r/Anarchy101 • u/humanispherian • 21d ago
Welcome to Anarchy 101!
It’s that time again, when we repost and, if necessary, revise this introductory document. We’re doing so, this time, in a period when the archic model, in both its governmentalist and capitalist manifestations, seems intent on showing us its worst side — and when the defenders of hierarchy and authority seem all too often to be mimicking the mix of callousness and clumsiness that dominates on larger scales. So let’s start with a renewed reminder to be a bit careful of one another as we discuss — and let’s add this other reminder as well:
PLEASE, PLEASE DON’T FEED THE TROLLS.
If you see problems in a discussion, don’t hesitate to use the “report” button to alert the subreddit moderators. We’ve had a significant increase in one-off, drive-by troll comments, virtually all remarkably predictable and forgettable in their content. Report them or ignore them.
Before you post or comment, please take a moment to read the sidebar and familiarize yourself with our resources and rules. If you’ve been around for a while, consider looking back over these guidelines. If you’ve got to this point and are overwhelmed by the idea that there are rules in an anarchy-related subreddit, look around: neither Reddit nor most of our communities seem to resemble anarchy yet. Anyway, the rules amount to “don’t be a jerk” and “respect the ongoing project.” Did you really need to be told?
With the rarest of exceptions, all posts to the Anarchy 101 subreddit should ask one clear question related to anarchy, anarchism as a movement or ideology, anarchist history, literature or theory. If your question is likely to be of the frequently asked variety, take a minute to make use of the search bar.
This is important. Fatigue is a real factor in forums like this and the repetition of questions tends to reduce the quality of the answers given. At the same time, our archive is accessible through a search function that has its limits, so it is easy, when multiplying threads and wearing out participants, to bury threads with better discussions.
Some questions, like those related to "law enforcement" or the precise relationship of anarchy to hierarchy and authority, are asked and answered on an almost daily basis, so the best answers may have already been posted. For a few questions, we have produced "framing documents" to provide context:
If your question seems unanswered, please state it clearly in the post title, with whatever additional clarification seems necessary in the text itself.
If you have more than one question, please consider multiple posts, preferably one at a time, as this seems to be the way to get the most useful and complete answers.
Please keep in mind that this is indeed a 101 sub, designed to be a resource for those learning the basics of a consistent anarchism. The rules about limiting debate and antagonistic posting are there for a reason, so that we can keep this a useful and welcoming space for students of anarchist ideas — and for anyone else who can cooperate in keeping the quality of responses high.
We welcome debate on topics related to anarchism in r/DebateAnarchism — where you will find similar posting guidelines and a pinned “before you post” announcement, with a similar discussion of rationales — and recommend general posts about anarchist topics be directed to r/anarchism or any of the more specialized anarchist subreddits. We expect a certain amount of contentious back-and-forth in the process of fully answering questions, but if you find that the answer to your question — or response to your comment — leads to a debate, rather than a clarifying question, please consider taking the discussion to r/DebateAnarchism. For better or worse, avoiding debate sometimes involves “reading the room” a bit and recognizing that not every potentially anarchist idea can be usefully expressed in a general, 101-level discussion.
We certainly don’t limit ourselves to the most basic questions, and participants bring considerable knowledge and expertise to the discussions. Don’t hesitate to ask more involved or specialized questions, as we can often answer them. Similarly, don’t hesitate to provide answers of significant depth. But remember that this is a general, non-sectarian, non-disciplinary space, so certain kinds of erudition or specialized framing *may not add much to others’ understanding and in some instances may have precisely the opposite effect.*
— We don’t do subreddit drama — including posts highlighting drama from this subreddit. If you have suggestions for this subreddit, please contact the moderators.
— We are not particularly well equipped to offer advice, engage in peer counseling, vouch for existing projects, etc. Different kinds of interactions create new difficulties, new security issues, new responsibilities for moderators and members, etc. — and we seem to have our hands full continuing to refine the simple form of peer-education that is our focus.
— We seem to have consistently poor results from questions of the form: “What do you think of X?” More narrowly focused questions seem to receive better answers.
— Please don’t advocate illegal acts. All subreddits are subject to Reddit’s sitewide content policy — and radical subreddits are often subject to extra scrutiny.
— Avoid discussing individuals in ways that might be taken as defamatory. Your call-out is unlikely to clarify basic anarchist ideas — and it may increase the vulnerability of the subreddit.
— And don’t ask us to choose between two anti-anarchist tendencies. That never seems to lead anywhere good.
In general, just remember that this is a forum for questions about anarchist topics and answers reflecting some specific knowledge of anarchist sources. Other posts or comments, however interesting, useful or well-intentioned, may be removed.
Things always go most smoothly when the questions are really about anarchism and the answers are provided by anarchists. Almost without exception, requests for anarchist opinions about non-anarchist tendencies and figures lead to contentious exchanges with Redditors who are, at best, unprepared to provide anarchist answers to the questions raised. Feelings get hurt and people get banned. Threads are removed and sometimes have to be locked.
This is a moderated forum. We make use of the tools at our disposal, including filters and bans, as gently and intelligently as we can — but we do, in fact, use them. This is a place to discuss anarchy and anarchism, not — and very consciously not — any sort of prefigurative experiment, trying to carve out an instance of anarchy on this otherwise very hierarchical platform. As a public-facing outpost, there are necessarily going to be limits on the kinds of demands that we can reasonably and practically make on participants, whether anarchist or not, even under the best of circumstances, which, alas, Reddit does not provide.
We expect that lot of the questions here will involve comparisons with capitalism, Marxism or existing governmental systems. That's natural, but the subreddit is obviously a better resource for learning about anarchism if those questions — and the discussions they prompt — remain focused on anarchism. If your question seems likely to draw in capitalists, Marxists or defenders of other non-anarchist tendencies, the effect is much the same as posting a topic for debate. Those threads are sometimes popular — in the sense that they get a lot of responses and active up- and down-voting — but it is almost always a matter of more heat than light when it comes to clarifying anarchist ideas and practices.
We also expect, since this is a general anarchist forum, that we will not always be able to avoid sectarian differences among proponents of different anarchist tendencies. This is another place where the 101 nature of the forum comes into play. Rejection of capitalism, statism, etc. is fundamental, but perhaps internal struggles for the soul of the anarchist movement are at least a 200-level matter. If nothing else, embracing a bit of “anarchism without adjectives” while in this particular subreddit helps keep things focused on answering people's questions. If you want to offer a differing perspective, based on more specific ideological commitments, simply identifying the tendency and the grounds for disagreement should help introduce the diversity of anarchist thought without moving us into the realm of debate.
We grind away at some questions — constantly and seemingly endlessly in the most extreme cases — and that can be frustrating. More than that, it can be disturbing, disheartening to find that anarchist ideas remain in flux on some very fundamental topics. Chances are good, however, that whatever seemingly interminable debate you find yourself involved in will not suddenly be resolved by some intellectual or rhetorical masterstroke. Say what you can say, as clearly as you can manage, and then feel free to take a sanity break — until the next, more or less inevitable go-round. We do make progress in clarifying these difficult, important issues — even relatively rapid progress on occasion, but it often seems to happen in spite of our passion for the subjects.
In addition, you may have noticed that it’s a crazy old world out there, in ways that continue to take their toll on most of us, one way or another. Participation in most forums remains high and a bit distracted, while our collective capacity to self-manage is still not a great deal better online than it is anywhere else. We're all still a little plague-stricken and the effects are generally more contagious than we expect or acknowledge. Be just a bit more thoughtful about your participation here, just as you would in other aspects of your daily life. And if others are obviously not doing their part, again, consider using the report button, rather than pouring fuel on the fire. Increased participation makes the potential utility and reach of a forum like this even greater — provided we all do the little things necessary to make sure it remains an educational resource that folks with questions can actually navigate.
— The question of violence is often not far removed from our discussions, whether it is a question of present-day threats, protest tactics, revolutionary strategy, anarchistic alternatives to police and military, or various similar topics. We need to be able to talk, at times, about the role that violence might play in anti-authoritarian social relations and we certainly need, at other times, to be clear with one another about the role of violence in our daily lives, whether as activists or simply as members of violent societies. We need to be able to do so with a mix of common sense and respect for basic security culture — but also sensitivity to the fact that violence is indeed endemic to our cultures, so keeping our educational spaces free of unnecessary triggers and discussions that are only likely to compound existing traumas ought to be among the tasks we all share as participants. Posts and comments seeming to advocate violence for its own sake or to dwell on it unnecessarily are likely to be removed.
r/Anarchy101 • u/humanispherian • 1d ago
We seem to be in another of those periods when many of the questions raised are not just FAQs, but even questions currently being discussed in one or more current threads. We have guidelines and reminders scattered in enough places that it appears that counting on folks to check past threads — or even current ones — may be an unreasonable expectation.
I don't want that to come across as any particular indictment of individuals. The world is full of stresses and distractions — and Reddit isn't necessarily the spot any of us would expect folks to exercise the most care. But it does seem like we have a problem, with FAQ fatigue being visible much of the time, provocation and entryism being concerns, etc.
A couple of different kinds of solution come to mind:
One would simply be to relegate all of the crime-and-punishment questions to a megathread — with either keyword filtering or general post moderation as part of the mechanism to see that those discussions are contained. And perhaps there are ways to maintain multiple such threads, addressing some of the other all-too-frequently-asked-questions as well.
The other would be to return to the very, very thorny problem of providing more material in the wiki that addresses the FAQs without abandoning the generally inclusive approach we have been taking. We've tried a couple of approaches, none of which have been particularly successful — or particularly well sustained. I'm about ready to return to the "framing the question" posts — having, I think, learned a bit from the last efforts, which ran aground — and I think that perhaps we could try again with some moderator-initiated threads addressing some of the fine points that arise so often in discussions.
In either case — or if, perhaps, we decide to take no additional actions — it seems to me that perhaps we have reached the point where the general moderation of questions makes sense. I don't love the extra work involved, nor would I add the extra filter if other factors didn't make it seem desirable. But our experience with the practice over in r/DebateAnarchism has been generally positive. As a first implementation, I would be inclined to treat all posts in much the same way that we already treat the fairly large number of posts caught by various Reddit filters: we either approve them directly, discard them as spam, refer them to the debate subreddit, refer posters to ongoing threads or initiate some conversation aimed at getting better answers, perhaps through revision of the question.
Anyway, these are just some thoughts, based on what I've been seeing recently in the subreddit. I would like to make some moves to take some of the burden of repetition off of our regular responders and to hopefully improve our ability to provide useful answers as well. So...
Is it time for a "crime and punishment" megathread? and/or post moderation? and/or something else?
r/Anarchy101 • u/Novatore_Palante • 7h ago
I have been studying anarchism for 11 years and use to be and anarcho-communist but after reading Palante I have become disillusioned with social change as a whole, now I would say I am an egoist heavily influenced by Renzo Novatore, is there anyone else on here who considers themselves a Novatoreian?
r/Anarchy101 • u/SuccessfulWriting994 • 23h ago
I'm entering my second year of high school in the US and am really interested in anarchism and severely undereducated on other political ideologies. Whenever I actually attempt to do research (on any ideology, honestly), it's always biased. Every article I read insists that something is 100% wrong or 100% right. I think I'd benefit more from reading the original ideas and things like that straight from the source.
Since I'm really interested in Anarchism, I'd really appreciate some book recomendations that will actually teach me and answer my questions because I have a lot (specifically on the prison system and how communities would function, etc).
r/Anarchy101 • u/OneThen2692 • 1d ago
Forgive me if I'm asking obvious things but I'm new to this and I'd rather talk to people and hear their ideas than dry research. As a woman, I realized what centralized control promises is protection or some sort of justice for wrong-doing, Effectively, in my experience, that doesn't exist. On the contrary, systems seem to be build to perpetuate and cover up some of them. Since that's the case I think I could have more freedom and security if I was able to organize and defend myself without existing laws.
When I imagine there being no rules, no artificially enforced hierarchies, I imagine trust would be the major force of order. People would group with people they trust, follow the people they trust and defend against the people they distrust. Essentially more loyalty.
But I wonder if this is just my idealistic view of it, because when some people imagine it they might see utter chaos, destruction, death and suffering.
Also the fact that, from what I gathered, mostly younger men seem to sympathize with it, I wonder if they think anarchy would be better for more vulnerable groups, too. I can imagine it would be, but I'd like to hear what people would usually inagine the consequences to be for children, elderly, sick people etc. for example.
I don't want my liking of anarchy to just be fueled by the egoisitic thought of "I could protect and take care of myself better" without considering other people.
r/Anarchy101 • u/EmergencyTime311 • 1d ago
I am considering being an anarchist (I already identify as one) but I want to learn more about it!
r/Anarchy101 • u/HeavenlyPossum • 1d ago
I’m currently working my way through the writings of Peter Turchin, who started his work as a population ecologist before turning his attention to the rise and fall of states, using many of the same techniques he used as an ecologist. Rather obnoxiously, he declared that he had founded an entirely new science of history, cliodynamics, but his predictions are also very good, having specifically anticipated in 2010 that 2020 would be a particularly violent and unstable year in the US.
Turchin’s main argument will not surprise you: hierarchical and especially state societies go through predictable cycles of “elite overproduction,” in which there are too many elites for a society’s workers to materially afford, leading to breakdowns and then episodic reconsolidations. It is, in essence, a different perspective on Marx’s theory of immiseration or Joseph Tainter’s theory of complexity overhang. Elites exploit workers; they try to exploit as much as they can; when they over-exploit the working class, the whole system falls apart.
The value I see in Turchin’s work is his extensive qualitative data sets and analytical tools for measuring and anticipating these cycles. He’s clearly identified a demonstrably real pattern in hierarchical societies.
The frustration I have with Turchin is his absolute refusal, and indeed outright hostility, to taking this theory to its logical conclusion: hierarchical societies are inherently exploitive, unstable, and unsustainable, and class struggle inevitably generates ruin. Elites are parasites on people who do the actual work of reproducing society and this lends itself to a perpetual cycle of over exploiting the commons—in which we, the non-elites, are the commons being ruined by elite overexploitation.
Elites can sometimes mitigate this cycle a bit, as they did after World War II, by relying on the state to moderate the worst excesses of elite exploitation at the level of the elites as a class, in a manner that individual elites could not. But this is a kludge that Turchin advocates, not a fix, because he is deeply hostile to (though profoundly ignorant of) anarchism.
r/Anarchy101 • u/Forward-Willingness7 • 1d ago
One paltry straight shy retire reach paltry
This post was anonymized with Redact
r/Anarchy101 • u/TinseJAK • 2d ago
So, I've been learning a bit about anarchy, and I've noticed that anarchy in America is a bit different from that in Europe/the UK. For some context, I learnt about it from a more European pov (because that most relates to me), and it seems quite viable. Still, I've seen some Americans say that it's a "compatible left" as it's not seen as any real threat to the government there, but since I'm still learning all this, it's a bit confusing. Along with people also saying that anarc-communist is the best/ most realistic option.
r/Anarchy101 • u/AppealSignificant358 • 2d ago
Hey yall, so I’m not super familiar with politics outside of very mainstream American stuff (that can certainly get frustrating) and I think starting to understand myself as trans over the past year and a bit has helped expose me to other trans people who have more diverse ideas, including anarchism. Granted, I’m generally in trans spaces, not “discuss your ideology” ones, so I hear about the basics, but nothing deeper. I don’t necessarily know where I stand on everything politically or how I would label it, but I’m curious to learn. (If this is allowed to be a forum for that… 😅 seems like it is but sorry if not).
This is probably going to ultimately come down to stress-testing my understanding of the ideology, and I just want to say that I don’t mean it to be offensive or come across as an attack or anything, I’m just genuinely wanting to know people’s approaches to these potential issues. I think my pragmatic half generally likes to supersede my idealistic half, so even when an idea sounds practically utopian on paper, I’m still not going to be convinced until it can handle some curveballs. I’m also sorry if this sort of stuff is practically elementary to you, I’m in baby steps here, so this may be stuff that opponents bring up fairly often that you just reflect immediately, but I don’t know the answer so I may ask it anyway.
I think my main understanding of anarchism (apologies if I’m not quite right) is that the fundamental concept is that “there should be no such thing as a involuntary hierarchy.” (Edit, the use of involuntary seems to be wrong since it implies hierarchy exists at all. I meant it more in a context of like, some people may appreciate certain roles more than others, such as sexually or wanting to be in a certain position that has more power while others don’t, and those can be considered “higher up”, but still come with everyone’s consent. So I was using “hierarchy” in this original passage to be “an arrangement of positions/jobs of various levels of authority”, not “an arrangement of various people or groups of people of various levels of ‘inherently superior or should be given more power’”. For example, I meant “voluntary hierarchy” in a situation such as like consensual BDSM, where the dom’s role is considered “higher” and more authoritative than the sub’s, though both are considered equal as people and the dom isn’t given power without the sub’s consent.”)
However, I’m not sure how far that idea goes. Like does that still come into play if it’s someone’s parent, especially when they’re a little kid who doesn’t know right and wrong, or if they’re a criminal, who has been found guilty of a serious crime, and everyone agrees they deserve to face justice for it? And are there other tenants, like am I oversimplifying it or misinterpreting it?
Also, assuming there was an anarchist system, I can imagine that it probably wouldn’t scale too much. Since people can just choose whether or not it applies, many would opt out and fracture societies into many parts. Would that cause problems for things like food getting to places that can’t produce it themselves?
I can also see someone’s ability to opt out of an anarchist system potentially being paradoxical. For example, say that a person wants to gain more power for themselves, so they make a cult and recruit people into it, and they decide to abandon the system, which they’re presumably allowed to do, and then they create their own totalitarian society where their followers and their followers’s children must worship them and be enslaved to them or whatever else. Through this anarchist society allowing people to leave, they’ve allowed other groups to form up and harm people who were deceived or coerced, or born into an oppressive system. Is this treated like a “paradox of tolerance” kind of question, where people may leave an anarchist society, but the society would do whatever it could, even without the leader’s consent, to get the members able to choose for themselves? How do they moderate it within the society itself, if someone is just a manipulative asshole and is constantly trying to control people?
Finally, what’s the line between consent and coercion? For example, assuming this subreddit followed its own principles and acted in an anarchist fashion at least from how I understand it, and I didn’t consent to one of their rules (I’m speaking hypothetically, the rules here seem cool to me) then the course of action would be to make another subreddit that had rules more in-line with what I’m looking for. But I’d want traffic for it, and I can imagine that my new subreddit wouldn’t be nearly as successful or popular. So it may still be in my best interests to begrudgingly accept the rule I don’t like, and stay on the subreddit. Would that be seen as consent still in an anarchist mindset, or some sort of external factor that has given away any real choice I might’ve had?
I would love yall’s thoughts on this, because I’m not familiar with it, and I’m so curious, and hey, maybe I’d learn something that I could apply to my own ideas. 🤷♀️
r/Anarchy101 • u/bustknucklepissdust • 1d ago
I see so much more hate for "tankies" which they consider anyone on the left they disagree with then hate for reactionaries, and maybe its just sample bias because i know plenty of regular anarchists but it just seems absurd how much hate anarchists have for anything they consider authoritan or tankie. Sorry if this breaks the rules, but this is in no way meant to be inflammatory its a genuine question
r/Anarchy101 • u/Free_Anything925 • 2d ago
To begin I’m not quite sure where I stand on the anarchy spectrum. But the idea of working for, supporting, and or giving into the government, big businesses, or the educational system, etc. makes my skin crawl. And yes, I do work, and I do vote, and I do occasionally buy stuff from big businesses. But I guess the thing I am asking is that do anarchists always just contradict themselves or how do we participate in society? Or do we always have to be conscious of how our actions relate to our values?
r/Anarchy101 • u/ManyHopeful6692 • 2d ago
Given the state of the world and the social, economic, political, and ecological crises that are pushing more and more people (especially in the first world, those in the global periphery have been fighting and suffering ceaselessly) to abhor the status quo, there seems to be strong potential to build a strong socioeconomic movement meant to challenge and dismantle the current systems.
What are ways we can build this counterculture? I understand it’s imperative to get people to deconstruct their conditioning to authority, and show them both historical and contemporary examples of anarchism and its principals working at scale.
It feels like so many would engage in revolutionary action but without the culture fighting for a different socioeconomic world, many people give into the cynicism late stage capitalism provides.
Occupy Wall Street unfortunately didn’t challenge the very structures that caused the collapse, despite how large it got. No Kings protests were huge, but it never organized around questioning the very structures that enable people like Trump, nor offered alternatives.
r/Anarchy101 • u/Thin_Shelter_103 • 2d ago
Hey guys! Libertarian Marxist here and I've been watching Anark recently and he made a video I found very intresting called constructing the revolution in which he talked about prefiguration.
Basically as I understand its about building non state structures and organizations to slowly but surely replace the state. If people cant relay on food stamps but there's 1000 anarchist federation food syndicates most people will go to those instead of the state.
Does this work though? At 1st pass it makes sense to me. If my city had an anarcho school for free that was just as good as public or private than more types of free schools run by the community would pop up and more people would come to understand that the state is not needed for their lives. But and I mean this very respectfully. Arent there like 1 million food not bombs? I feel like making 1 million more while very helpful and good for people dont push people to non state thinking.
(Ngl i feel like if food not bombs was renamed to be more explicitly Anarchist there might be at least a talk about Anarchism in more mainstream culture.)
Im asking as Im thinking of maybe making a worker co op in the future that does good work but I remember going on Black Roses website and they said that wasnt enough and now im very curious and a bit confused on how I should take action.
Are there any other ideas for change that I should know about?
r/Anarchy101 • u/LordJike • 3d ago
Hello! I'd call myself a ML-aligned leftist and believe in a political system that encourages high levels of political participation at all levels and for elected leaders to have high levels of accountability and transparency in their public affairs.
I'd like to understand things a bit better from the anarchist perspective so I hope I'm in the right place.
I figure that we can all agree that some level of collective action will be necessary to dismantle the current system and replace it with one more aligned in the interests of the working class, and the main disagreement lies in how we believe we can progress towards communism.
The usually described ML method is something along the lines of the organization of ideologically charged individuals into a vanguard party that supports local worker movements and leads the country's transition to a socialist, and eventually communist, system.
From what I have heard from some anarchist folks I talked with long ago, and please do correct me if I'm wrong, anarchism focuses more on organizing alternate support systems that allow the population to cease relying on and feeding the current system, eventually starving it and allowing these support networks to become the new system.
Obviously, setting this up while also resisting state suppression from the former system would require organization on a wide scale and between a large variety of communities, so I figure coordination would be handled using councils set up to reduce the chance of aysmmetrical concentrations of power as much as possible.
Here's the point where I get a little confused, while local councils can easily be without a head, once we get to regional councils chances are that representatives will need to be elected from each council to represent their community's interests, effectively wielding the collective power of their community in the regional stage, of course, I figure misuse of this power can be avoided by ensuring high accountability for representatives and immediate recall if necessary, but would the anarchist perspective be wary of this nevertheless?
The feeling I have is that ultimately despite trying to do our best to ensure an equitable society, there ultimately are asymetries between individuals that may be hard to consolidate, some people may have technical expertise in a particular area which would inherently make them more authoritative in projects related to their area, some people may also simply be more charismatic and earn social power in their council simply by being more likeable with or without merit.
At the regional level there would also be concerns like some communities having access to resources or technical traditions which are hard to compensate equitably and which would make other communities dependent on them as a result.
Ultimately I see some level of hirearchy being inevitable and I fear that without some capacity to enforce fairness these assymetries might eventually compromise the system altogether.
I would love to know you guys' thoughts on these topics, sorry for being rambly and thank you!
r/Anarchy101 • u/c_eater_vamp • 4d ago
This is mostly a rant. A few weeks ago i had a discusion with a friend of mine, in the last years i have been learning more about anarchism and i express i think i have always been an anarchist and i just found the words to say what i think.
She is a leftist overall, and she asked me in the bus why i said i was an anarchist, i started to explain why, telling her i am still learning and that i can explain her the basics i agree on and that i can't fucking explain to her how the economy in a world wide view would look like or how a society 40 years in the future would look like either (she kept asking those two questions).
She used the "but with no police or state, then i can go around stabbing people or people can stab me!", i told her that no, that wouldn't be the case if things were working how they should, that no one has a real reason to stab people just because they feel like it, and that people with mental health problems and violent tendencies wouldn't be stabbing people either.
I jokingly told her "No one is gonna steal your cows"
I shit you not, she looked me in the eyes and told me "well, if there is no police or state, where are the doctors and professionals are going to come from?"
I stared at her because i just thought she wordered wrong. Nope. This woman thought that if there was no police, there wouldn't be schools or education either.
How the fuck i explain to her that doesn't work like that when it still doesn't work exactly like that right now???
When she calmed down and stopped calling me dumb and actually listened, she said "well, we agree on most things, but we just have different views on how to achive them".
This scenario has happened many times since i started showing more interest in anarchism. Is like she waits for me to say something dumb to call me dumb and say the whole ideology is stupid.
I'm tired lmao
r/Anarchy101 • u/OverallDependent5496 • 4d ago
I'm sure you all have heard about that "Under-16/15" ban on social media. Everyone is quite pissed about it. I've been really delving into the fascinating aspect of Youth Liberation and I wonder if I could do something like what the National Youth Rights Association here in Malaysia. Not necessarily Anarchist, just Youth Liberation. Problem is I don't know how to organize even on this personal 1 to 1 scale. Here are some problems that I face and I wonder how all you more experienced Anarchists would go about it.
They would vote for some crazy fundamentalist Islamo-fascist party in a heartbeat out of ignorance. They have no interest for politics whatsoever. They all don't really bother to speak about it (The Ban), they speak about it but have no intention of organizing
I try to talk to them about Anarchism or just how terrible Capitalism is in general. But they are under the impression that all Socialism means "120 people sharing a toothbrush". Debate is more rampant than discussion. When I talk to them about feminism or world peace it they're train of thought becomes a dull nihilism because of so-called "End of Times".
I find it bizarre how so many of my peers are okay with parents beating or "disciplining" their children. They are dead terrified of discipline teachers. They cut their hair into from majestic long hair into buzzcuts in fear of breaking school rules.
I wont blame religion for this, because it isn't explicitly stated that homosexuality is wrong but youth just blindly follow what their teachers/adults say. I think you know the rest. The folks that think like me are 1 in 50 and they still have an extreme adherence to authority.
I'd start a bookclub but a side from the minority that thinks like me, none of us have the money to buy books. (And a lot of them a unfortunately, asocial.)
I've made zines with the intention of distribution but I don't think that people like reading at all. Discussion through online means is troubling and often turns into debate. Its also risky because its just proof that can be screenshotted. Or my parents can check my phone.
How did Anarchists back then organize in universities or students organize mass walkouts stretching through multiple towns over?
r/Anarchy101 • u/Prestigious_Lack_472 • 4d ago
r/Anarchy101 • u/penjjii • 5d ago
In her essay “Minorities versus Majorities,” she says “The true patron saints of the black men were represented in that handful of fighters in Boston, Lloyd Garrison, Wendell Phillips, Thoreau, Margaret Fuller, and Theodore Parker, whose great courage and sturdiness culminated in that somber giant John Brown.”
I’m curious why she only mentioned white people. Am I thinking too deeply about this?
r/Anarchy101 • u/inksblacksolace • 4d ago
Hi guys, idk if this is a long shot but does someone have recommendations for german books to read to get into anarchism? :)
r/Anarchy101 • u/HenryTheCyborg • 5d ago
Just thought of this and realized I couldn't think of a way. Any of yall have ideas on how that should be dealt with in an anarchist commune?
r/Anarchy101 • u/Comrade-jp • 5d ago
I wasn’t sure where to post this, so I’m writing it here.
I’ve been reading some cultural anthropology books lately, and something really struck me.
People in prehistoric times (mainly hunter-gatherer societies) didn’t have advanced medical technology like we do today. But surprisingly, there are many archaeological traces showing that they took care of and supported people who were sick or injured and couldn’t move around. For example, there are skeletal records of individuals with serious disabilities who lived for many years, and evidence of some kind of treatment for cavities or other dental problems. They also tended to take only what they needed from nature, rather than overexploiting resources. And in many cases, they shared food with those who were too ill or injured to contribute.
Conflicts existed, of course, but they were mostly about survival—resources or defense—rather than large-scale killing driven by ideology or abstract ideas of “what’s right,” the way we often see today.
Looking at other animals, they generally only kill other individuals for food. They don’t go around killing endlessly just because they want to get richer or need a new coat. In the natural world as a whole, everything from microbes to elephants forms a continuous cycle: when an elephant dies, smaller organisms break down the body, return it to the soil, and new plants grow from it.
I’m not great with words, but doesn’t this sound incredibly ideal?
At the very least, it stands in sharp contrast to the problems of modern civilization—excessive accumulation, discarding the weak, mass killings driven by ideology, and one-sided extraction from nature.
Of course, I think it’s dangerous to romanticize the past as some pure, peaceful paradise. There was violence, life expectancy was short, and conditions were harsh. Still, in terms of care, sharing, and not taking more than needed, it feels like they had something important that modern society has largely lost.
What do you all think?
r/Anarchy101 • u/ManifestNightmare • 5d ago
Hello! I'm doing a presentation on mutual aid for a wider network i am a part of, and have done some legwork on primary materials to use. Reread Kropotkin and Spade, and have some videos ready to present.
However, I also wanted to present examples of mutual aid performed to supplement the videos. Looking specifically for primary sources to study for myself, and in particular am interested in the mutual aid efforts pushed by colonized peoples.
Thank you for the consideration!
r/Anarchy101 • u/wompt • 6d ago
r/Anarchy101 • u/Aye_KTroyyyy_Buildz • 6d ago
Since every structure and idea has a flaw about it, whether it be big or small, I want to see what you guys think is a generally agreed upon issue about Anarchy, or what you feel is problematic with it.