u/OldBillBlizzard

1- Its a financial huge burden to the individual who owns it if theyre working class. Making repairs on your own is incredibly expensive. If you dont have an income surplus then youre often forced to get more loans for the repairs, adding to overall debt.

In syndicalist spain structural home repairs were not the burden of the individual alone. The union would help each member improve their home.

2- It creates mental slavery to capitalism because many homeowners associate the autonomy the home gives them with the capitalist system itself. They think "if we abolish private property i will lose my home, and thus i must defend private property." What they misunderstand is that under anarcho communism their home is their personal property and they cannot be dispossessed from it by the community or any other individual due the usufruct system.

For instance even individuals who refused to work with the collectives in spain were allowed to keep their home. The only downside was that the individual didnt get other benefits of the collective; free healthcare, food etc. But their home was theirs no matter what.

Under capitalism, if you don't work for the hierarchical collectives (corporations are collectives after all) then the state comes for your home. Thus the individuals home is far less secure under the capitalist system of private property.

3- The only way for the worker to improve their bargaining power under capitalism is to own a home outright with no debt, and so this system re-creates a softer version of Roman slavery, where anyone who wants to be free, must essentially purchase their freedom.

4- even after home owners pay off their debt, they have to pay property taxes. The state then becomes their new landlord.

Conclusion: Owning a home is a privilege under capitalism, and its much better than renting, but its a golden handcuff and intellectual handcuff. Its ultimately a scame meant to create the false illusion of freedom.

Looking for more independent anarchist music projects. I like a wide variety of music. Everything from metal to pop, jazz and hip hop. Not looking for well established stuff, I want to hear what the comrades are making themselves, in the unground and the forgetten corners of the internet.

Share in the comments!

In exchange Ill share my personal project: Narodnaya Volya. I made a whole industrial rock album by myself a few years back. Sort of a concept album about a revolution that goes sideways, in which authoritarians co-opt it. Its presents a critique of Bolshevik style revolutiona.

Cant wait to hear your musical endeavors!

https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLhaR2iR\_Z31iB46zDV6i3ix\_whocOjAEV&si=OY-5hJ8J5rwb06ZP

After being in court today, I hate laws and believe there is no justice under capitalism or the state. Ive read many different ideas of anarchist justice. My general opinion on petty "crimes":

Ther will still have to be some kind of "trial", but it that it shouldn't be on terms of authority, but rather a meeting between equals to decide how to rectify an issue.

For instance lets say in a community the speed limit is broken, instead of a judge deciding what to do, the accused would have to explain the situation to their peers. Everyone has the right to change the "law". The accused could even argue that the speed limit is too slow, or explain why they did it and the community could let them off. In modern courts, "the law is the law", its practically immutable. I think it should be more like a guideline which is flexible according to circumstances and which can change quite easily.

My opinion on serious crimes like murder/SA:

I think we probably have confine people who commit these crimes, but not in prisons, but rather special communities. I feel like even a murderer should still get access to what amounts to basic apartment unit with whatever modern amenities a normal citizen would get. They get a say in how their community is run like the rest of us, its just supervised and they under go treatment. If the community feels this person can be trusted again they can be freed, if not, then they stay. But, they shouldn't be denied basic rights to entertainment, education, recreation, visits from outside whenever they'd like. Pretty much should be normal life but with supervision to make sure the offender cant harm people any more.

Thoughts? Critiques? Im not dogmatic about this subject, its a complicated one.

​Today, as I sat in front of a liberal judge, I realized just how true this is. Thankfully, it was not a criminal proceeding but rather one in which I merely lost a lot of money. But, since we live in a capitalist hellscape, money is everything, and that really sucks.

​The other party and I had an agreement worked out and the judge tossed it. The other party actually defended me and said the judge was being unfair. I thanked them afterward and have nothing against them.

​So, two adults had come to a consensus, and then a third adult told them no without knowing anything about either of us. Neither of us could reason with this soulless bureaucrat either because "it’s the law." Any reasonable or intelligent party would see why the other party and I had come to the conclusion we did, yet this supposedly highly educated person couldn't. They also gloated about how "dispassionate" they were.

​Bureaucracy makes people unintelligent, cruel, and immoral. They'd rather worship a piece of paper and filter all their thoughts through it than see justice prevail. Bureaucrats quite literally can't think for themselves; they surrender their humanity in favor of unthinking, machine-like behavior.

My overall view is that there is no right or wrong answer since we cant ultimately know what will work in advance. However, I still have my personal opinion on strategy and ideology.

My personal opinion is that Im currently sympathetic to platformism/especifismo within the context of the US. I spent the majority of my time as an anarchist espousing a hybrid of mutualism and syndicalism however, so opinions change based on experience. What do you comrades think will work in your neck of the woods?

There's a million modern doom/quake clones and even a few half-likes in the neo boomer shooter genre. Why no unreal tournaments though? It seems like someone ought to make something like UT 99 that has roughly the same game modes and single player and multi-player component. Am I crazy or is that a gold mine waiting to be exploited? Throw some 90s retro drum and bass loops on it and ill fork over my money. Indie devs, please do this. Im sure im not the only old head who desires this.

I haven't been on reddit for many years. Last time I was on that sub it was pretty standard social anarchism. While anarchists have always spoke negatively of democracy, its my understanding they were talking about state democracy, or capital D democracy. You know, politicians, elections, not soviet democracy, council democracy, or workers syndicates.

Its not all people on the sub of course, but appears to be the consensus. Did they get new mods or something?

---

After reading the responses, first I want to say thank you. Secondly I think there are three different opinions largely:

1- Self styled social anarchists = Pro direct democracy:

Pretty straightforward. Bookchin, anark, and many modern self styled social anarchists. 90% of the people in the IWW adhere to this idea or something adjacent like council communism. Id have to put myself in this camp. It seems like the most logically coherent to me. I agree that bourgeois democracy is poison, but I see soviet/council democracy as a form of social freedom. I think the word council democracy is very accurate from a standard sociological point of view and it's very easy to communicate to people.

2- Pro direct democracy but wants to use a different word:

Some anarchists seem to embrace majority voting within local councils while refusing to call it democracy because they reject the word "Kratos". Personally though, when I talk to workers they seem very receptive to the word and the idea of direct democracy. I will give these anarchists credit though because this is the classical anarchist position.

Mahknovists did not use the word democracy and instead used soviet, which in English is council, so I suppose you could just say "we're in favor of local councils not democracy". But, on the flip side, from a sociological view, a local council is just a different form of democracy, not a rejection of democracy wholesale. To me it seems to be a bit semantically muddled, even if it does reflect the historical position more than the first or third positions I've observed. I also think democracy is the language of the masses. 90% of the people ive met in my life do believe in small d democracy, so i think this will just confuse people even it is the most theoretically consistent position.

I dont personally see the strategic merit in that but to each their own, Im not going to argue with someone about words. This group basically seems to agree with group one, but uses different language thats more in accordance with traditional anarchist rhetoric. No problem there.

To each their own i suppose!

3- Post leftists and consensus democracy: Sounds like a good idea on paper but ive yet to see it put in practice in a functional way in my local scene. Anytime ive encountered self styled anti democratic anarchists they've claimed to be about consensus but it turns out to be a clique. Happened to two local groups, which was a bummer, so its a huge turn off to me. The only groups that survive in my experience are those that have actual bylaws and democratic procedures. Paradoxically, in my experience this group feels the most hierarchical because it creates a lot of informal hierarchies which cant be challenged.

I am highly skeptical of this groups logic and praxis as I have observed irl. I also feel that theyre using the anti democratic language out of context to imply all anarchists have always been against direct democracy, which is objectively not true. That feels like historical revisionism to me, if im being honest. But again, to each their own. If it works for you, more power to you. Im not one to dictate another groups praxis, that would be against the principle of free association, and so I respectfully disagree with these comrades while recognizing their right to organize as they see fit.

It seems that all three camps want to say— in typical anarchist fashion — "no we're the real anarchists— but I think all are "real anarchists" in the sense that all of them have historically existed and exist in the present, and are sincere. I dont think one group really has more right to exist than another, let alone any claim to a monopoly on the word. The only self styled anarchists ive met who Id say "are not real" anarchists are right wingers, because you cant be an anarchist and embrace hierarchy...that completely defeats the point.

So, I cant say any one trend is correct theoretically. All three groups want to practice eisegesis and pull quotes from old anarchists to bolster their position, which to me is not a good principle of anarchism because its an appeal to authority. I value what Bakunin or Malesta said, but ultimately, I adhere to a combination of empirical and a priori analysis. Anarchists have always been highly inconsistent about language if we are being honest. Bakunin called him self a revolutionary collectivist, a revolutionary socialist, an anarchist, Proudhon called himself a federalist, an anarchist, a democratic socialist. I suppose Ill paraphrase the council communists Anton Pannekoek:

"But what is a name? Names are ever misused to fool the masses, the familiar sounds preventing them from critically using their brains and clearly recognizing reality. More expedient, therefore, than looking for the right name will it be to examine more closely the chief characteristic of the system, the council organization."

And so I can conclude I agree most with the social anarchists. However, again, doesnt make us owners of anarchism anymore than it makes individualists the owners. Its a highly diverse movement and the individual can only decide for themselves which version works best. Good luck to all comrades regardless of what strategies for emancipation they choose. I know we are all well meaning in the end despite our differences.

Thank you all for the responses!

Ex mutualist here. Finally saw the light of day. Not that mutualism is bad, but ancom is superior for the simple fact that its the only anarchist system to ever actually exist even if all its goals weren't achieved and some elements of the market persisted. The goal of anarcho-communism seems to be the only one thats ever inspired people to revolution. To boot, im just sick of money and I think pacifism is largely bullshit. Proudon was cool for his day and I appreciate him for getting the anarchy ball rolling, but alas cooperatives and mutual banking will never overcome capitalism.

Im skeptical we'll be able to abolish current literally the day of the revolution still, but thats a minor strategic squabble and anarcho-collectivism is the temporary solution on the road to communism in my opinion. Seems to be what the Spanish anarchists and Maknovists had going. Anyway, long live anarcho-communism.

So, Ive read plenty of Kropotkin. Ive read mutual aid, and Ive read conquest of bread several times. How are the modern writers through? Over in mutualist land Kevin Carson is the big name. But is there an ancom equivalent? Would David Graeber be the most relevant ancom? I love Graber but he seems like he was more focused on the anthropological aspects and im wondering if there are writers who deal with building anarcho communism in the present and future specifically.

Thanks comrades!