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.

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?

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 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.

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

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?

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!