u/wompt

can nuclear technology - being as dangerous and requiring the expertise, the security and the supply chain that it does - ever be produced without involving chains of command?

This isn't even taking into consideration the power imbalance created by one institution providing electricity to millions. a people dependent on one institution for all of their household electricity creates a serious backdoor to exploit the household.

I had asked the sub a little while back what their understanding of hierarchy was and I was met with many personal definitions of the word. some actually understood what hierarchy meant, to quote humanispherian:

> Hierarchies are really made up of collections of social roles, which are themselves invested with some kind of superiority or inferiority.

this was not the general way that the word was being used by most users, and most users seemed to agree that hierarchy was at the center of anarchist analysis.

So, to wrap back around to the OP:

If anarchy is anti-hierarchy, and we cannot agree on what is and is not hierarchy, then how are we supposed to have coherent conversations within this millieu?

depending on where your mother gave birth to you, it may be very difficult to renounce a nationality, but in the so called united states, you can actually renounce your citizenship without acquiring another nationality - info here

so, what do yall think about this? would any of you do it even knowing that it would make your life far more difficult?

• would there be any difference in how anarchists find a place to live in rural areas vs urban centers?
• how would making a place differ from using an already made but unused space?
• what if two anarchists are trying to claim the same spot, how might the dispute be resolved?

clearly an anarchist can simply ignore it, say that its not my place to interfere in them building an army, but sometimes the consequences of doing so, like if they build a large enough army somewhere nearby, then there is a high probability of it becoming my problem in the near future

so lets assume we are approaching it as if we are in a situation that seems like it could turn into our problem sometime in the near future.

• UNITY: the coming together of multiple individuals in order to act as a singular body

to be clear about this, any business is a unity - multiple individuals coming together as a unit to do some thing. It seems as though the individualist orientation is a straight up refusal of unity, and there doesn't seem to be any signs of that position changing.

Is it against the anarchist spirit to unify? Always retaining the individual stance, never allowing a group to make decisions for the anarchist?

If anarchists have no reason to expect any sort of unity, if we are always a swarm of individuals, how might that impact how we organize?

If unities are always temporary, existing in pursuit of some goal and ceasing to exist when that goal is realized, then do we need some sort of meta-unity to organize these temporal ones? (even if that looks like a community message board, but i reckon we can do better)

is there a better word for this? are all constitutions foundings of states, or can you have a constitution that has nothing to do with a state?

what duties and responsibilities come with identifying as an anarchist? what sacrifices have to be made to wear the label?

so many identities have become absolutely meaningless. for example, the "christian" that goes to church once a week and then spends the rest of it acting against the very values that they claim to hold

this seems to be just like the anarchist who accepts employment, national identification, landlord/tenant relationships, hierarchical arrangements in the organizations they participate in, etc. - and i understand that being a "pure anarchist" is to make interacting with basically anything in modern society damn near impossible, but for those that just go on interacting with modern society instead, in what sense are they anarchists?

there seems to be a lot of solicitation for advice on coupling and romance on this sub, which sort of excludes those of us not interested in coupling or romance.

but since RA doesn't particularly advocate or make its study any specific type of relationship, what do yall think RA means outside of these contexts?

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?