u/wompt

we will always need a place to sleep, of course, but me belonging to the land seems a more reasonable proposition that the land belonging to me. the assertion of ownership gives rise to the state, which exists to back up that assertion with violence.

without giving up on this idea of owning land (along with the permission to treat it however you please), can we actually get rid of the state? will people not uphold the state out of fear of losing the protection of their "property"? what shift needs to happen in our thought to get rid of this idea?

i tend to take a very skeptical view of organization, because most organizations i have worked with use the organization as a means of controlling its members

what might organization where the organization has no control over its members look like? if such an organization could exist, would that stop its members from trying to control the organization?

does anyone else struggle with the organizing principles of groups they have worked with in the past?

are there different kinds of rights, with some being compatible with anarchic principles and others not?

how do i appeal to making sure that everyone has clean food, clean water and shelter from weather without pointing to something like inherent rights as an embodied creature of earth?

if "rights" are not respected, then what?

or is even thinking in terms of rights not lead to anarchic ends, and we need to think about mutual respect in some other way to make sure everyone has their needs met?

rights, what do you think about them?

i do not want to relate to others in such a way, my time and energy are not for sale, but it really makes living difficult in this society where a large number of people, probably a majority - are doing it.

it seems like exploring anarchy outside of anarchic relations will always remain ephemeral, theoretical. like reading about things in books without any lived experience of them.

anarchy is learned in the context of anarchy, and to learn anarchy, we ought to be creating instances of anarchy to practice in, right? can anarchy be internalized as a purely theoretical way of relating to one another, or does that have to be put into practice to internalize?

edit: maybe another useful way to consider this: can you truly know a culture without living in it?

i mean to say, what is the best we can hope for while our communication is actually subject to so many potential barriers as it moves through the third parties, and can anarchic relations actually exist in such a scenario?

i am wondering what moneyless means to yall

do you reckon we maintain commerce but do it without money (i.e. barter) or abandon the idea of buying and selling altogether? and if its the latter, what might that look like - widespread autarky?

it seems as though people adopted television pretty quickly in the mid 1900s. this system was a propagandists wet dream in the early days, a vast majority of tv watchers on a very limited number of channels. cable television is a one directional mass-media form, ideal communication system for military dictatorships.

i look at the proliferation of cameras in so many places, and i see the panopticon being built

how do we deal with technologies that can enable tyranny? like, are they ok up until we have a tyrant, or should we be destroying these technologies before a tyranny ever forms? clearly thery can be used for non-tyrannical purposes, so does that make them ok?

from my perspective, anarchy is a relational thing, and while the anarchist critique has a hard "no" position on governance, that doesn't present the totality of the critique

its about how we relate to each other ultimately, ya?

i am thinking about the sort of distinction that exists between shallow ecology (environmentalism) and deep ecology

shallow anarchy might look something like libertarianism (no government) and deep anarchy might look something like relationship anarchy (direct application of anarchist principles to every interpersonal relation as well as a rejection of institutional control structures like governments)

just spitballin here, but would this be a useful distinction for anarchist critique?

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

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

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

should anarchists pragmatically support balkanization?

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

i am not suggesting that we never import anything, but to be dependent on those imports means that the exporter can make demands on the importers, ones that they cannot refuse without dire consequences

it seems to me that food sovereignty is a necessary condition to even begin the process of building anarchic relations.