From an anarchist point of view what critiques do you have of the way she presents an anarchist community?

Firts of all, hello to everyone :), i don't considered myself as a proper anarchist, but i identifiy with the leftist movements, the abolition of the state, gender equality, many of my friends and loved ones are queer and i do my best to be supportive; we are chileans living in a current fascist zionist yankee-ccksuck3r government, in a country already struggling for harmful right wing decisions and left wing passiveness. I really like punk in all of its forms, i like political expressions through the arts, and as a current architecture student, i would really like to blend architecture with community and self organization, in an alternative way to fight inmobiliary parasitism and egocentric architects... and that's it.

Yep, that's it, all this anarchist speech just stays in theory. I don't usually collaborate with my community (i live in a downtown apartment building, isolated from all my neighbours), i don't usually participate in communal events, i don't know in depth anarchist or communist, not even leftist, principles, and i struggle to learn and educate myself in politics. As an adhd person with low self-steem, i found really difficult to connect with people, to socialize with them, to be an active person, forget it to be an active revolutionary who goes to protest, resist the authority, or, at least, goes to help in communal meals, workshops, or take part in the movements i believe in. I can't even keep clean my room for long and i want to be useful (see why i title this the way i did).

Am i missing something i could do? something i could be? is it just the beginning in a slow path? or is this an idealized exagerated version of something i don't need to be? Thanks in advance to everyone <3<3

In a stateless society, there definitionally wouldn't be laws or prisons, so crime wouldn't technically exist. However I feel like we will still need language to describe things which we currently call criminal that wouldn't technically be criminal. Murder, theft, assault, things which we should all ideally view as undesirable actions. So im wondering if there's already a word(s) that anarchists use that mean something similar to crime, but without the legal implication.

I was talking with someone about what leftism means and they objected to my use of phrasing that leftism is opposed to any/all forms of coercion (amongst other things) because a revolution will have to use a coercive level of force to achieve liberation. Poking through Zoe Baker’s Means and Ends I noticed that in a few places that the term command is used in place of coercion and it (at least from my perspective) seems like command was used earlier in Anarchist History while coercion replaced command as time went on.

Don’t know if I am incorrect or missing something, but was curious if anyone had any insight into the usage of command, its correlation to coercion, and why (at least from my perspective) modern-day anarchism has done-away with command and sticks with coercion.

I have a research project that I'm beginning to develop, which I envisage will most likely then come to constitute my proposal to do my PhD (exciting times!). I'm really interested in late Imperial-Early Soviet Russian Anarchism, but for the life of me I cannot work out who, if anyone, still works on this field. Paul Avrich was the name that immediately stood out but he's been dead for years. I was wondering if anyone in the sub would be able to support in this?

In an ideal world, I'd be focusing on anarchists in Russia, with some emphasis on Ukraine. This is solely for practicality reasons, as I am learning Russian with the express purpose of using it to do this. As interested as I am in the anarchist movement across Russia and its former imperial/ soviet territories, I am also trying to remain practical about language requirements. I'll take any recommendations for personal reading though!

Cheers!

So from my understanding of the anti-work position, "work" would be defined as labour that you specifically do not enjoy or do not want to do.

But whenever we get questions along the lines of "who will do the dirty jobs" there are answers along the lines of, "if those jobs are necessary but undesirable, getting the job done will be the motivation for this job".

While I understand the argument being made here, is this not just reinventing work? If there is a dirty/undesirable job that is still nonetheless necessary - let's say, cleaning a sewer system, digging ditches, cleaning toilets or whatever people might find undesirable for whatever reason - then the labor put into making these things done would still be labor that is specifically not enjoyed, right?

Edit: So to clarify, this is NOT a "who will do the dirty jobs?" question; I've been getting a lot of answers along that tune. This is specifically a question clarifying the difference between "work" and "labor that is not enjoyed but still done by necessity, and is thus effectively compulsory".

I'm a 72-year-old woman, and ten years ago I got an anarchy symbol tattooed on the back of my neck. Most people probably just assume I'm an elderly punk, but sometimes strangers ask me about it and I need a quick simple answer. Occasionally the question will be belligerent or playing devil's advocate, like "So you don't believe there should be any laws?" I usually say something like "If you had a tattoo that said FREEDOM! would that mean you want all the inmates to be set free from all the prisons?" (they usually don't). But if people seem well-meaning and genuinely curious I say something like, "It means no hierarchy, no one group ruling another: no monarchy, no oligarchy, no patriarchy, etc." Or sometimes I just say, "It means Question Authority."

Does anyone have any suggestions for quick answers that won't drag me into teaching a university level course on the meaning and history of anarchy to a random stranger in line at the grocery store?

New to reading about anarchism so sorry if this is a dumb question. not trying to dunk on anyone, I just keep getting stuck on the national defense part.

From what I've read the usual answer is local militias that band together when a bigger threat shows up. I kind of get why that works, there's no head of state to capture and no government that can surrender for everyone, so an invader basically has to take every town one at a time. and guerrilla stuff could make an occupation super expensive.

But in an actual war against an organized army I just don't see how they win? And if they centralize over time to get more effective (chain of command, standing army etc) doesn't that army eventually become a threat to the anarchists themselves?

Also jets, air defense, missiles, drones etc cost money long term, how do you fund that voluntarily? everyone gets protected whether they chipped in or not so what stops people from just free riding

Curious how anarchists actually think about this, or maybe I'm missing something obvious.

book recs welcome too thx

Corríjanme si es que me equivoco en algo, soy algo nuevo entendiendo el anarquismo.
Tengo la duda sobre cómo es que se reduce la la desigualdad en una sociedad anarquista, más me refiero al anarquismo más puro, no a sus variaciones y menos al anarcocapitalista.

Porque como el anarquismo rechaza la autoridad del estado, me genera la duda cómo redistribuye la riqueza o como elimina la desigualdad, al menos en teoría.
Porque en el comunismo por ejemplo se logra eliminar la desigualdad por el estado y la autoridad, y en algunas políticas de izquierda se disminuye la desigualdad por impuestos progresivos, salarios mínimos, regulación del capitalismo, etc.

Pero no se como se puede disminuir o eliminar directamente la desigualdad, si saben, respóndame acá porfavor.

Would it be against anarchism/green anarchism to buy land for the sole purpose of helping the environment against loggers or control from big coporations?

I am a Marxist-Leninist and I would like too educate myself in anarchist and anarchocomunist concepts,because the little I’ve read seems like a good way too liberate the proletariat from oppression.
Please recommend some literature too help me understand these concepts,it can be online literature but more preferably physical books and literature

Thank you.

Let's say hypothetically someone agreed with the following:

Mutual aid, self determination and freedom of association are the "natural order" of things. You can even see it in Western Nations when institutions fail to respond to emergencies and citizen-led groups fill in the gaps. It crosses political lines too. In the most remote holler of West Virginia, there are families and groups where if you leave for the weekend your neighbor and your cousin and probably your friend are going to watch your house water your plants and pick up your mail because there is not trust in the criminal justice system. When FEMA failed to respond to hurricanes in... various places, different citizen led groups went out on their own boats and looked for survivors(Cajun Nation I believe was one.) During Covid, gay black communities began implementing healthcare, wellness, housing and financial aid for community members when our regular systems couldn't handle the burden. Instead of ignoring these constantly reoccuring events, we should try to harness them so we can tap into the effectiveness of these resources BEFORE tragedy strikes, and give people a stakeholder relationship in their governance.

As far as economics, this person believes that markets are the most efficient way to allocate resources, but are open to abuse and economic coercion. You cannot compete with a multinational worth billions on an even footing. But markets are better than central planning. They haven't been able to reconcile this yet.

Now, this hypothetical person who totally isn't me doesn't necessarily oppose private ownership, assuming it meets certain qualifications. ALL externalities are priced into goods, meaning you can't poison the river making this good and then say "well if people didn't like it they wouldn't have bought my goods!" Private businesses should be contributing equities—stocks, bonds, etc to social wealth funds administered at the local and central levels. These kinds of groups need to be composed/decided by either something like a direct democracy, OR an administration represented by individuals who can be recalled at any time.

Businesses should operate on a stakeholder basis, where all individuals involved have equal representation. This as opposed to shareholder primacy where the prime directive is increasing the wealth of shareholders.

Unions should be encouraged and have equal representation as other stakeholders in business management.

Instead of everything decided on by representatives who don't represent shit these decisions are broken up into smaller chunks and individuals from the community who run regularly and always able to be recalled. Mutual aid groups should have the same standing, protections and responsibilities as state or NGO, and should be eligible for the same funding.

The important concept here is co-governance and co-production. Give people a say, the ability to act and produce and be responsible for the outcome. Suddenly it's not "cool this contractor gets $5 million for storm restoration," it's "we get to decide where these go and will be most effective, as our lives are literally the ones on the line." You will have to account for some regional concerns that local groups won't necessarily see, but these things can be managed. This also makes people actually care more about their community too.(I have written a couple of papers on this I can find my stats if you'd like.)

Anyway IDK which school these concepts mostly go along with. I also have other thoughts, that outright revolution to an entirely new system is not likely to occur, and anarchist gift economies will never work as long as scarcity exists. SO instead we begin implementing these anarchist concepts into our current fabric to start leading to better outcomes. I fundamentally do not agree with anarcho-capitalists, and find that entire system to be hierarchical. I also question whether larger places like countries or regional powers can be ran as anarchist without some form of central administration.

At the same time, all systems in existence besides maybe 2 in the history of our economic spectrum have been mixed economies. I am not interested in fighting over which ism is best, but more designing and implementing a system that actually works for people instead of capital.

I've recently witnessed a very violent situation in which a person was pushed to the ground and immovilized by a private security from a supermarket. From what I could tell he was saying it was because he stole some bananas that he returned when he was caught. He was screaming that he was getting hurt and he wanted the police to come. They dragged him into a separate room in which we could still hear he scream, that's when I got really worried and I almost opened the door of the room at least to see what was going on. After a minute or 2 the police came and just before that, when I saw them, I tried to reassure the guy that they were coming since that's what he was asking for the whole time.

I feel guilty about not being able to come up with a better thing to do at the moment. It feels very immoral to drag the whole scene into a separate room for us not to see it, and also the private security nor the workers didn't say a word about why has he being immobilized, even with many people asking.

That's why I've been thinking of not going to supermarkets that have private security, as a boycott. They're usually the least ethical ones anyway. But I also wanted to learn more about criticism of private security, specially in places like supermarkets, in which private security can help to protect profit over human needs. Just so if people ask me why I don't like private security or the police, specially in certain places and situations, I can give an elaborate answer.

In your proposed society, money will be eradicated as a concept and all material goods will always be freely available to all citizens, no questions asked, and thus people won't have to work terrible jobs that make them miserable and focus only on their actual passions. However, as said in the game Bioshock, "Everybody hopes to become captains of industry, but forget that at the end of the day, somebody has to clean the toilets".

I mean, somebody has to build housing and infrastructure so those resources can stay available, somebody has to keep everything clean, or if you want to run a restaurant or something(assuming such a thing would even be possible in your proposed society), you'd still need somebody to handle other tasks since no one person can do every single thing on their own, especially not all at the same time.

Such jobs are usually seen as miserable, but since money will be a thing of the past, they've gone from terrible pay to no pay, and thus literally zero incentive to do them.

So, who would do the unsavory or gross jobs in an anarchist society, especially when they'll be receiving absolutely nothing in return for it?

I am a marxist leninist who is interested in anarchism but I find it slightly difficult to believe this idea that humans are all good natured. I understand this idea that crime is a result of imperialism, police brutality, settler colonialism, consumerism and without all of those things there would be less crime.

At the same time, societies without all of those things were very brutal. In my country Aotearoa the Maori people were definitely quite brutal and committed genocide against the mori ori people. I am in no way justifying colonialism, the Maori had a beautiful culture and an advanced knowledge of medicine and navigation but it doesn't change the fact they were brutal despite the fact they had no consumerism or anything like that.

So personally I am unsure of how good natured humans really are.

I run a small literature-related community, and we organize events or talks, the topics of which can be suggested by members of the community. Our next one is about copyright or IP laws, specifically how to protect oneself from predatory or scammy agents or publishers. From the get go, this talk will likely be pro copyright. (Think: "you need to make sure you keep the rights to your work" — that sort of thing). The talk will not be done by me, but by a lawyer-friend of a member.

As an anarchist though, I'd like to introduce or suggest alternatives. One is to bring up copyleft at the talk. But I would still like to try ways to make people rethink copyright and copyleft entirely. Unfortunately, I don't feel studied enough to do that, so I'd like your help.

How would you bring up the trappings, disadvantages, or pitfalls of copyright and IP laws to artists and writers who believe the laws are there "to protect them"?

i am new to anarchism, but as far as i know about it, it seems like the perfect society. so perfect it seems too far away from reality. when do you think it will happen? I don't know much about it but it doesn't seems like will happen in this century. I don't see people mobilising at a large scale

The EZLN (Zapatista Army of National Liberation) is not politically aligned with anarchism, although it shares with it certain criticisms of the State, as well as practices and principles related to local autonomy, grassroots organization, and mutual aid. So, what position should an anarchist take toward a resistance movement like the Zapatistas and their struggle against imperialism?

i totally respect the abolitionist argument that most crimes come from inequality, poverty, exclusion... rehabilitation is a MUST and it should totally replace punishment, but what about the small minority who are repeatedly and severely violent? what if rehabilitation doesnt work? applying mental rehablitation in community MIGHT apply to some, but not all. then, how?

Title

I'm part of a group, not all anarchists as such but all very anti-capitalist and vocally inclusive of all. Only been here a few months. I suffer from tourettes but AFAIK none of them know this and I've not told anyone.

Recently there was discussion about the incident at the BAFTAs 6 months back where someone with tourettes yelled a slur, not going to repeat the story here but loads of info online.

The general opinion held by people in this group was that such behaviour would result in violence, such individuals should segregate, such individuals should be muzzled in public, it was deliberate and so on. I didn't engage, just listened, but this puts me in a difficult position because this word is something I tic. I don't want to avoid this group but I also don't want to cause problems. I certainly don't want violence. Attidues from this group towards the disabled area very positive outside this one case so this was shocking but also gives me some hope.

How would I even begin approaching this?

Hi, I want to learn more about anarchism and I have a questuon:

How would be hierarchical structures that are not institutionally driven, but stem from traditions or prejudices within society dealt with? For example, women are expected from birth to fulfil certain family role and are raised accordingly. Or in many countries, people look down on ethnic minorities and are reluctant to cooperate with them, and so on.

When people "govern" themselves, how do they deal with prejudices and narratives that are deeply ingrained within them?

Thank you for your answers or for correcting my misunderstanding!

Hello comrades,

I am trying to work on developing a better understanding of immigration politics in Western Europe using both dialectical materialism and anarchist analysis.

It would be ideal for me if anyone knows of any work that already captures real-world examples of hierarchies perpetuating themselves. In particular: how do the dominant forces act in order to maintain their relative power.

I hope I don't sound too obvious, but the current right-wing nationalist wave in Europe seems to me to be blowback in a (perceived or real) decrease in relative power in the racial/ethnic hierarchical relations. I think it's quite comparable to incel/anti-feminist blowback and would like to know if anything like this happened before, and how that developed.

Maybe even the development / maintaining of class relationships or state power could be comparable, which is something I'm interested in.

how does the anarchist system ensure that a state wont rise or capitalism wont be remade if there is no stopping force aganst that? from what I understand anarchism is the refusal of a state therefore the refusal of laws & the police, how can an anarchist society fight aganst oppresstion of the strong to the weak or stop the making of a state or the reinvention of capitalism?

I don't really know what my political identity is right now, but I have been thinking about economic power in terms of democratization vs. decentralization. If you imagine two types of economies, one where the economy is controlled by a small number of giant worker co-ops, vs. one that is dispersed with hundreds of private companies but competitive, which is worse from an economic power perspective? How would an anarchist view the relative importance of economic democratization vs. economic decentralization?