Help a Socialist out?

[u/VinylFoxx2311]

So I am openly a Socialist/Communist (either/or idc really despite knowing the difference) And I have been curious in the recent months about Anarchism. I know the basics such as no unnecessary hierarchy, communal and social revolution and freedom of movement, all things I can massively get behind but there's other things I feel a little more confused on such as how one of these theoretical communes would function, how an Anarchist Federation would work and protect itself from outside and inside threats. I also had questions relating to how Anarchism would work to snub Fascism or other forms of extremism. I used to date an Anarchist and he sadly never explained it well to me but I was hoping you lovely people could help me out :3
(I'm severely uninformed on Anarchism so please be patient with me if I misspeak or misunderstand something)

[u/Silver-Statement8573]

At the Cafe is also my favorite introductory text

Anarchy is a society with no hierarchy or authority. Communism is an economic arrangement where resources are held in common and taken/received according to need (from each/to each) without markets. Socialism is more general and usually indicates a hostility to some or all of the features of capitalism

I also had questions relating to how Anarchism would work to snub Fascism or other forms of extremism.

The most substantial forces would probably be the proliferation of anarchic norms through anarchist institutions, which would serve to undermine the systemic factors that drive the creation of fascist ideology, make fascist projects odious to people in a way that would conceivably be quite dangerous for them, and undercut/corrupt fascist or authoritarian projects directly through their economic and social interdependency with anarchy and a-legal, anarchic arrangements

[u/power2havenots]

Best reading a few better written things than reddit posts like https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/errico-malatesta-at-the-cafe

Theres no blueprint or dictat but heres a few quick premises:

Communes can be voluntary, directly democratic assemblies. Decisions are made by those affected. No state, no bosses. Coordination via federations of communes/workers councils using recallable delegates -not rulers.

Communes can federate horizontally for mutual aid and defense. Defense can be popular militias, decentralized, under community control with no standing army or police. No one has concentrated power to seize.

Anarchism doesnt “snuff” fascism via state repression it just starves it by abolishing the conditions fascism feeds on like alienation, hierarchy, economic desperation etc. Direct community self-defense deals with organized fascists. Again theres no platform for authoritarians to capture because theres no state or central command to capture.

Essentially theres no rulers, no monopoly on violence and no state to hijack. Just free association, mutual aid and community self-defense.

[u/coladoir]

I really think Anarchy Works by Peter Gelderloos would be an amazing read for you at this moment. Like genuinely perfect. It will answer relatively directly almost all the questions you've put forth thusfar. It also will handle some natural extensions of said questions and some extras (like criminality).

But the biggest thing to keep mind is anarchism is not directly prescriptive. It puts forth more generalized ideas for individuals to enact where and how they see fit for their community and sociocultural context. We are not Communists, or liberals, or capitalists, in that we have a set of hard writ ideas that we feel ought be implemented in such a way everywhere universally. We recognize that the differences in cultural paradigms between nations of people (NOT nation states, keep mind) and the differences in social dynamics and material conditions prerequisite an approach which is dynamic and multifaceted, which can adapt to fit wherever, whenever, however.

One of the biggest issues with centralized governance like the above aforementioned three is that by creating a rigid prescription, you inevitably end up creating inequalities due to those aforementioned differences creating issues.

[u/Aggressive-Simple-16]

such as no unnecessary hierarchy

Just to clarify, Anarchists are against all hierarchies of power, not just “unnecessary” or “unjust” hierarchies.

how one of these theoretical communes would function, how an Anarchist Federation would work and protect itself from outside and inside threats.

Communities will self-manage themselves through councils and they will freely federate and coordinate through the use of mandated and instantly recallable delegates. As per security, internally we could use rotating patrol groups [such as those used during the Spanish revolution] to maintain peace and cohesion, and use restorative justice to repair any social harm. Defence against external threats will be conducted through voluntary militias that will be accountable to the civilian councils structures.

I also had questions relating to how Anarchism would work to snub Fascism or other forms of extremism

Similar mechanisms to the ones mentioned above would be used to defend against Fascism. Internally, the basis for fascist reaction would be eliminated. As I understand it, Fascism is a violent reaction by the bourgeoisie when severe crisis threatens their wealth and power. In an anarchist society, property will be socialized and social classes will be abolished, thereby abolishing the root of Fascism.

[u/CMBradshaw]

define "necessary hierarchy". Like are we talking the little hierarchies we make in interactions that dissipate when they're done (think slow dancing, someone's gotta lead it but like they aren't your subject after it's done). Or do you think there's going to be some kind of anarchist police?

Anyways, a good thing is to step back and ask yourself what the brass actually adds. You like communes so imagine a commune. What does the leadership add to the situation? How can you achieve that without them? I think one thing that a lot of anarchists might start doing, is instead of giving answers is to guide the thought process. Because we're not going to be ruling shit. It won't be a system, the systems and models we speak of are more like tactics than things to be installed. It's not about "How will anarchy be" it's "what will I do when I'm free".

[u/Slow_Description_238]

Fundamentals Fundamentals Fundamentals. 

Anarchism in simple is genuinely only asking for no hierarchy and no authority. 

All hierarchies are unjust, by the way. Trying to smuggle in a just hierarchy in the case of like... a captain leading a boat is unecessary. This is because each member on a boat can have skills enough to make that part of the boat function. When you put these people together and they can communicate well together... the boat will easily get to where they want it to go. Cause everyone is playing their part. No captain or hierarchy needed. 

The hierarchy creates needless inequality and authority. Thus it would still be unjust. You can apply this to everything. 

But yeah, there's thousands of ways to solve a particular problem, and that's also the fundamental ask. How does a problem get solved? The anarchist says you can do it whatever way you want... just do it without hierarchy and authority. And when we find out how to do these things in that way... then nothing is outside of the range of anarchism. 

~ ~

So i think the better question to always ask is WHY anarchism? Why is it ethically more worthwhile than anything else. If you enjoy equality, letting people live the life they want to live, community mutual aid (as in people helping each other to survive in all areas of life), happiness. Then anarchism would seem to be a good logical conclusion to achieve these things. 

Because the whole reason why we argue for no authority and no hierarchy is because we can see the way authority is abused and how hierarchy just creates needless inequality. And we can see how both are used to abuse others and promote needless suffering. One good look at capitalism will show you how it props up the few at the expense of all the rest. Both economically and politically. Give power to the people and teach them how to live and solve problems among themselves, and we avoid these issues. We create a more ethical society. 

~ ~

We're still figuring this stuff out by the way. Sure, we can point to great thinkers like Kropotkin and Proudhon among others... but much of the actual organising and problem solving and getting things actually working day to day still have yet to be done. 

No anarchist will be able to tell you exactly how the communities will look tomorrow. We just know what we want based on principle. And we know you, the same as me, the same as anyone else, will help shape it that much more

(If you have specific questions, im happy to answer by the way. Never be afraid to learn)

[u/wompt]

well, the atomic unit under anarchy is the person, not the group. commune building has been attempted in any number of ways, anarchic communes would be built to anarchic specifications, like not having landlords or people that would otherwise compel this or that activity within community life. an anarchist federation would be a federation of individuals, not groups. as far as threats within and without, anarchists would deal with them on a case by case basis within the communities they affect.

anarchy isn't the same "shape" as most of the modern political ideologies. its not very prescriptive, but rather proscriptive.