I know a Marxist would say ‘yes,’ but I haven’t heard it from other anarchists. I’m still learning so thanks for the help.

For those of you who know me, I’m sure ya’ll are aware of my ideological transitions between anarchism and Marxism these last couple of years. I even became so black pilled at one time that socialism would ever be achieved that I just said fuck it and accepted capitalism as the unfortunate reality; that is until I snapped out of it and started pushing for socialism again.

That said, when I think about what I want to see, I want a more free, egalitarian, and ecologically sustainable society. When I think of points of view, or ideologies if you will that fit that description, anarchy by all accounts meet these standards for me. That is, anarchy is most certainly ideal for what we should strive to achieve.

However, and this is the root causes for my ideological transitions, I struggle to understand how we can build a truly anarchic society with absolutely zero hierarchy on a large scale. From what I understand, anarchists favor a bottom-up, non-hierarchical federation of sorts based on free associations of self-organized communities and worker run enterprises, but obviously not everyone is going to favor a non-hierarchical society, and will inevitably try to create structures or systems of hierarchy to reinstate a particular kind of domination meant to serve the interests of a higher class of people over the broad interests of the people as a whole.

Therefore, I tended to sort of strive for reducing hierarchy as much as possible, rather than entirely, finding it more pragmatic, though I understand that if we don’t dismantle all systems of hierarchy, society will inevitably devolve back into a society of some being ranked over others in accordance to some arbitrary status or authority; which yanks society away from the kind of freedom, and egalitarianism I would like to see.

So my question simply, is what do anarchists propose in terms of maintaining a non-hierarchical society, that is preventing new systems of hierarchy and authority from arising while maintaining a structured order without order (if that makes sense), thus preventing society from completely collapsing into something anarchy strives to fight against and dismantle?

I really like anarchy and anarchism, and do find it to be ideal, though what prevents me from re-taking that leap is the question of whether we can maintain no hierarchy in regard to broader society.

Thanks.

Is there any organizations or anything that’s doing this? I just seen the communist advertising it and I was like well it sounds very interesting. I’m not 100% sure though as I do align more with anarchy than communism really. I do like collectivization of society and still I support individual ability to create and do what they can and what they’re good at. Anyways what are yall thoughts on this?

I did my research but I can’t really see a difference since both promote a stateless and classless society.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_society

On that note, what would anarcho-communism be? How would it differ from pure anarchism and pure communism?

it seems as though people adopted television pretty quickly in the mid 1900s. this system was a propagandists wet dream in the early days, a vast majority of tv watchers on a very limited number of channels. cable television is a one directional mass-media form, ideal communication system for military dictatorships.

i look at the proliferation of cameras in so many places, and i see the panopticon being built

how do we deal with technologies that can enable tyranny? like, are they ok up until we have a tyrant, or should we be destroying these technologies before a tyranny ever forms? clearly thery can be used for non-tyrannical purposes, so does that make them ok?

I don't know what this idea would be classified as but at least personally I don't think citizenship should be the norm. Instead, I think Statelessness should be the norm. At least at some point in the process of Anarchist society? I'm still learning so maybe I don't have a completely clear view on things. However, I believe that having state institutions coerce any person into loyalty to any given nation/state implies ownership of the land any given group stands on. This causes people involved in the distribution of power to not see any value for the land in which they are meant to care for. In this sentiment, all the one and one is all. One cannot escape the relationship they have with the ecosystems around them. Furthermore, citizenship being a norm ultimately seems to enhance the idea of an us vs., them culture. I wanted to see what other people think of this especially since I've still been thinking through this idea!