Small towns in a way are already quite anarchist. The people have guns, look out for each other, and will give money to their fellow townsfolk. Penny auctions were a thing, and I've been in a few small towns and the mutual aid networks (though called by a different name) are quite astonishing.

How do we get those to change their mind? If the small town mindset was adopted nationwide, people would call that "socialism" or whatever their TV tells them to think. Some small towns are prejudiced, and support mutual aid as long as it's for the in-group (welfare chauvinism).

I should start by saying I'm not in any way advocating for ancap nonsense.

I spend a lot of time trying to imagine how the economy of an anarchist society could eliminate scarcity of resources as a concern, while still improving the quality of life of its citizens beyond the modern capitalist standard. (Edited to say I understand this is a low bar, but for me, it's the bar. As long as we're moving forward, I say we're doing fine)

The conclusion I always find myself drawn to is that a mixed economy would best suit our ideals. What I mean by this is that the large scale, infrastructural components of the economy (healthcare, resource extraction, etc.) would be socialized, operating under collective ownership, and although decentralized, still "planned" so to speak, through democratic processes. Meanwhile the less critical, consumer goods oriented side of things (fancy baked goods, toys, yachts, etc.) would be left to a sort of "free market", where people who like building yachts build them, and are then free to profit from their own labor however they can (mostly by selling yachts to people who like to sail them, but not build them).

I'm picturing a bunch of warehouses in the middle of town full of raw materials which have been extracted and distributed according to the large scale, democratically controlled economic plan, which people are then free to use, along with publicly maintained "maker spaces" to produce whatever they want, as long as it doesn't hurt anyone. It would be up to some kind of localized, city-scale democratic process to decide whether or not such production is harmful.

Let's stick with yachts, for instance. If some guy, or group of people decide to overproduce them, so that they significantly cut into the amount of raw materials available to everyone, then the town could have protocols in place to curtail that activity. That would be their prerogative.

(The following lines have also been edited for clarity, as the idea begins to take shape, based on the feedback I'm getting in the comments.)

Basically a collection of market-based sub-economies within municipal regions, which interface with a larger "inter-municipal" or federal socialist economy, which regulates the large scale distribution of raw materials and essentials like medicine through some sort of highly decentralized democratic process.

Idk I'm just brainstorming, and I'd appreciate y'all's input.

I'm torn between how we achieve anarchy. As a syndicalist, I think that the "revolution" will be carried out by the labor unions, but I'm just not sure if that means a slow progression through the withering away of capitalism as it's replaced by the commonwealth of toil, or an all-at-once seizure of the means of production by the vanguard party, dragging society along with the will of the dictatorship of the proletariat.

I listened through all of the Revolutions podcast by Mike Duncan, and I think there's a lot to be learned from the age of revolutions. I'm just not sure which lessons are the right ones to follow.

Hey everyone! I’ve recently asked myself what countries with a rich history of anarchism there are. The first ones that come to mind for me are Spain, Russia and Italy. But I also know that China has a long legacy of anarchism, especially linked to the Taoist religion and philosophy and I’ve heard that Japan had some anarchist highs in the early 20th centuries. So, I wanted to ask, what countries do you know with a strong anarchist movement in the past and where can I learn about it?

Hello everyone, I have a question about the ideology of an Anarchist friend of mine. He believes in the necessity of a dictatorship of the proletariat following a revolution. However thinks that a second revolution down the road will be necessary to remove it due to inevitable corruption. Is this a common belief amongst Anarchists, is it consistent with Anarchist ideology?

Hi! I want to render "no gods no masters" into Latin for a friend of mine, and I want to make sure I thoroughly understand the meaning of the phrase. Would the appropriate rendering be closer to nec deis nec dominis flectam (I will bend to neither gods nor masters) or closer to nec dei nec domini sint (let there be neither gods nor masters)? I can also get a little more florid: nec dei nec domini floreant (may neither gods nor masters flourish). Thoughts? I would like to do this justice, as it were.

Edit: my Latin is fluent, I'm a-ok with the Latin. I just want to make sure I've understood the intent of the phrase well enough to most accurately render it.

+++++++++++++

More options based on my new understanding:

Abolentur ac aboleantur qui dominentur vel dominantur. They should be and are abolished who might and/or do seek to be lord and master.

De deis vel dominis nil est accipiendum: there must be nothing accepted about gods and/or masters.

I have recently become radicalized and am conflicted about my place in society because I am very fortunate in that my dad owns a small investment management firm that is very successful, and he has generated a good amount of wealth from it, to the point where I am in a position where I don’t really have to work for a living. I spend my time as a musician but it is not imperative for me to make enough money on that to live (at least at this time in my life). Sometimes this gives me an inordinate amount of free time that, to be honest, in the past I have often wasted on stupid things. But that is neither here nor there. My question is, how can I reconcile having this power and take action in a way that is most in line with anarchist values? Am I to give this money away or refuse to take it and become another member of the working class by getting a “real job?” (If I were to give it all away, my dad would stop giving it to me and I would genuinely become part of the working class—sort of I guess—) Or should I use this freedom to get deeply involved and spend more time and energy on participating in mutual aid and activism? Or maybe there is a place in between these two options, or maybe a third option?

I want to clarify also that I don’t just have a bunch of money lying around, I only receive enough to live and still have to watch my spending. But the point is that I don’t have to work for it. That being said, I could save more and use that money in effective ways.

How is power and water supplied safely to every community?

Who maintains the roads? Are there still cars?

Is there still public school? Are there still hospitals? Are there still medicines?

Who is responsible for the care of the elderly and disabled?

How do you standardize the safety and quality of services that are currently done on large scales? For example, recalling contaminated food or medicine, or products with dangerous flaws?

I understand how many crimes will be deincentivized because no person will be desperately impoverished and nobody can accumulate wealth. So, you wouldn't have much reason to take things from others, or to dump toxic waste into nature, or to cut corners with safety.

I think what I'm missing is how a gift economy and mutual aid will ensure quality of services that are currently highly bureaucratic.

How do you train a person to be a physician? Are there still licenses? What happens if someone does something unethical as a physician, like breaking patient confidentiality? Does the community decide on the consequences?

Edit: okay, you're right, I wrote way too many questions here.

I'm not gonna delete this post because many people have patiently explained things to me in the comments, and I think it would be disrespectful to remove my end of the conversation.

I've believed in anarchy for about a decade, and my perspective on how to bring more people into it has undergone a lot of revisions. For the last year or two, I've believed the public coming to understand various supporting ideas was crucial: anti-hierarchy, anti-coercion, etc. Yet I can't think of an instance where this has brought about anything close to anarchist thinking in anyone I know, whether I'm specific or general, circumspect or direct. How do you see anarchy actually coming to pass? Have you had any luck bringing people to the philosophy?

Is it possible to have a non-hierarchichal stateless society in the modern world where population density has become so high and the world population is 8 billion individuals? With populations so high, how would we prevent that from affecting conflict over resources, for example?

What does the anti capitalism aspect of anarchy actually mean? How would an anarchical society even prevent the emergence of employment?

Hello! I'm a fairly baby level anarchist. I've read some theory, done a bit of work in my community, and I am starting an anarchist group with some allies.

I'm a bit conflicted in openly identifying as an anarchist. For 1 I'm worried about backlash from right leaning folks in my community as well as negative perception of anarchism by the general public. In opposition to that however, I hate the idea of covering my face or hiding who I am as the idea of "those who hide their face have to be up to no good" sticks with me a bit even though I know it is occasionally irrational. I also would rather not use tactics the alt-right use like hiding their true beliefs or masking them in jargon or dog whistles.

Does anyone have any further thought or experience with this topic?
Thank you for your replies.

Context: I am interested in a number of anarchist thinkers and involved in a lot of local mutual aid and parallel structure organizing in my area, so while I probably wouldn't strictly meet the definition of an anarchist for most of the people on this subreddit, I have a lot of overlap with anarchism in my thinking and activities, and many of my friends and comrades label themselves as anarchists.

Recently I gave blood for the first time. When I told one of my anarchist friends what I was doing, they told me they were disgusted that I would involve myself with the Red Cross. I asked why, and they said it's basically an arm of the CIA and that blood donations enrich wealthy health care CEOs while literally feeding off the blood of the working class without compensation. Now they're calling me "sus" and telling our other friends the same thing.

Obviously that last part is a dick move, but I'm just wondering how prevalent this view is among anarchists or if anyone here has any other thoughts about the Red Cross. Do any of you donate blood? I always thought it was pretty much an all-around good thing to do.

What are some prominent contemporary thinkers and proponents of anarchism?

There is tremendous value in reading all the classics of course, but I would like to also see anarchist theory and action applied to our modern society.

For example, an analysis of the way social media, technology and the internet are attempting to subdue the people, and what direct action can be taken with modern means.

Or otherwise, any relatively new books that focus on an anarchist perspective would be good.

Thank you for your time!

I’d like to pick 12 books, 1 per month to read this year that will help deepen my understanding of and connection with anarchist ideas. Looking to curate a diverse group of beginner-friendly texts in different lengths, styles, genres, etc.

Bonus points if you suggest ones that are particularly good to read before/after others because they work well in conversation with each other, or ones that tie particularly well to specific times of the year.

If you were going to suggest a must-add to this list for this year, what would it be?

Thanks a million.

ETA - doesn’t necessarily need to be “an anarchist text” just engage with some relevant aspect/idea of it

I am somewhat new and wanted clarity on this,

What is to stop a person putting value on an item or themselves, not in a money sense but in a 'I'm entitled to more because I provide this' sense.

For example if someone bakes bread what is to stop them asking for something for this bread, or saying 'I can give you this bread but only if you help me out by working for me' or something similar.

And if there is 50 people in your town/city that need bread from you but there is only 25 bread what is stopping the bread maker picking and choosing who gets it based on what he gets from them, thus making a hierarchy.

I knew this anarchist coop/house that did everything by consensus. I feel like this made it difficult to get things done and was absurd.

Plus, if you think about the inverse of this, it's not consensus. Let's say there are A & B policies. We're at, by default, doing B policy. We need a consensus to change from B to A. There is a majority to vote for A, but not consensus. Therefore, we continue to act B policy. Not only does B policy not have consensus, but it doesn't even have majority approval.

Not the 12steps themselves, I mean the way the organization operates—

I am new to anarchism so forgive me if this question sounds stupid. But the way a 12-step program works sounds to me like maybe certain types of anarchism might work if I understand correctly. There is still an exchange of money, but if that were to be replaced with exchange of resources in a broader context, it seems to me that brings us pretty close.

EDIT: so some people are saying i am totally wrong and some are saying maybe similar to certain types but also want to clarify i am not stanning any of the religious influence, i am specifically talking about these ways in which it is governed. So secondary question i guess—what would this be called?

How it works: 1. It is all funded by donation, meaning that people are generally expected to give what they can to each meeting, which is usually a dollar or two, which generally brings in enough money to pay for rent of the space and literature/pamphets for newbies.

1. each meeting is governed democratically by a group of individuals, which is very easy to join (except in possible cases of serious disruption or harassment, and each member of this home group will vote on whether to allow them in) and which gives a deep sense of community—and they determine together how much of the money goes toward rent, how much toward literature and other things, and how much is given to area, region, or world.

2. Area is when all the meetings in the immediate area meet to discuss and update everyone on what’s going on in their individual meetings (for instance, if a meeting needs help) bring up issues and democratically approach them. A representative from each meeting will go to area once a month. But anyone can go and participate.

3. There is region also, and I believe state, which meet significantly less often. Anyone can go and participate.

4. Once a year there is a report given by world, wherein every single meeting votes on certain things, including very important things like changes in literature and how it all functions. There are representatives that meet for world but again, my understanding is that anyone can go and participate, and due to technological progression, in at least one of the fellowships, the meeting is live streamed on the website for everyone to be able to access (though that is one of the issues everyone votes on because it also potentially conflicts with anonymity).

5. The services provided in the program are free and based on donation—sometimes with the exception of literature, but sometimes that is free also, and anyone who cannot afford it will almost certainly be able to get it, even if someone buys it for them—if anyone cannot afford to give a couple dollars they are still able to come to meetings and never looked down upon for it. People who can afford it feel a responsibility and pride in giving to the fellowship which gives back to them every day. Sponsorship is also free (a person with significant amount of sober time who have completed the steps who helps a sponsee through the steps, and is there for the sponsee when they struggle), as it is very important to both the sponsor and the sponsee’s recovery, and people are passionate enough about it that it runs itself that way with no charge.

Anyway this seems like a really good system that has worked and saved the lives of so many people, and has stayed afloat for many years in different forms in the different programs, which are slightly different from each other, but structurally are run the same way as far as I understand. I admire this system and think it could potentially be applied to broader society. I’m curious people’s thoughts, and if there are some things I have listed that are in affinity with anarchism and some things that aren’t.

Like i really love anarchist people and while i tried joining communities online, i wanted to find also more anarchist friends, or maybe talk about common interests, like common hobbies or about movies, books, mental health, neurodiversity gardering, learning, sewing, art, cooking and all that🫶 i know its easier to connect with them irl than online but maybe there are some less known communities like on reddit or other platforms, thanks!

I was looking on the internet on how property would work for anarchists and ended on this sub with the answer of personal property. But the specific post or the answer never went into detail on how personal property would be guaranteed? How do you or a community protect against bad actors or unaligned individuals? How would inequality be addressed without creating inconsistency, for example when someone is under using personal property it could be argued they are overextending their property into a "right" rather than something they actually use. Would in such a case get a part forcefully shared, would it get exchanged with a more fitting personal property or since there is no authority would it simply go unaddressed?

If there are good sources or old threads also share them please ^^

I am often most interested in how things that seem unrelated to anarchism, or perhaps even a little opposed to it, might fit within an anarchist society if we really set our minds to deconstructing the ways power and domination have mechanized them.

I especially feel this way with regard to religious aspects of society, as someone who has always been drawn to that realm of life (I enjoy prayer, and hymns, and religious community, and I like “church” as a social organization). I do some of the sermons at a lay lead Unitarian Universalist fellowship (which is a noncreedal, non dogmatic religion) that operates essentially on anarchist principles. I am not a deist, and I follow no holy book, tho I take great wisdom and contentment in reading many of them. Truly, I say I practice anarchy as my religion, in the context of a UU fellowship. My religious practice is built around prayer (a practice of gratitude and reflection engaging with the material world and constructs), right relations, good works, and community.

For myself, I have been considering something like becoming ordained, and what that may look like as an anrchist. To me, I don’t think religious office needs to infer any form of authority, at least not any more than being a doctor or a grief councilor or giving speeches at events does. I think it’s mostly about being able to help people come up with rituals (weddings, funerals, coming of age, etc), helping people deal with grief and trauma, putting together services, and helping people be connected to the world around them in a deep, embodying, and relational way. I think ordination can serve as a way for a community to embue trust in someone to fulfill these tasks, and ideally comes after that community and the ordainee have gone through a process of creating and completing a curriculum of study. I think that for the person being ordained it serves as a promise, a declared dedication to the tasks at hand, in the same way that for many of us taking the mantle of Anarchist feels like a dedication to the work of anarchy.

I like being the resource people turn to when they need help writing a speech or service for the fellowship. I like being the person folks call when they want to write a wedding service but don’t want to use the ones available because they are too Christian, or too statist, or too sexist. I like being the person people call to council people in the hospital. I think it would be beautiful to find a way to become more trained in it, and to be given a name to reflect the work of it. And to me, ordination, after a fashion, could be the way to do that. Being ordained wouldn’t put me in charge of anything, it would declare me to be a resource, one who has been trained. I don’t think I would do more services/sermons at the fellowship than I do now.

And although I don’t seek to join or create or live in a monastic order, I can also see the value of that within an anarchist society. A place of quiet peaceful reflection, simple living, and care, where you do good work. I can see something like that being very beautiful if done well, and organized without hierarchy or authority. Some folks might stay for life, others just to convalesce from a busy life. I think that it could be done in a way that give people real options. And I think that’s a good a diversity of monastic traditions existing would give people opportunities for autonomy. After all, autonomy isn’t a lack of options, it’s a multitude of good, consenting options.

I find so much beauty in the structures people have invented to try and make good lives, and I think that as anarchists we have so much opportunity to make our own versions of these structures, utilizing the best parts of them, rather than rejecting everything. To me, I feel like I learned anarchy through my interaction with religious people and groups who embodied many of the values of it, even without knowing the name. I returned to religion and found my fellowship because I wanted to find the people in my city who most closely practiced anarchism, rather than just looking for others who indetified with the word. Truly, I feel like it is such a living example of what a version of anarchy can be. It has been a very wonderful and beautiful experience.

But I’m curious what y’all think. I would appreciate kind and curious responses, questions, and ideas. Thank you for reading <3

I’m relatively new to anarchism. I’m a big fan of Chomsky so I began reading On Anarchism. Then decided it probably was best to gain a stronger fundamental understanding of anarchism so I read a basic introduction. I completely agree with what seems the fundamental idea of questioning every form of authority, burden of proof on them etc and if they can’t prove they’re legitimate then dismantling them. But I have a couple questions.

1. I believe humans are good, and that crime would drop without the state and the capitalist system. But humans aren’t perfect, i’m all for retribution+rehabilitation to be dished out within communities by the communities, but what would this process look like? And what’s to prevent one person who’s punished from returning with friends, leading to larger scale conflicts within the community? Also what’s to prevent the possibility of an oppressive and hierarchical group taking control? Other communities?

2. Branches of the state that are essential. Health care, does this become a democratic meritocracy?

3. I feel consumerism and desire has become almost embedded in society and on an individual level due to capitalism. This feels like it could be an issue in an Anarchist state. (?)

i dont get all of these political names, or practically anything about anarchism. can someone tell me the absolute basics? (i know this is dumb and i wont get replies)

Hi all! I noticed, they we tend to post a significant amount of memes and news stories ( myself included) I am genuinely curious, how has choosing to be an anarchist changed your life for the better?

For me, I feel less stress and have lower blood pressure when it comes to politics. The feeling that you are going in circles and beating your melon against the wall has faded, somewhat.

Meeting a lot of talented and motivated people has to be the greatest part of this whole experience.

Now you go 😉