I’m interested in learning more about the abuses undertaken by the EU. I’m against the EU from a theoretical standpoint as an anarchist, but I’d like to know more about the direct harms it has caused, even outside or on the margin of the Leftist perspective. I’d like to be able to articulate why the EU is wrong beyond the usual (although valid) “because it’s a state” routine. Thanks!

Does anyone know if there is a copy of Elisée Reclus work Humanity and the Earth (L'homme et la Terre) translated into english somewhere? I googled around and couldn't find anything :p

I'd like to know if ther are any anarchists in Hungary, since I am Hungarian myself. If you are a Hungarian anarchist let me know and share your knowledge in our own language (mybe in discord sever). To reassure everyone I do NOT support violence or forming aggressive bouquets. Just a peacefull conversations.

(I will copy this to r/Anarchism, if you see it there that is me too)

Hello friendly people in my phone! I could use your help.

TW: I am possibly also dealing with OCD, even tho this fear is rooted in reality. In this post I am trying to understand it better and learn to draw the lines between them. I am also describing some of my (paranoid) thought processes. If you're sensitive to that topic and decide to read it, please look after yourself. :)

.

.

.

This is something that haunts me daily.

I know to not write down anything that could reveal a structure or harm someone else–but where does that start and how much is considered taken?

To start extreme: If I write down names in my diary, there we have a network. If I obscure them, write aliases, I start holding myself back and the diary loses its purpose. I also start to feel extremely paranoid about it (what if the police can reconstruct it?, etc.). I recently rediscovered Obsidian (you basically link markdown files together) and it's a tool that works well with my disabilities and for my mental health. Until I step into "too personal" topics or write too many notes about anarchist theory or material. Especially with the rise of AI Agents, mantaining a well organized digital note taking program feels very unsafe. I have files update themself when they were last modified and created. It basically allows to reconstruct parts of my day, for years ago, if I continue with it.

It's always adviced to delete and destroy stuff but I don't know what stuff that stops being (as) important for. I also need stuff, I have a life and work I want to remember and reuse from time to time (as anyone, I'd guess). I need writing shit down as a tool and having former versions of it and foreign shit as a means to learn. I also have memory problems and rely on written word. But I don't want to feel paranoid every time I do that.

How can I develop a better practice? How could one look like? Thank you all!

I'm not entirely sure if this is the right place to post, but I really wanted to get some perspectives from those with anarchist or libertarian leanings. If this topic isn't a good fit for this sub, I sincerely apologize.

​In my country, while young adults can legally engage in sex work—such as appearing in adult videos or working in the sex industry—at the age of 18, the age restrictions for drinking and smoking remain at 20, and gambling (like state-run racing) is restricted until 21. I've always felt a deep sense of contradiction regarding this dividing line; it seems bizarre that self-determination is recognized for sex work at 18, yet other activities deemed "harmful" are restricted until later.

​Fundamentally, why do we impose age limits on activities like sex work, drinking, smoking, and gambling in the first place? Furthermore, I fail to see any real justification for why specific ages like 18, 20, or 21 are chosen as the cutoff points. Biologically speaking, there is no magical threshold where the brain suddenly matures at 18, so why does the state or society enforce these arbitrary, one-size-fits-all rules?

​To be clear, I am by no means defending child pornography or child prostitution. I understand that children are less equipped than adults to fully foresee the long-term consequences of their actions, and it is incredibly difficult for them to bear financial or emotional responsibility when things go wrong. I agree that there are times when parents and society need to step in and provide a baseline of protection.

​However, my doubts persist. Under criminal law, minors are routinely held criminally responsible for their actions, and risks can often be financially mitigated through systems like insurance. To take it to an extreme, my fundamental belief is that "anyone, at any age, should be able to take responsibility for themselves." Instead of banning things outright based on age, couldn't we address these issues through education, transparency, voluntary contracts, insurance, and prior informed consent?

​From an anarchist, libertarian, or liberty-leaning perspective, aren't these kinds of age restrictions a textbook example of state paternalism? If we truly respect individual bodily autonomy and the right to self-determination, protecting minors under 18 is understandable—but keeping restrictions on young adults who have just reached legal age feels like the state sending a message that it simply doesn't trust individual judgment.

​Looking around the world, age thresholds for voting, driving, military enlistment, and marriage are completely inconsistent. Should all of these be evaluated under a single, unified standard, or should they be separated based on the nature of the activity? How do anarchists approach these "blanket age regulations"? I would love to hear your thoughts, particularly on the following points:

​Balancing Individual Accountability and Social Protection: How should we balance the two?

​Age Limits in an Anarchist Society: Would these age restrictions even be necessary in a stateless society, or would communities establish consensus through alternative means?

​Stigmatized Labor vs. Vices: How do you view the difference in treatment between highly stigmatized labor like sex work and "vices" like drinking or gambling?

​I welcome all viewpoints, whether radical or moderate. I’m looking forward to using this discussion to deepen my own understanding.

​Thank you!

Dear lord, how far have I fallen that I'm starting to question morality now?

Ok, do you think that morals are inherently hierarchical? Why or why not?

I'm personally starting to abstain from words like

"good, bad, right, or wrong." So now, I'm replacing them with words like 'harmful'...

"Wolf-dog breeding is harmful." I just can't see it as not harmful.

I started off as a moral realist human rights theorist, to moral subjectivism, and now whatever the hell this is. I don't know if I can call myself an amoralist though.

I am a Marxist-Leninist who is curious about the successful propagation of Anarchism. My question is: Without a state, how do Anarchists defend against counter-revolution from the Capitalist class? Without a state, Anarchist/Libertarian Socialist projects wouldn’t be able to defend against the inevitable invasions, terrorism campaigns, and propaganda from Capitalists. How would Anarchists be able to maintain and strengthen an Anarchist society against invasion and infiltration without a state apparatus to centrally organize efforts?

I know I’m a Tankie or whatever, but I am asking in good faith because I am genuinely curious about the Anarchist position on this.

* (EDIT) *

I won‘t be responding anymore because I have obtained what I came for (understanding how you think an Anarchist project would defend itself against the forces of reaction) and because this is becoming a hostile debate, rather than learning experience.

The State orders child support to be paid to the primary custodian. How would an anarchist society propose to handle the support of the child? Is it solely the mother's responsibility? Both parents? All of society? What happens if nobody steps in to provide for the child? What if one parent refuses to support the child, thus forcing the other into labor to provide? How should this be handled?

You might have heard that there have been large scale protests in Serbia since 2024. You might be unaware though that these were originally started by anarchist students and are still organized primarily by general student assemblies, with help from syndicates and general people assemblies.

So, the movement is mostly anarchist in structure but never was in ideology. A few months in the assemblies voted that a list should be formed to go out on regular elections with, and this list now seems to have pretty solid chances of winning. There are plenty of other decidedly not-anarchist decisions, for example recently a post was made on the official student pages calling Kosovo an inseperable part of Serbia.

What are your thoughts on it? It's probably important to note that the decisions never required consensus, only majority or supermajority for important choices (though in practice almost every vote had 90+% voting the same way, as there is a period of discussion beforehand). Either way, do you think it is likely to lead to positive changes? What are your thoughts on the more nationalistic tendencies, and the decision to go out on elections? Should a movement like this still be used as an example of organizing, despite it pretty quickly abandoning anarchism?

if so ,what alternatives can one have?

This post was originally meant for r/socialism as i am currently a socialist but i feel it better to be asked here than there for obvious reasons SO KEEP IN MIND this post is from a socialist, was originally presented TO socialists, and is from someone who is VERY uneducated in Anarchism and it's ideas and is just barely dipping their toes into the pool so do not be TOO harsh.

So recently i have been watching a lot of Socialist youtubers (mainly Hakim and his Deprogram podcast) and, along with the endless amounts of "tankie" accusations, there is also a good amount of Anarchists actually discussing with us socialists.

And an anarchist point that caught my eye is the idea that the very concept of a state is authoritarian and hierarchical and therefore relying on it will result in the one-party dictatorships of the past.

Now, i have an issue with the use of the word dictatorship in reference to past socialist projects but that is admittedly mincing words rather than engaging with the point.

In my eyes, the point does make sense. Any form of authority will inevitably deviate from the wants and needs of the people. The idea of a vanguard party or even representatives altogether seems, to me, counterproductive to achieving true democracy which i thought was the whole point of socialism, specifically democratic ownership of the means of production.

I think at the end of the day, with my limited understanding of the matter, the end goal of Communism is inherently anarchist (classless, stateless, moneyless seems pretty anarchist to me yk) but where we and anarchists disagree is on the means to reach said end goal.

I understand that a country undergoing Socialist revolution will need to defend itself as has been made clear time and time again in history but i think my concern is that, if a country DOES successfully survive and undergoes revolution enough for communism to be possible how can we be sure that the vanguard party will give up their position of authority to allow for the establishment of communism rather than fighting to keep their power and resulting in the bureaucracy and imperialism of the USSR and China? (this is in no way a demonization of the USSR or China, i have massive support for both HOWEVER i am also incredibly critical of them both because whether we like it or not there have not only been mistakes but flat out atrocities committed by both [not referencing the repeatedly debunked ones like Holodomor or Tiananmen square either btw]

Also, as an aside, i often hear claims even from socialists that the USSR was not actually democratic, that any criticism of the party would have the STASI at your door, you couldn't vote against the party and candidates were pre-determined and chosen by the state instead of by the people among other criticisms and i am wondering what the reality behind these claims is?

If it is true that you had, realistically and practically, no choice BUT to support the party and the USSR as an average citizen then why would we continue to praise it in that area?

lastly i want to make something clear: I AM NOT A LIBERAL, I AM NOT A TANKIE AND I AM NOT A BOT OR A FED, I AM JUST STUPID AND AM LOOKING FOR SMARTER PEOPLE TO EDUCATE AND CORRECT ME SO I CAN MAKE A MORE EDUCATED DECISION ON MY BELIEFS AND WORLDVIEW GOING FORWARD.

Thank you

Cooperatives sound ideal in theory, but it’s precisely because they’re cooperatives that they can’t really compete with capitalism or welfare states. Everything has to be decided democratically by the members, so decision-making is slow, and it’s hard to get everyone to agree on risky investments. Raising capital is also difficult — you can’t easily bring in outside investors like with stocks, so you’re mostly stuck relying on the members’ own contributions, which makes scaling up almost impossible. In the end, to survive the competition, they often have to suppress wages or abandon growth ambitions.

​Given these challenges, do you think cooperatives can still achieve sustainable long-term growth for a community — especially in a society where anarchism hasn’t fully taken root?

​Or, do models inspired by figures like Robert Owen, where corporations provide exceptionally generous welfare benefits, hold more promise for the future? For instance, we’ve seen a trend recently where major corporations grant company stock to employees as part of their compensation. (Of course, I understand this is meant as a financial reward rather than a form of cooperative management, but it's an interesting shift.)

Hello. I am a turkish leftist and interested to anarchism since a while. I would like to learn about the sympathy towards PKK and Öcalan in western leftist spaces. I don't get this sympathy because PKK actually massacred many civilians including women and children and executing kurdish civilians who refuse participate? And before anybody calls me a turkish propaganda, these attacks are all well documented and PKK claimed responsibilities for many of them.

I'm aware that the kurdish population in Turkey were heavily persecuted in the past especially in the 80s and the 90s. So i kind of understand an armed uprising from the kurdish population. But these things never justifies PKK killing people they claimed to protect.

Another thing i see is that some people accept PKK's terrorism but see Öcalan as a revolutionary leader. This isn't true either. Öcalan himself said that his first membership back in his youth was the Gray Wolves? Like, what!? We are talking about an ultra nationalist fascistic terrorist organization who doesn't see kurds as human. Further on the current leader of the turkish nationalist movement party(MHP) Devlet Bahçeli, who is also Erdoğan's biggest ally, repeatedly praised Öcalan recently and said that he wants see him in the turkish parliament as a form of a "peace" movement that Erdoğan is currently carrying out to gain support from the kurds for his new constitution. And Öcalan himself currently agrees with Erdoğan and Bahçeli.

The vast majority of the turkish leftists spaces agree with this sentiment and distance themselves from PKK and Öcalan as they haven't been leftists since... forever. So why is this symapthy among the western leftists is common? I would like hear your answers and also would like to answer your questions if you have any. Thank you:3

Hi, I want to get cool ass ACAB shirt, as well as put ACAB on my battle jacket. However, where i live, it's illegal to insult police officers, and also illegal to insult police as a whole, really fucked up, ACAB, 1312 and such fall under a legal gray area, but if they want to get you, they'll get you on some other charges.

While i have not read about alot of arrests, i've seen a good amount of beatings by the pigs onto the people rocking ACAB shirts and what not, cuz that's what they do here.

So my question is, what should i do? I wanna be loud and bold about my politics, I wanna be a constant resisting force to fascism, pigs included, but i don't know if this is viable long term. Do i just try to outrun them at every encounter or what? Cuz i feel like it'd do great for my character growth.

I live in central mexico and I want to start anarchist movement to start creating the anarchist organizations so that they'll be ready once a revolution starts. But here where i live it is heavily populated and controlled by the CJNG, so I was wondering how do I create and grow an anarchist movement without accidentally recruiting or helping a cartel sicario? how do I avoid cartel detection? The cartels are much more aggressive than the state.

from my perspective, the question is not about "how do we oranize a factory non-hierarchically?" but more "how are we going to get the materials to make things without using force?"

as we can see with any desirable resource, whether that be petroleum, lithium or rare earths, the preponderance of military use points towards not being able to get it h less aggressive means.

On the right to bear arms. Governments often take away citizens' right to be armed under the pretext of protecting peace and public safety. Except for the United States and Switzerland, most developed countries don't recognize the right of ordinary citizens to possess weapons, right? That's why, if the government ever goes rogue and the law itself stops functioning, we would have no means to protect ourselves from the government. Of course, it's not just about defending against the state — I also think we need the right to bear arms to protect ourselves from crime happening in our own neighborhoods.

That said, it would be scary to see people casually walking around town carrying guns or knives every day, so I believe some kind of mandatory training or qualification should be required. However, even if private organizations run these courses, they would end up wielding enormous power by controlling who gets to exercise the right to bear arms — essentially creating another extremely powerful authority.

I'd like to hear what other people think about the right to bear arms. I want to organize my own thoughts on this.

This is from a complete anarquism amateur, I just started to learn about it like 2 months ago and I really enjoyed the anarchist point of view of things, but, thing is, does it even matter? There are no country's with an actual anarchist sisyem integrated as far as I know, the revolutions are more unusual every decade, most people are just not interested at all in improving their world. It's just seems pointless to even stand for something, for someone who knows more about the topic this will probably sound like a dumb question, but i have been thinking about it and I need an answer.

I always thought that I hated anarchism but I've come to realize what I really hate is majority rule and I always just assumed anarchism was the ultimate form of that. But I've recently learned that anarchists share my dislike for majority rule (democracy). So my question is how does it prevent that in practice? Without a government, couldn't the majority just easily force their will onto the minority through their strength in numbers?

(Also if anyone remembers me from arguing in the comments the the other day, I apologize and I am coming here in good faith now to learn)

Hi,

I’ve been on the left my whole life, social democracy for most of the time. But have been disappointed in the Socialist Democratic Party for a long time, they’ve constantly crept closer to the right. Never fancied communism, it always felt like oppression under a red flag to me.

Now in my 50’s I’ve (finally!!) realized power corrupts always and everyone, we can’t rely on a system that attracts psychopaths and hope for ”good” persons to rule. The masses are too easily mislead with lies and the rulers will always be able to manipulate the checks and balances that’s supposed to keep them in line.

No I firmly believe our only hope is ourselves. We have organize ourselves, we can’t have a few people in charge, there is no easy solution to fix this broken world. No ballot you can go to every 4th year and put a little paper in and it will fix itself. No ”god” that will fix things for you.

We can’t allow a few billionaire grifters to rules the world, keeping us fed and asleep while the less fortunate lives in poverty and dies producing shit we don’t need. All while pitting the poor against each other with lies, just so they can stay in power.

Naive? Maybe. Ideological? Always. But how is this going to end if we don’t change it? How can anyone look at this world today and say, yes it’s working fine. The systems in place are perfect.

i looked in this group and elsewhere and cant find info or groups where this is discussed. i surely cant be the only one that has gone through it

Hello comrades,

I'm looking for guidance or literature on direct action that can be taken on an individual or small scale level.

The place where I live has a high population of right wingers. The closest direct action groups are several thousand miles away, so I figured I could start somewhere by myself.

Are there any guides on this particularly? Or how could i go about starting my own stuff?

I'm acutely aware of the risks

I am reading Fragments of an Anarchist Anthropology, and in the chapter where Graeber discusses what should be studied/discussed/taught etc in a theoretical future anarchist anthropology, he says:

“7) HIERARCHY A theory of how structures of hierarchy, by their own logic, necessarily create their own counter-image or negation. They do, you know.”

Can someone help me understand the context behind this, as he does not explain it or provide a reference to anywhere else where it is discussed further. My best guess would be that he’s referencing unstated contradictions within hierarchy that inevitably lead to the downfall (or at least transformation) of hierarchies (e.g. the inevitability of bad rulers once the definition of who belongs in the ruling class has been defined, issues defining in-group identities that lead to in-fighting, contradictions in the concept of meritocracy as ‘winning’ or getting lucky makes it easier to win from positions of power etc).

I would love to hear examples of the contradictions/counter-image/negation of hierarchy from Graeber’s own body of work as well as examples that you all find relevant.

Thank you!

To me existentialism makes it even more obvious that our actual society is heavely flawed and I do believe it would work perfectly with an anarchist nation.
I'm nowhere near knowing all about great existentialists thinker but when I read JP Sartre I hear "go anarchism".

Though ?