r/Anarchy101

i have a friend who works in one and i’m conflicted because i know she genuinely cares about the people and she makes a point on people who self admit knowing they need to relieve their autonomy to something else temporarily. i still don’t know how to feel about it in general but especially self admittance.

Question as stated

Hello all,

Beginner anarchist here, and I'm a teacher at a school in France. As you know there's a ton of riots and protests organized by students in France over poor education conditions. My particular school has not been affected by these, but it has gotten me thinking.

I firmly believe that anyone who is affected by a decision should have a role in making the decision. As such, students should have more agency in the administration of their education. At the same time, students might not necessarily be experts in the best educational practices. I'm torn between respecting student agency and asserting control over my classroom; classes where I've given more leeway to students about class rules and such have seen far more problems than others.

Can someone point me to some reading or explain an anarchist view of education? And, at the same time, understanding that we don't currently live in an anarchist society, how can I apply that in my classroom without too much trouble?

I agree that all hierarchies are inherently bad and should be abolished, but I have a few problems with how a society without a state would work.

1: Welfare. It has been proven that welfare improves people's lives and happiness. How would that be handled without the state? I think we can all agree that free education and healthcare is a positive thing that improves society.

2: Security. I agree that the police are pretty useless, but I think they act as a good deterrent for people to not hurt others. What stops a person from just killing people? How would that work?

I understand anarchists are opposed military drafts. But also oppose fasism. So how would Hitler be defeated without the allied forces? Would accepting the draft be seen as supporting US imperialism? Would rejecting it be seen as standing by while facists conquered Europe?

​

Correct if am wrong, but as I understand it the Anarchists want to do away with state entirely, viewing it as inherently illegitimate and unjust.

While the Libertarian socialists, view the state as legitimate, but with great limits and constraints, preferring a "Night-Watchman" state.

Is this roughly correct?

So when it comes to anarchism I am on board however I am curious how exactly this pure democratic system of societies would handle things like religious groups or extremist groups. You know, vocal minorities which are fervently dedicated to their cause. When it comes to religion you can’t just ban it because firstly, liberty but also practically, religion is an extremely powerful force in modern society. I mean there have been times that a ban on religion has had disastrous effects such as with the first republic of France. Also leaders like Napoleon and Genghis Khan knew smartly that religion was delicate and legalised freedom of religious expression. I think that religious groups and other extreme ideologies like the far right could cause serious unrest within these horizontal power structures even when limited to a small size in an individual commune.

Also what about when for example deciding the education curriculum there are some which want to teach about LGBTQ people and some that want to ban discussion of LGBTQ people because I think that a simple disagreement here could potentially lead to problems.

I do think that horizontal power structures have a lot of merit within small concentrations but people can get pretty violent when their fundamental ideas that they have made part of their identity are challenged.

Like I keep seeing tone of larp ideology with anarcho in front of it, what’s the difference, cuz their asking for the same thing when they talk about how anarchy should be achieved but they disagree about everything else

Like how do anarcho capitalist and anarcho communist see each others?

Im young, and just started to read real theory some weeks ago, but for what I have learned, both communism and anarquism seem to have the same if not similar goals in the short term. And, after reading principles of communism by Engels, he says that they shall

"come to an understanding with these democratic socialists"

meaning by democratic socialist:

" proletarians who are not yet sufficiently clear about the conditions of the liberation"

Definition that I though would apply to an anarquist comming from a communist point of view. But then I started joining some communitys, one of them being the reddit of Antimonymemes, they were presenting a meme talking about how "based" were the communist revolutionarys for killing those who opposed them such as nazis, libertarians and anarquists. In the comments I made a simple one that I would like to recall

-Killing the anarquists is kinda, Engels himself told us not to become enemies with similar idealogys

That was it. And some minutes later I was banned. The reason was for being a "capitalism apologist" The moderation send a Buch of lennin and other sources quotes that I read, and while they were talking about the differences between both. Those seemed to be more in the roots than anything. I also learned about the conflict between Makhno's revolution and the volcheviks. So this whole thing made me think 2 things. That some people should not be reddit mods, and that there must be some intense dilema that keeps anarquism and communism so away of each other. I don't think any other idealogy can search for something so similar while deeply hating others that also do (but im not that well informed so I'm probably wrong)

In an anarchist framework how are the boundaries of a commune or autonomous zone defined, like how is it determined where one commune ends and another begins? Regarding natural resources, how is it determined what communities & people have access to what? And regarding membership: can anyone just move to an autonomous zone and instantly become a member, or are there mutual agreements required to join?

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 am someone who, personally, thinks anarchism isn’t stupid but rather something that could work if done correctly. My idea is that the communes would, like, come together every now and then to help each other out should some communes be experiencing a disaster or something. Does this go against anarchism’s values or would this work?

What does Anarchy as a model have over structured societal humanism. Why is the state as a concept itself the issue and not the forms it takes or has taken. Why could the state, for example, not be one big charity and material distribution multiplier beyond a half assed utilitarian welfare state as we think of it today in the same terms as i put forward.

Which large-scale hierarchy should be dismantled first?

I've encountered a few different answers to this question. Many would say capitalism. Others argue that systemic racism needs to go first. Ivan Ilyich in Deschooling Society suggested that replacing our education system may lead to other inequalities falling.

I'll share my answer in a moment, but here are my questions:

First, what are the opinions of anarchist and anarchist-adjacent writers on this matter?

Second, what are your thoughts about this?

Here's my belief: we need to attack not only all systemic hierarchies (like capitalism, white supremacy, cisheteropatriarchy, ableism, statism, etc.) at once, but we also need to change the general public's preference for hierarchical arrangements of people. My main reason is that hierarchies are intertwined. Capitalism is inextricably linked to states, for example, so attacking one not only helps weaken the other but also may be necessary to destroy either one.

hi! i'm currently trying to read theory and understand my political views better, but since i can't just go and buy a ton of books, i downloaded them on pdf in my laptop. just, one issue... i can't focus properly, which irks me because i want to truly know what i'm talking about when defending my anarcho-communist views. any tips to retain attention?

I am an anarchist, but I’m also a pacifist plus and herbalist in training. I am unsure if I can be a pacifist and an anarchist at the same time.

I hate the government and even the leader of my own country, I don’t like the systems like the healthcare system and so many others.

But I also don’t like violence and I always try to find a solution that has no violence.

Any advice?

Hola, alguien tiene algunas recomendaciones de libros y autores anarquistas, especialmente me gustaría leer sobre anarcosindicalismo.
Si tienen recomendaciones comenten.

I identify with some tenants of anarchism and really appreciate the emphasis on doing away with hierarchies. If you look at tribes, even in the present day, hunter gatherers who don't store food or rely on territory (ie salmon runs) are very often egalitarian. I am genuinely wondering on what makes people drawn to anarchism over egalitarianism?

Even if someone were to agree with the ideology of anarchism, the conversation is immediately made more difficult because the term is so loaded with pre-disposition that I think often, people will just shut down and think you're a maniac. The thing anarchy relies on, mass participation in it, is driven away by the label itself due to both propaganda and many people believing that the 'state of nature' is chaos without law, religion, etc.

It would be pretty difficult for someone to successfully scare people about egalitarian politics lol. The main argument would be what it basically always is - what happens when the egalitarian society is invaded or pressed by a hierchichal state, with all of its machinery, funding and nationalism? And of course in this scenario it's likely the same answer -- you don't have it without mass participation in the first place, and there would (and is as we see with basically every tribe subscribing to it) be mutual defense.

So what is it about anarchism specifically that draws you over egalitarianism? What would you say to people whose concern is lawlessness or eventually being bordered by a menacing nation-state?

Here to learn.

I'm working my way through a reading list (very slowly) and I've recently put out a call for mutual aid from friends (doing chores I can rarely do), are there other ways I can participate in anarchist practice when I'm mostly stuck in my house? Anything I haven't thought of that might be accessible to me? Perspective changes I can have, perhaps?

Thanks for any ideas ❤️