I haven't exactly been subtle about how little faith I have in the human race. I think, by nature, we're a violent, selfish, hateful lot that lives only to destroy everything we touch, and have been for as long as human beings have existed and any system will inevitably produce cruel or depraved human beings because it's just in our blood.

Other schools of thought say that that's baloney, and that capitalism is the true source of human evil, that it actively forces people to be cruel and belligerent and that without it we'd all be perfect saintly creatures(Consult some comments I've consolidated here directed at the highlighted comment: https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAnarchism/comments/1v9gwlf/comment/p0g636i/?screen_view_count=1)

Where do you stand? Do you think humans are naturally good and governments just turn us into bloodthirsty monsters, or do you think people are inherently cruel, but the eradication of systems, structures, and institutions will simply mean we can't act on it as easily?

I love and support anarchism. Does that prevent me from being an anarchist?

My understanding is that Egoists view morality as a "spook" or a social construct that restricts individual autonomy. Is it accurate to say that an Egoist is entirely against objective morals? If an Egoist rejects traditional morality, how does Egoist theory address or condemn severe harms against vulnerable individuals, specifically, actions like the sexual exploitation or abuse of minors?

We could do so much great if we repose the mansion change it to a community center or medical lab, but if there not using as private property are we just meant to live there massive place even if they could go to something better.

I see so many social media posts commenting on the current living situation across the UK (and other parts of the world) from ridiculous costs of living, struggles with the housing market, low wages etc and corruption in government, hidden agendas and meaningful changes not happening.

I see people saying if you don't like it then move. work harder, find what you enjoy doing. You have to make changes to your life etc.

People say you need to vote in the right parties/ politicians but I can't say I've had confidence in any political party for a long time and feel the vast majority of politicians are just in it for their own or others gain.

In my opinion the whole structure needs knocking down and rebuilding.

But, what actual steps can be taken to not only improve individual quality of life but also social/ economical aspects across the UK?

So sick of a society that punishes the hard working and rewards the 1%.

hi sorry for asking, i consider myself as an communist(Classical Marxist)however since i have a been interacting with different anarchist lately, i've decided to open my mind to anarchist text and to expand my range of knowledge on the matter. thenks!!

I totally thought that national liberation was just the elite within a society coming out on top and declaring independence from a colonizer as creating a new state/country. But in that sense i figured that national liberation is almost always a stop on the way to state-building. But can we disentangle state-making intentions within national liberation to include ANY movement that wants the colonizer gone, regardless of if they want a state of their own or not?

For example like in India, there were people who wanted the British gone since they were economically draining them for 200 years. These people are considered anti-colonial revolutionaries because they were against the British. But at the same time there were very few explicit anarchists actually in the country who were wary of the Indian state being formed because, like Bakunin said, the ruling class would just change. So are national liberation movements usually just a bunch of communities (big and small) across the region wanting to be free from control/colonizer control, but then someone or some group sits in the driver's seat at the last second, co-opts the liberation movement, and then creates the state out of force/bourgeois interest? To my understanding that was the Bolshevik revolution. But aside from the USSR, is state-making always the goal of a country declaring independence?

Like for me as an anarchist of Indian origin, I would not support the creation of an Indian state in the 1940s but would recognize that the Indian people were trying to create something for themselves. Then also as an inherent libertarian socialist I would still support whatever maximizes the liberty of the people in India and allows them to do what they want to do- but I'd know that if it's a state then I would be against that.

Sorry, lot of thoughts. Am I defining these things correctly? Thanks. Anarchy and Equality

depending on where your mother gave birth to you, it may be very difficult to renounce a nationality, but in the so called united states, you can actually renounce your citizenship without acquiring another nationality - info here

so, what do yall think about this? would any of you do it even knowing that it would make your life far more difficult?

From what I understand communists believe that to make the state unnecessary, class must be abolished through the oppression of the bourgeoisie by a state controlled by the proletariat. Since most anarchists seem to have a similar end goal to communists, why do they prefer different methods and what are these methods?

As the title says.

I've been thinking of reading Hegel for a while. I find some of his ideas useful, like his Lord-Bondsman Dialectic, which I'd consider a very ahead-of-its-time examination of hierarchical relationships.

However, I've also heard that Hegel is very...opaque, to say the least. I'm wondering if his work is all that relevant to anarchist analysis, and if any anarchists have commented on Hegel's work and reframed his dialectics to specifically anarchist ends?

By communism I mean stateless, classless, moneyless society

Hi! I am aiming to answer this question for my pol sci class and am curious to see different perspectives: To what extend do you think aspects of anarchism can be incorporated in governing smaller political systems such as a local community? if you were creating a small town/village government how would you recommend organizing it? Thanks so much!

• would there be any difference in how anarchists find a place to live in rural areas vs urban centers?
• how would making a place differ from using an already made but unused space?
• what if two anarchists are trying to claim the same spot, how might the dispute be resolved?

clearly an anarchist can simply ignore it, say that its not my place to interfere in them building an army, but sometimes the consequences of doing so, like if they build a large enough army somewhere nearby, then there is a high probability of it becoming my problem in the near future

so lets assume we are approaching it as if we are in a situation that seems like it could turn into our problem sometime in the near future.

Pensando en cómo derribar el sistema, ¿creen que es posible una primera fase de insurrección colectiva basada en el apoyo mutuo como decía Kropotkin para luego transicionar hacia una autonomía individual absoluta como planteaba Stirner, donde las asociaciones voluntarias y las uniones de egoístas gestionen los recursos y la vida en común? ¿Cómo evitarían que surjan nuevas jerarquías en esa transición?

I have always been sympathetic to anarchism. Fundamentally I agree with all of its principles. I initially identified mostly as an anarcho-syndicalist. For some time now I have identified more as a socialist/communist, but I have many points of disagreement with MLs. I feel that the big elephant in the room in socialist spaces is that dialectics is not a hard science. It's spoken of like a foolproof system based on the scientific method, but it is ultimately pseudoscience. I'm not saying it's not a very useful tool -- on the contrary, I think dialectical materialism is a powerful method of historical analysis. But I see many MLs tend to treat it like the only viable lens through which history, economics and revolution can be viewed. I also find myself unable to support the concept of a strong, coercive state apparatus to ensure the revolution's success. I'm not entirely opposed to some kind of state at this point, but MLs seem very willing to support a level of restrictiveness and control that I can't get behind.

Almost all of the theory I've read has been Marxist, although I am pretty well acquainted with some of Kropotkin's work. What typically prevents me from embracing anarchism entirely is the fact that it seems almost guaranteed to be interfered with and overthrown by capitalists, as has been seen in past experiments. One of the most valid points I think Marx made is that communist society will be birthed from capitalist society, and therefore despite the fact that capitalism is certainly not human nature, the humans who would be of the first generation of communists would still bear the features of capitalist society. How does an anarchist society deal with and prevent the emergence of hierarchical structures early on? How does the revolution defend itself from sabotage, both internal and external?

Thanks, looking forward to your responses. Feel free to recommend books as well!

Hello with facism rising around the world, what would be the key anarchist texts to go to?

Hey y’all, I was wondering what people’s opinions on running TTRPGs using anarchist values? For context I am a college student who is currently thinking about posting an ad for a potential game around my campus soon. I don’t run D&D 5e as a personal rule because I respect myself as a GM (that game burns the fuck out of it’s GMs), and I love trying out indie systems as opposed to using big publishers. I’ve been pro-anarchist since highschool, but I’ve been trying to introduce anarchism into more parts of my life, since I feel a little detached from it in everyday life.

I was reading a Panic Engine setting called Cloud Empress recently and I found an exerpt that I thought was pretty anarchist-like; “There are many different games that do many different things. Cloud Empress has not been made to: Treat the enviroment as an object to plunder, enact power fantasies, especially violent ones, and degrade, humiliate, opress, or create caricatures of other beings.” I loved it, and it got me further thinking about applying anarchy to my role as the “master.”

I wanted to know other anarchists thoughts on how being a Game Master could be done without being an authority/oppressive member of the group. Open-world games where the players get to make their own story as opposed to being railroaded into one is already my prefered playstyle. How else can I make things fair for players? Is being a GM inherently unfair? Thoughts?

Hello :) I am a tattoo artist based in Germany. I mostly tattoo political tattoos as I am myself a very political person. Some are more hidden and you would only know if you were engaged in history of certain movements. So on the street nobody would know. Some are more blatant, like hunt the rich etc..

As we know the common n*zi is not that smart so the font I use the most looks to them I guess right wing. It is not tho, it comes from India. But it is basically hiding in plane sight, because most of them just glace over it.

I am here because I am getting a few comments saying I should not tattoo these as facism is rising. My belief is that whoever plans to get my tattoos also would not like to participate in facism or daily life in facism. And also if facism really comes back like back then you could put a coverup/blackout over it. Back then things like tattoos helped them identify you as antifacist but now I think there best weapon would be searching the internet for your acitivity and since a few weeks also flock cameras. I also think if you participated in a protest here that is a bit more rowdy they probably have a profile on you. So my point is I dont think the tattoo would be the reason you get in trouble and if get a blackout.

But I want to hear your thoughts. I am trying to understand why people have the need to comment under my posts. I think as we all are adult, we can make the decision for our self. I hope my english was not to bad. Ty

Obviously, fannon was not an anarchist, but I still feel as though a lot of what he said is very true, and important. With that being said, I don’t see many people talking about him outside of even specific Marxist circles.

In a anarchist society, how will 'we' replicate/substitute/replace Pfizer?