u/Prevatteist

Capitalism inherently serves a wealthy minority.

Capitalism is inherently hierarchical, exploitative, and authoritarian.

Private businesses are run in a totalitarian fashion, with the capitalist business owner(s) holding the power, and the further down the chain you go, the least amount of power one has; with the workers holding the least amount of power from within the private business.

That said, in a capitalist society, workers must rent themselves to a capitalist(s) in order to survive, a class of people who have absolute control over the workers labor; determining what the workers do, when they can take a break, and in some cases, when they can even use the bathroom.

This to me isn’t freedom, but rather privatized tyranny intentionally designed to further and advance the interests of a wealthy minority, all reinforced by the state.

Anarcho-communism on the other hand runs completely antithetical to this.

It calls for free associations of self-organized communities and worker run enterprises where all systems of hierarchy, authority, and domination are dismantled.

Communities would organize themselves based on shared interests or common goals, purely voluntary of which people have a direct role in organizing and control of their own society and institutions.

Production would be collectivized, with the workers being in direct control of all decisions affecting their work life; no bosses or anyone else commanding orders to be followed.

Production and distribution of goods and services would be centered upon meeting humans needs. No money, but rather a gift economy where people would perform labor, then take what they need freely.

I believe this kind of society and economy would lead to super abundance, that is, enough goods and services being produced so that no one goes without.

Thus, people wouldn’t have to worry about surviving the next day, or wage-slaving away for just enough to make ends meet. Rather, their needs and wants would be met, therefore being free to truly engage in activities that are truly fulfilling to them, realizing their true self interests and actualizing their desires in life.

This to me is what true freedom looks like. Not throwing your life away for someone or a group of people who see you as nothing more than a cog in a machine ready to be replaced when or if need be.

(Attempted to post this in the 101 sub, though perhaps this is more debate related than 101 related, so my apologies to the mods for that)

I made a post yesterday regarding a debate I’ll be having with an anarcho-communist YouTuber. I laid out my two claims, and asked ya’ll to respond as a means of practicing for the debate.

There was a user who responded to me and we had a rather decent, though potentially heated debate regarding direct democracy.

They were arguing in favor of direct democracy, as well as consensus democracy, being compatible with anarchy, even arguing that anarchists like Kropotkin, Malatesta, etc…were also pro-direct/consensus democracy.

I of course argued against this, as no form of democracy, in my view, can be compatible with anarchism of any stripe.

However, many of the anarchists here seemed more sympathetic to their arguments in favor of direct democracy rather than my arguments in favor of green anarchy.

Which leads me to ask…even if opposed to green anarchy broadly speaking, are red anarchists more sympathetic to directly democratic forms of organization, even when non-anarchic in structure, as opposed to green anarchy? And if so, how do red anarchists square this belief with the overall anarchist opposition to all systems of hierarchy, authority, and domination?

When I think of anarchy, and communities connecting together via federation, delegates, etc…I often think about how these delegates are chosen. Obviously anarchy is opposed to democracy of any kind, given it’s a hierarchy leading to majority-over-minority situations, but sortition, given its lottery style type system where chance, over people, would decide the delegates, would this still be consistent with anarchism? Obviously, if somebody doesn’t want to serve as a delegate, they can refuse, thus another draw being made? I can see where this style of system could coincide with anarchy, but perhaps I’m overlooking something? Just wanted to run this by ya’ll and see what ya’ll think. Thanks.

When I think of anarchism, I think of free associations of self-organized communities engaging in whatever economic arrangement best works for them.

However, beyond that level of organization, I’ve read where anarchists may favor federation, communities connecting together and forming regions, these regions coming together to form broader federations, etc…bottom-up system with mandated delegates. I assume chosen through a lottery style system of chance.

I’ve also read where some anarchists oppose federations, in favor of affinity groups that organize around whatever shared interest or common goal, then quickly dissolves after all is said and done.

I happen to be very much in favor of affinity groups, though the question of federation brings concerns to me regarding structural shifts toward hierarchy. What if federation reconstitutes the state’s logic in miniature? Delegates, mandates, coordinating councils, recallable representatives, even with imperative mandates and rotation, there remains a structure built where some nodes coordinate or speak for others. Thus resulting toward de facto power concentrating in whoever sits on the coordinating bodies or does the administrative labor, regardless of the formal safeguards in place.

Could federation and affinity groups possibly coexist? What are ya’ll’s thoughts? Thanks.

For those of you who know me, I’m sure ya’ll are aware of my ideological transitions between anarchism and Marxism these last couple of years. I even became so black pilled at one time that socialism would ever be achieved that I just said fuck it and accepted capitalism as the unfortunate reality; that is until I snapped out of it and started pushing for socialism again.

That said, when I think about what I want to see, I want a more free, egalitarian, and ecologically sustainable society. When I think of points of view, or ideologies if you will that fit that description, anarchy by all accounts meet these standards for me. That is, anarchy is most certainly ideal for what we should strive to achieve.

However, and this is the root causes for my ideological transitions, I struggle to understand how we can build a truly anarchic society with absolutely zero hierarchy on a large scale. From what I understand, anarchists favor a bottom-up, non-hierarchical federation of sorts based on free associations of self-organized communities and worker run enterprises, but obviously not everyone is going to favor a non-hierarchical society, and will inevitably try to create structures or systems of hierarchy to reinstate a particular kind of domination meant to serve the interests of a higher class of people over the broad interests of the people as a whole.

Therefore, I tended to sort of strive for reducing hierarchy as much as possible, rather than entirely, finding it more pragmatic, though I understand that if we don’t dismantle all systems of hierarchy, society will inevitably devolve back into a society of some being ranked over others in accordance to some arbitrary status or authority; which yanks society away from the kind of freedom, and egalitarianism I would like to see.

So my question simply, is what do anarchists propose in terms of maintaining a non-hierarchical society, that is preventing new systems of hierarchy and authority from arising while maintaining a structured order without order (if that makes sense), thus preventing society from completely collapsing into something anarchy strives to fight against and dismantle?

I really like anarchy and anarchism, and do find it to be ideal, though what prevents me from re-taking that leap is the question of whether we can maintain no hierarchy in regard to broader society.

Thanks.

Socialism at its core has always been about workers collectively controlling production. That’s where it starts, and then you go on to other things depending on the kind of Socialist you are.

I happen to be a Council Communist, a Left-Communist/Marxist tradition that emphasizes the use of workers councils to carry out and organize both the revolution and post-Capitalist society. It’s anti-Leninist, anti-State, and anti-party, and argues that the working class themselves should carry out the revolution. If there is to be a revolutionary organization, its role *shouldn’t* be to guide the working class, but more so *antagonize* within the working class, pushing people to take control over their own struggle.

Leninism on the other hand, takes Marxism and applies Lenin’s ideas of the Vanguard party and “Democratic Centralism” to it. The idea that in order to achieve Socialism, we must first establish a centralized State, governed by a single party determining policy through an authoritarian organizational structure that completely disregards the masses. These ideas being carried out and intensified under leaders like Stalin and Mao, and essentially all others.

Now considering what Socialism has always been known to be, workers collective control over production, the idea that the State must come in and centrally plan and control production on behalf of the workers is clearly a Right wing shift. Not only economically, but also politically given the focus in Marxism is about the workers themselves taking control over both political and economic power, not a separate ruling class elite utilizing State power to further and advance their own interests, while ignoring the interests of the working class.

That said, I think if the Communist movement more broadly would like to see more success, I think we should move further Left on the Communist spectrum. Given the Rightward shift of Leninist tendencies that led us to more authoritarianism and repression, the Left-Communist camp emphasizes freedom, genuine workers control where people having an actual role in organizing and control of their own society and institutions, and a genuinely more egalitarian society that empowers people.

I believe the latter would appeal to more people, thus presenting Socialism in the positive light that it deserves, rather than dragging it through the corpses of decaying ML Socialist States that seemed to only exploit the egalitarian nature associated with genuine Socialism in order to gain enough popular support to seize control.

Socialism at its core has always been about workers collectively controlling production. That’s where it starts, and then you go on to other things depending on the kind of Socialist you are.

I happen to be a Council Communist, a Left-Communist/Marxist tradition that emphasizes the use of workers councils to carry out and organize both the revolution and post-Capitalist society. It’s anti-Leninist, anti-State, and anti-party, and argues that the working class themselves should carry out the revolution. If there is to be a revolutionary organization, its role shouldn’t be to guide the working class, but more so antagonize within the working class, pushing people to take control over their own struggle.

Leninism on the other hand, takes Marxism and applies Lenin’s ideas of the Vanguard party and “Democratic Centralism” to it. The idea that in order to achieve Socialism, we must first establish a centralized State, governed by a single party determining policy through an authoritarian organizational structure that completely disregards the masses. These ideas being carried out and intensified under leaders like Stalin and Mao, and essentially all others.

Now considering what Socialism has always been known to be, workers collective control over production, the idea that the State must come in and centrally plan and control production on behalf of the workers is clearly a Right wing shift. Not only economically, but also politically given the focus in Marxism is about the workers themselves taking control over both political and economic power, not a separate ruling class elite utilizing State power to further and advance their own interests, while ignoring the interests of the working class.

That said, I think if the Communist movement more broadly would like to see more success, I think we should move further Left on the Communist spectrum. Given the Rightward shift of Leninist tendencies that led us to more authoritarianism and repression, the Left-Communist camp emphasizes freedom, genuine workers control where people having an actual role in organizing and control of their own society and institutions, and a genuinely more egalitarian society that empowers people.

I believe the latter would appeal to more people, thus presenting Socialism in the positive light that it deserves, rather than dragging it through the corpses of decaying ML Socialist States that seemed to only exploit the egalitarian nature associated with genuine Socialism in order to gain enough popular support to seize control.

For starters, I believe capitalism is beyond salvation in any form. Ranging from Social Democracy to anarcho-capitalism, I don’t believe capitalism can be saved in any way that’ll truly benefit our lives.

Why?

Well, I’ve come to the conclusion that capitalism (outside of the exploitative aspect and such) existing alongside any form of government will inevitably devolve into cronyism, corruption, and authoritarianism of some form. The bigger the government, obviously the higher the chances of this occurring, and limited governments have been shown to rarely, if ever, stay limited and eventually fall into the same cronyist cycle as well.

Then you get to anarcho-capitalism. It solves the government corruption problem, but there’s nothing preventing private defense agencies from acting in a cartel like fashion, engaging in warlordism, etc. Or perhaps even the biggest corporation establishing itself as a de-facto state, only privatized with its own private police, courts, military, etc. Essentially, private tyranny on steroids.

That said, I believe we should look to other alternatives. Which brings me into the second half of my argument.

Capitalism is inconsistent with the Bible.

I’ve moved away from my atheist views within the last month (becoming more Christian-Agnostic if you will) and started reading the Bible and I’ve noticed something interesting. Now, on one hand, when we look at nations all throughout the Bible, we see that these nations had governments of which made major economic decisions, there were markets, currency, people buying/trading/selling goods and services, owning property, etc…which is consistent actually with both capitalism and socialism at first glance.

However, when reading some of the more radically egalitarian portions of the Bible, it clearly runs antithetical to capitalism. It talks about cooperation, mutual aid, charity, and communalism in the sense of owning things in common, sharing goods and services according to need, opposition to exploiting the poor, advocacies of wealth redistribution, etc…Jesus himself even preaching similar concepts and ideas.

All of this said, capitalism is beyond salvation in all forms, and is inconsistent with the teachings of the Bible. These views have driven me away from any advocacies for capitalism I had, and believe market socialism would serve as a better alternative pragmatically speaking, as well as being more in line with the Bible in the context of applying its teachings to our modern lives.

(To be clear, I support separation of church and state 100%, the Bible section is more so a personal thing for me.)

Thank you.

After attempting to develop my own unique ideology, it led me down a particular path and have been sitting with some ideas lately and wanted to get some thoughts from other left-anarchists. I’m fairly opposed to all hierarchy and coercion (the state, capitalism, etc). I believe in free association, self-organizing communities that can experiment with whatever economic or social arrangements work best for the people involved, and I’m against imposing any single “ideal” model on anyone.

At the same time, I’m a nihilist when it comes to meaning. I don’t believe life or human society has any objective higher purpose, cosmic progress, or guaranteed teleology toward a perfect world. Because of that, I can’t bring myself to propose or fully buy into any grand blueprint for a truly free, egalitarian, and peaceful society. I suspect that once we dismantle imposed hierarchies, people will simply organize and re-organize in messy, voluntary, self-interested ways; some more egalitarian or cooperative than others, but without any guarantee of lasting harmony or universal equality. It feels more like accepting the inevitable outcome than prescribing my personal utopia.

I still personally value freedom, a sense of human equality (in the basic sense that no one should rule over another by birthright or force), and being anti-war/anti-militarism. Those feel important to me subjectively, even if they aren’t grounded in some objective moral truth or historical destiny. I’m open to targeted direct action or violence against entrenched power when necessary, but I’m not craving some total “burn it all down” chaos where everything collapses into constant disorder.

This combination has me leaning toward anarcho-nihilism, especially after reading Kaneko Fumiko again. She railed against hierarchy and the emperor system while believing humans should fundamentally be equal, yet she rejected optimistic revolutionary programs because she saw power struggles and “strong eat the weak” dynamics as persistent in any living system. Her focus was more on personal rebellion, negation of imposed authority, and forming voluntary associations without illusions about building paradise.

To those of you who identify more with optimistic left-anarchism (anarcho-communism, syndicalism, Mutualism, etc), How do you square deep anti-authoritarianism with belief in a positive, achievable vision of egalitarian society? Do you see nihilist perspectives as defeatist, or as a useful corrective against new forms of dogma and imposition creeping into anarchist spaces?

And to anyone else who vibes with the nihilist side…how do you hold onto personal values like freedom and relative equality without turning them into new universal prescriptions?

Curious about your takes, as I’m trying to think this through honestly without romanticizing either pure negation or utopian blueprints. Thanks.