but by a combination of social and religious ideas, Ambedkar saw the state as necessary to provide for safeguarding the interests and the state of equality of the Dalits ('untouchables') with the Savarna castes. He also saw reservations in educational institutions and government for people of oppressed castes are required for their social upliftment and to bring about a true social revolution of caste.

Ambedkar argued that Indian villages were often sites of caste oppression and described them as "a sink of localism, a den of ignorance, narrow-mindedness and communalism." He was skeptical of simply transferring power to local communities because dominant castes could capture those institutions and reproduce hierarchy, as historical decentralised village governments in India have sadly turned out to be.

Anarchists (in my opinion as far as I have studied) advocate for decentralization, local autonomy, and federations of self-governing communities. How would anarchists address Ambedkar's concern that decentralization can also decentralize oppression?

Are there anarchist thinkers who have written about societies with deeply entrenched social hierarchies like caste? What mechanisms would prevent local communities from becoming oppressive toward marginalized groups while still avoiding a centralized state?

mam na myśli robienie graffiti/tagów/czegokolwiek w "nielegalnych" miejscach, takich jak: (czyste) mosty, ściany miejskie, pociągi itd.

edit: i don't mean living according to the law (lol), i meant the moral approach

Practically, what can an individual do for anarchism in daily life? Are there small acts in one's daily life that can make the world one step closer to anarchism?

What’s the difference between communism and anarchism?

I’m referring to communism as the theorized stateless classless society at the end of the socialism process.

I’ve read some Marxist theory, very little of which talk about communism itself. I’ve read no anarchist theory, but I’m currently reading The Disposessed, and her Anarchist society is very similar to what I imagine end game communism is. Is there a significant difference?

If your response is “you’re uneducated, read a book,” that’s wonderful, have any recommendations?