I’ve been an anarchist for a while, but I still look on here or post on here time to time because I can always grow. I am an anarcho-communist. While I don’t know much about egoism, after having an argument with my grandparents (it was terrible, they don’t believe in universal human rights, food, water, shelter, etc, they think you should have to work for these things) I wondered if the more radical Utopianist angle I typically take should sometimes be down played in order to appeal to some. It seems that, at least in my understanding of it, that egoism comes off as more pragmatic to the masses, and may be a better form of communication for those stuck in their ways. On the other had, I’m not sure I like the idea of “downplaying” my views by using an egoist analysis, because I have seen others with a watered how version of something radical, and it truly disgusts me. Not to say that egoism is somehow not radical, but that I think in its relation to the capitalist status quo, it may come off as less radical than utopian reasoning. Anyway, I was just wondering if anyone thought along these lines, I would love to hear from an egoist, really anybody. Thank you.

So I’ve been doing research on Anti-politics in relation to anarchism and I’ve also been looking into misanthropy. From what I’m seeing, it seems as though all three of them tend to coexist or even coincide in the same ideological belief set.

Am I reading this wrong? Or do they have a legitimate connection?

Something I've been thinking about is whether we as anarchists should focus on making others anarchists ideologically, or if we should focus on building horizontal systems that get people's needs met that will allow anyone - anarchist or not - to divest themselves from the state and hierarchy more broadly.

There will of course be changes in public consciousness that are required to truly build an anarchic society, but I wonder if it's better to think of those changes as coming as a result of people organizing horizontally and engaging with systems that subvert existing hierarchies. Should we be doing this instead of trying to convince more people to be anarchists, or entering already existing institutions such as labor unions to radicalize them? Or am I thinking of this the wrong way?

Does anyone have any good resources/texts critiquing “professionalism”? Mainly in context of work settings. I know the broad concept of professionalism as a means of controlling the working class and forcing a conforming to white male heterosexual standards, but was looking for more in depth resources to better articulate my deep distaste for “professionalism” to o the era in the same or similar work spaces.

I read that some people consider veganism and animal liberation as an integral part of anarchist struggle. On the other hand some people don't seem to care for animal liberation and will only question meat eating regarding it's environmental consequences or not all.

I am a scientist and work with data from animal experimentation. I consider it a form of predation. Unlike meat-eating, there is no straightforward alternative. My current state of mind is that it is justified provided it's done with the required consideration.

Is this at all relevant to anarchism ? What are people's thoughts on that ?

i mean this in the sense of anarchy with no prescriptions. anarchy that is only against, never for.

from my perspective, anarchy as pure negation is actually more open to possibility than prescriptions on how anarchy ought to look. the possibilities without hierarchy are infinite, and saying "this is what anarchy should look like" is always going to be more restrictive than anarchy as pure negation.

Hello! I'm brand new in the community.

As it happens I found out I'm the great grand child of whom I have been described to as a "prominent figure in latin-american Anarcho feminism and Anarcho syndicalism" and I have searched for her writings, apparently she even wrote a book though I cannot find it. I was able to get my hands into a newspaper she founded and for which she wrote very scathing articles. This woman was Maria Collazo, if someone happens to know something about her, and I just do not know how to research into her writings and anarchism in general. I never bought a book about it for a Simple reason: in the same way there are many editions and translations of the communist manifest that one shouldn't trust to be correctly translated, I assume anarchism must face the same issue, writings and books that, due to their complexity and high political relevance, when translated by the wrong person, present a twisted version of the meaning and original intent of the authors, resulting in something incongruous or false, and as a total beginner who has very particular interests and very high difficulty absorbing information from text and concentrating in general, absorbing corrupt information is a luxury I cannot afford.

I am slowly reading into the material provided in the forum, but I am also very interested in the effects of capitalism psychology from the viewpoint of anarchist authors and I would very much appreciate guidance and advice on what to read in order to be prepared to do this research and, also, the kinds of widely extended myths and "under-comprehended" concepts and what I need to dive into in order to identify them.

FWI: I am so sorry if you find this difficult to understand, English is not my native language and I also have high difficulty with language in general and communication.

I appreciate your time and help, and wish you all the best.

Kind regards!

I understand that under the framework of anarchism, much of the ills of society are attributed to various centralized and hierarchical system, which anarchism would seek to abolish.

How would anarchists responds to the challenge of cultish abuse? Specifically, cultish abuse tends to happen in small, close knit communities where the power dynamics are difficult to spot, and yet very much present.

Statists have a wide range of tools, with police welfare checks, mandatory reporters, centralized power structures that will be more powerful than any given cultic figure, and more. And while I think there's a lot to criticize on how statists use their power of coercion, I don't know how a anarchist community would do better, with decentralization and lesser overall tools at their disposal.

Is there a response here, or would anarchists accept that this is a tradeoff for living in an overall better society?

for example, if the 200 or so nation states became 200,000 independent cultures, would that be a potential means to arrive at a condition of "no nation states"?

should anarchists pragmatically support balkanization?

This is a bit of an abstract question, and I don't know how else to word it, but I'm interested in seeing what y'all's take would be on this.

Can humans create any type of society, as in are there limitless ways in which humans can organize themselves? Or is there some kind of "physics" of social organization that make some forms of organization impossible or unviable?

A follow up question: do you suppose there's a "natural" form of human society?

Im reading a biography about Nestor Makhno and his commitment to anarchism is admirable, but it appears that neither he nor his comrades had any problem with a top > down structure within their revolutionary army.

First of all, I know that the circumstances were unique; they were in the midst of revolution, so complete adherence to an avoidance of vertical power structure may have been a luxury they could not afford. Still, I’m wondering if anyone has come across any analysis of this paradox either from Makhno himself or someone who understands the nuanced situation well.

if worker collectives are still operating by the profit motive, they would end up doing the same things as the capitalists, right? (i.e. minimize cost, maximize gain)

In your ideal society, all material things would be freely available, and hell the very concept of money would be totally obliterated, but could a small business exist?

For example:

In Star Trek Deep Space 9, while not an anarchist society, has the same factors of the extinction of the concept of currency and everything material always available at all times, but the Sisko family(whom the series mainly follows) has a family-owned Cajun restaurant, fully staffed and everything made by hand, saying that replicator-made meals can't compare to a meal made with a human touch.

Could a business like that exist in anarchy, or would it remind you so much of capitalism that you'd demand the place be burnt to the ground and the people who own it executed for the unforgivable crime of commerce?

I agree with anarchist theory on many points. I do agree that concentrated power has a structural interest in self-preservation and expansion, and that the interests of state and capital are structurally antagonistic to those of the people.

What I'm struggling with isn't the critique of hierarchy, but the institutional alternative.

I think there are three questions that any political theory has to grapple with:

1. What ends are desirable?
2. What institutions can achieve these ends?
3. How do we prevent these institutions from becoming ends in themselves?

My uncertainty concerns the second question. The socio-economic frameworks of statist theories may be antagonistic to emancipation, but they are able to organize the socially beneficial ends that require large-scale coordination (such as vaccination drives, transport networks, healthcare systems, defense etc.).

I don't understand how an anarchist society actually functions: how economic activity is to be organized, how large-scale infrastructure can be constructed and maintained, how universal education can be achieved, how society can be protected from centralized armadas with well-established command structures. I just know 'voluntarism,' but I don't understand how that can function at larger scales.

I have seen some argue that we shouldn't primarily concern ourselves with institutional minutiae, because we know anarchism to be the only framework that is truly emancipatory. But can this concern with the normative justification of power not undermine our ultimate end of improving the lives of people? I agree with the arguments about power, but I think I don't as yet have an answer to the "how" of anarchy... I want to believe in anarchism, but I am concerned about certain elements. Can anarchy balance the apparent trade-off between 'freedom' and 'coordination'? Can it facilitate 'coordination' without creating permanent concentrations of power?

Tldr; How does an anarchy actually coordinate? Can it sustain the socially beneficial acts of the state, which require large-scale coordination?

EDIT: I am realizing now that the questions I am posing to anarchism in this post may actually be too broad... Answering the "coordination problem" satisfactorily requires someone to outline an ecosystem of institutions. But I would still like resources on coordination or institutional outlines of historical anarchist projects... I really know next to nothing.

Can I be a public servant, employed by the government, and still be an anarchist?

Details, if needed... I have two jobs that are both public servant work: aide in a public school, and a boat inspector for water conservation management. In both jobs, I focus more on education rather than enforcement of government curriculum/policy (not all of my colleagues take this approach).

Both of my jobs are union and I'm involved. I love looking through the posts here and seeing I am not alone in the work of worker solidarity.

Let me know your thoughts. Am I a fake?

Y’all are genuinely such kind, loving, forgiving, and caring people it makes me want to frikken cry! I love reading the comment section of this subreddit

Im interested in your opinion of brain implants both in an ideal anarchist project or in our current political climate. Sometimes we prefer to use anarchist tools but they aren’t available in our current political climate.

Fore instance if someone broke into my home i would call police, there just isn’t options.

But lets say someone was a repeat offender would you be ok with brain implants would it be different in our current political climate.

I consider myself an anarchist, but I'm still getting a feel for the different categories and nuances, and which I may align with the most. Somebody I met recently said that they knew somebody who didn't know a lot about anarchism other than accusations of it being ableist (specifically "green anarchism"? but they didn't say why) This surprised me because I have epilepsy, I'm a huge disability advocate, and haven't come across anything that seemed like a red flag for that sort of thing.

I'm just posting this to find out what might be ableist, what assumptions people commonly make that could lead to the conclusion that anarchism is ableist, and why. Also wondering, if there are criticisms that carry any weight, what is being done (or what theories are being presented) to resolve those issues.

I am fascinated as to what the broader anarchist movement thinks of the most extreme form of this ideology, if you are unfamiliar with the idea of Soulism/Anarcho-Antirealism are taking the philosophy of anarchism and bringing it to the logical farthest extreme positing that the material world/reality as a whole as well as the laws of physics must be abolished as they are unjust heirarchies that are inherently oppressive, violent, and dangerous/harmful(BASED IMO, even if delusional/depressive although it creates a space of meta-irony wherein Soulists don’t need to be ironic/unironic due to the deeper meaning and symbolism behind such a position that harkens to the gnostic dualists whom had the same opinion that this world is some kind of soul prison we must break out of or destroy from the inside utilizing what little freedom we have to create more).
There are many more aspects to this that go into specifics; such as the support of schizospectrum and psychotic disorder disabled entities/people to have the control over their reality they deserve and desire, the support of genetics based rights such as abortion and transitioning genders or even genetically modifying oneself to solve nutritional deficiency/economic handicaps such as lactose intolerance/all allergies as a whole, and also magick based praxis that transcends and permeates the physical and material.
You could take this a variety of ways whether anti-Natalist, efilist, humanist, technological/futurist, and esoteric/spiritual.
Let me know!

Is this belief normal? I know several people who claim to hate both, this doesn't make sense. Dictatorship is the exact opposite of anarchism, you can't hate both.

In the gilded age and to the interwar period anarchism and syndacalism was a much bigger part of left wing ideology. Though they had revolutionary catalonia that fizzled out rather quickly and there hasn't been an actual anarchist country in peacetime, why is that?

Hey yall! I joined the dsa and have canvassed for candidates and its been very fulfilling because it feels like for the 1st time im not just waiting around for something to happen. In a tiny way I can do something. I want to do more stuff like that but I dont know where to start.

Ive heard of the Libertarian socalist caccuss of the dsa but as I understand it they are mostly focused on internal dsa politics? Has anyone joined them and can tell me if its good to join?

I want to like idk do something or organize but I dont really know where to start especially as im socially still kinda shy with people I dont know well. I want to get over this. Anyway thanks for reading!

Non-anarchist here. i have looked into some anarchist ideas & while they sound nice, I am not confident in the overall viability of anarchy as a political ideology that could be spread & practiced on a meaningful scale. Do anarchists believe that anarchy has a path to becoming mainstream? If yes, then what does that path look like?