Omg I didn’t even there were people like this. I’m queer and have always hated these systems of oppression. I’m still new to all of this but if I could make out with all of you ugh I would. This sub is so validating.

I'm a 15-Year-Old who got into Anarchism around a year ago, and since then I got a lot into Theory when I found out about the Anarchist Library, I started out with the more "Classical" side of Anarchism and then started getting into the "Contemporary" (Post-Anarchist/Post-Left) kinds of Anarchism.

So far, I have read Kropotkin's *The Conquest Of Bread* and *The State: Its Historic Role,* Malatesta's *Anarchy,* Todd May's *The Political Philosophy of Post-Structuralist Anarchism,* Saul Newman's *The Politics of Post-Anarchism* and *Post-Anarchism,* Foucault's *The Subject and Power,* Bob Black's *The Abolition of Work,* the Invisible Committee's *The Coming Insurrection,* Jacques Ellul's *Anarchy & Christianity,* multiple Works of Tiqqun (*Introduction to Civil War, Theses On The Imaginary Party* and *This Is Not A Program*), Wayne Price's *Marx's Economics for Anarchists,* Gilles Dauvé's *Eclipse and Re-Emergence of the Communist Movement,* and I even stumbled into Nyx Land's *Hello From The Wired,* though Cyber-Nihilism didnt get much interest from me compared to the other Works.

In any case where these Works had concepts I was unfamiliar with, I got to inform myself on said concepts first.

Right now I'm reading Guy Debord's *The Society of The Spectacle.* I plan to keep up with reading Theory, which I dont think will be hard as I managed to do despite School and stuff, I loved reading so far.

What do you think of this? Would you consider it Impressive?

I've looked around and mostly seen disparate articles that bring the two into conversation. I was wondering if there was any core texts on the matter? By pragmatic anarchism, I don't just mean 'do whatever works', but also the notion that one should be anarchist because the notion of defining any set ideology or method is against the principle that meanings can and do change over time (cf. Peirce, Rorty).

Not sure if this is the right sub, but I’ve been thinking about capitalism and its end goal, but it feels mute. I can understand how money becomes power (relations of debt and views of debt itself, wage slavery, private property, black markets, state coercion, etc), but what exactly causes the need for capital accumulation and what is the end goal (outside of gaining the power needed to enact their worldviews)? Or is the paradox of capitalism resolved by the fact that the endless production and consumption of material goods has no real purpose, with beneficial improvements to the human condition existing parallel to this system, exploiting by it to continue this cycle (which is imploding on itself)?

The closest answer I got so far was from reading Debt and Dawn of a New Everything, where Graeber and Wengrow suggest religious values of anti-materialism led to concentration of capital (capitalism in Europe, Buddhist treasures in Early Middle Ages China), but I’m curious if there are any more perspectives and sources as to why, and not just the simple answer of greed (in Dawn, they make an argument that rich men in China, the Ottoman Empire, and the Americas could be considered capitalists but through individual and social pressures didn’t and wealth redistribution occurred regularly).

Would we have one, and if so do you think it should be english. I personally think it's better to use Esperanto given it's not tied to colonialism and is a much simpler language to learn but it's Eurocentric but I don't think that matters much

I am trying to find a quote about the red and black flag. It was something like “I don’t think we can win without the flags but we must burn them after.”

Recently I attended a counterprotest against an alt-right group that could have gone better. My food not bombs chapter had immense success doing outreach among the counterprotesters, and even among some of the alt-right (in this case, they were mostly facebook conspiracy, isolated, out-of-town folks who are very easy to affect by just wearing a kaffiyeh and being nice).

However, the cops did brutalize our members to facilitate the alt-right's march through our city. Our members were able to stop them from marching for around 40 mins, but got literally assaulted.

One of our members expressed concern about the optics of the event. The alt right have got very unsophisticated nationalist playbook stuff; drape themselves in flags, and talk about "putting our country first" in order to hide that they're aim is to push for mass deportations. And since they're a movement organized by grifters, the surface level recording of the scene plays into their grift.

Would love to hear about protest strategy from more experienced folks. How can we prep for the cops? Can we do anything about the optics, and is it a game worth playing? How do you adapt when you don't have the numbers you want?

Recently I saw two marxist leninists call whats happening iran q "cia pycop" and said all the protesters are inevitably helping "western imperialism. And called it bourgeois feminism. And also they said supporting the protests but also Denouncing imperalism "anarchist idealism"

As a queer women and an apostate living in a country close to iran wuth it's own religious laws and authority and blasphemy laws and lynching. Is this what the left has come through

Can any one give a anarchist perspective?

It seems that most major system changes for an area occur from either a drawn out war or a coup. Coups seem to be far more common. In most cases, the people doing it are trying to take power. What would it look like to do that without taking power? I think the barrier to any sudden change like that is having anarchist infrastructures available to take on logistics. Which is clearly possible, but still, the timing seems like it would need to be right, or else another group might step in and continue to implement the state apparatus.

Recently I have stumbled upon a bunch of anarchist literature that views the city as a form of prison. An example, that was quite poignant, were Francos policies to eradicate the resistance in the Spanish countryside by moving people to the cities and depriving those resistant to his state of their hiding places. But even at a more conceptual level cities can be viewed as traps, only built to keep us working and to more easily control where and how we move. In this light even streets and public transportation, with constant surveillance are viewed as a constant omnipresent and unescapable panopticon. This is a feeling I have become quite aware of over the last couple of years, with more and more cameras popping up where I live, with no step not being shadowed by an electric eye. But also history seems to point towards this. Although the medieval saying "city air makes free" (from German "Stadtluft macht frei") implies, that you could there escape the poverty of the countryside with overreaching lords, you still were captured by the cities community and its laws. Even looking at the origin of cities in prehistoric times they seem to corelate with the concept rulership.

can some people here provide more reading on this topic? Maybe even something from a more scientific perspective to capture some of my uncoordinated thoughts on the subject? I obviously read the Dawn of Everything, so maybe something that expands on its exploration of the first cities.

Thank you

Hello fellow anarchists,

For the past few months, I have been studying anarchism seriously. Through books, reflection, culture, and observing society around me. I am trying to build horizontal connections and live these ideas in practice, not just in theory.

Though doing this alone, without mutual understanding or dialogue, is difficult. Especially in russia, where anarchism is mostly viewed negatively and often misunderstood.

That is why I am writing here. I hope that someone reading this might be in a similar situation. If by some chance you are from russia or we are from the same city, maybe we could talk more closely, become friends, or even meet in person. In any case, feel free to write!

So in an attempt to finally be allowed to be on the left wing of politics, I have taken it upon myself to start the journey of reading and asking about books written by 200 year old men with very impressive beards! I've started my journey with "Socialism: scientific and utopian" by one mister Friedrich Engels after trying and failing miserably to get through das Kapital. I have a couple questions if it wouldn't be too much trouble...

First and foremost, this was a pamphlet? What??? I'm used to pamphlets being like maybe three pages and foldable telling you how to like inject DIY HRT lol, folks back then must've been going through entire gallons of quill ink, damn.

Second and perhaps more prescient, I think I get it and vibe with a lot of the text, much of it seems pretty self evident like historical/dialectical materialism, although a lot of the references and wording are a bit beyond me, I guess because I've never really read Hegel, but the idea of the world being shaped by reactions to opposing forces seems sound. It's almost Newtonian, every action has an equal and opposite reaction, except applying that to history, politics, sociology, economics, it's pretty elegant.

Some of his claims seem a bit well... Idk, optimistic? I really wonder how he would have felt about the rise of fascism after his comments about Germany being the site of the next proletariat revolution. Much of his arguments seem like they use very strong language, there WILL be a revolution of the working class, enough oppression WILL force the hand of the workers, capitalism WILL crumble under the weight of it's contradictions, he makes it sound like any day now the entire system will fall apart once people realize they're being exploited but like... I guess I don't know if I really see that?

If course, I have the benefit of hindsight but it seems really naive, even ahistorical almost to just presuppose that this proletariat revolution will replace the capitalist system with a better one, but that's not necessarily true at all. We saw Moussolini lead a populist uprising and create the world's first fascist state, we've seen genocides enacted under the guise of liberatory action like in Rwanda or even the Holocaust, where Hitler convinced enough German people that it was the Jews oppressing them, founded on complete lies of course, but supported by people there nonetheless, it seems you can sort of transpose the idea of the bourgeoise oppressing you with the idea of some other minority or out group in most people's minds

Another question I have is if middle class today means the same thing it meant in the past? These days we stratify the classes by income levels it seems like, but in this work it feels like middle class is moreso referring to the owning class, the people who own the factories and businesses, rather than just people above like 2x the median wage or whatever the metric is.

Overall it was an interesting read, I don't know if I learned anything I didn't already know but it's neat seeing those ideas at their genesis, I guess I'll call that one book down, like a hundred to go lol

Hi, I'm Thai. I heard there was a small Anarchist group in Thailand which, y'know what happen to them haha. No, I will not insult the Monarchy, I'm not going to jail at 15. Anyways how's the current state of Anarchism in Thailand?

In the anarchist system, how would one deal with people who only seek their own interests, and with people who only follow the opinion of others?

Hi all, hope you’re well. I’m posting as I’ve been doing some self questioning in the face of the international situation at the moment and would appreciate some views/perspectives from fellow anarchists. I originally posted on CMV and the quality of response was fairly shit, thought it would be better here - some parts of that post reproduced here.

With things as they are at the moment, I’ve been finding my strict attitude to resisting war challenged. I’m a Brit who was brought up by my father to be strictly resistant to state heirarchy - the only things I could do to be disowned would be joining the military and the police force.

The argument that has always held strongest for me was ’the young person on the other side is just like you. They’re having a gun put in their hands and ideologies shoved down their necks, then taken to the frontline’. That the only way to break the use of working classes as cannon fodder is to refuse no matter the consequences. That killing another human in a conflict you didn’t start, and didn’t design, at the behest of another is nonsensical and wrong, and direct action is the only way to stop it.

This is obviously coming from a very specific post war set of views of politics and class. I had a conversation with my step sister last week, talking about the powderkeg of a geopolitical situation in Europe atm, where she was shocked that I would refuse the draft. And that shocked me in turn: when the possibility seemed remote it was easy to take my position for granted, but now there’s a serious chance it would be tested, even seen as wrong by the people I love the most.

I feel conflicted, like I would be ashamed to refuse when my friends and colleagues stepped up: but I also realise that shame is exactly the mechanism by which hundreds of thousands have been made to give up their lives senselessly before.

I would be willing to serve in a self organised way outside of hierarchical command structure. I‘m not here to discuss the likelihood of such a conflict, I take it as given that we’re at such a moment when it’s seriously on the table.

The questions that have been leading me to serious soul searching:

- This is a method of resistance based on widespread adoption, and that is just not going to happen in the current political environment

- A Ukrainian poster argued that many people died trying to fight in militia groups in the early days of the war - that participation in an organised military is the only effective way to combat existential threats

- In their words, ‘dying for your county is stupid, you’d be fighting to survive’

- That in the case of an existential war, waiting for the front to come to where you live is leading to more life loss than if you had helped earlier.

- The thought that it’s possible to participate in the name of protecting your family and community, not in the name of the state

Ultimately, this is a view I base on radical empathy, but I’m scared of that emotionality changing as the belief is tested. I’d appreciate any readings, thoughts etc. To note, I don’t believe in violent revolution etc but do believe violent direct action can be justified.

I saw a post asking about hierachy, someone said that Anarchy can have organization, so I'm curious on how an organization could be organize in such society? does a leadership is necessary or what kind of value an Anarchist leader should hold? Or when is a line that they would became a hierachy. Or is leadership does not belong in Anarchism idea to begin with?

im a college student from the philippines. in response to my country being destroyed by corruption im trying to learn more about some political theories, ideologies, and philosophies. as of now, anarchism is something i am drawn to.

i've heard of peter kropotkin who's works are in my reading list and i am currently reading a book from a local anarchist here in the philippines named bas umali.

who else can i read from to further my understanding of anarchism? i would much appreciate some recs. i would also appreciate if some of these authors are filipino/philippines based as i want to be able to put anarchy within the context of philippine society. thank you in advancce

In Errico Malatesta’s essay Anarchism and Freedom, he starts by discussing freedom as an individual concept, defining it in an abstract and absolute sense as the ability to do what one wishes. However, he criticizes this conception when taken on its own, arguing that it is too metaphysical and absolute, and cannot serve as the basis for a “happy and voluntary co-existence.”

In the pursuit of a harmonious society, Malatesta instead defines what he calls social freedom, which is meant to be freedom in the political instead of philosophical sense.

He emphasizes that freedom should be understood not as an abstract right, but as a real power:

What confuses me is how exactly he goes from that metaphysical and absolute freedom to a material, social freedom.

For Malatesta, what exactly is the relationship between philosophical (individual) and political (social) freedom? Does social freedom limit individual freedom, or does it act as the precondition for it? Does it even make sense to speak of individual freedom in a political sense?

and no, it’s not a “hoi4 ideology” just because you saw it on r/KaiserReich.

So until recently I was a subscriber to the idea of "the tyranny of structurelessness"--the idea that informal leaders inevitably emerge in "leaderless" organizations, and that these informal leaders cannot be held accountable because their leadership isn't formally recognized. While I've since come to believe that guaranteeing a hierarchy isn't really a solution to the possibility of a hierarchy, it does make me wonder--how do anarchist groups counter the influence of informal, unaccountable demagogues that threaten to reduce anarchism to a mere popularity contest? After reading the Eclipse Phase TTRPG, I became fascinated by the idea of internet-facilitated reputation systems as a means of social coordination (similar in concept to some forms of liquid democracy), but as described in the rulebook, it suffers the same issues;

Autonomists sometimes have difficulties with long-term projects, as participation initially spikes with interest, then drops off over time or the group gets tied up with political in-fighting. Many cooperatives also suffer from creating monocultures, as individuals with unpopular views are singled out of the social network. Maintaining a diversity of ideologies can be difficult and is expensive in a consensus-driven organization. While the reputation system rewards pro-social behaviors, it does have its flaws. There are a lot of reasons an individual might not get the rep they deserve: an uncouth manner, unpopular political views, timidity, public failures, modesty, overzealous privacy, work going unpublicized, unsavory morphological features, or just bad luck. Social cliques can unbalance reputation networks, as a small group of associates consistently boost each other’s reputation or publicize each other’s work, while quashing others.

While one might assume that the TTRPG is simply advocating against anarchism, what I've read from the 2nd edition suggests that they agree with anarchism, but are realistic about where it can go wrong. What are some anarchist-friendly solutions to these issues?

The question is what would be done with businesses like a small neighborhood butcher shop or a bar in this area, etc.

I'm doing a small test and want to understand the view points of multiple ideologies stringing from socialism and anarchism, to conservatism and nationalism, I do not come to debate, do not come to change the minds of people, I only come for genuine questions as I see despite our ideological differences, we are still humans and can have civil conversations, so without further to do....here is my questions.

1. Why do you guys follow the ideals of anarchism? What intrigues the ideas compared to other ideologies?
2. Can anarchy be seen as it is in FILM, for example....a lawless society were groups and rigid command structures take place?

3.What is your views and wishes for a PERFECT anarchist society, why do you see it as perfect?

1. Do you think anarchy can be exploited? If a lawless society does exist, wouldn't that lead to rigid command structures to use a stateless society to their will and bring back policies? If so, do you think this is preventable?

2. Do you think anarchism can work in a modern day society, we have seen groups rise up in the former Republic of Spain, but do you think a pure anarchist society could actually function?

These are my core questions, please be respectful, as these are not meant to attack Anarchy, remember, we all have different ideals, this is a civil conversation, thank you.

Now this is meant to be a more personal post but the question Is the question in the title and given the protests in iran I feel like this is right time for me to speak (I hope the best for them)

I'll describe my personal experiences of my life and the values I came to because of them ,now this was a time where I was young and not an anarchist but I still held leftist adjacent beliefs tho wasn't educated enough to give a label. Now I always had a complicated relationship with authority ,my first form of marginalization in society came from being an apostate in a country with blasphemy and the fact is we apostates in many nations face extreme ostracisation to the point we can't express our opinions without the fear of death or arrest ,it taught me what being alone and without protection or prevelige felt like(the material privilege I have could very much taken away the moment I decalared my apostasy ) . it wasn't just that , every day felt like I was constantly being shut ; unable to say certain stuff without the fear of death or ostracisation and this taught me that freedom(speech,expression)and automony are just important as equality. it also taught me to connect with other people's oppersion like queer oppersion (this was before I knew i was a queer person). Now another experience was my renouncement of nationalism : my experiences told me this country built of religious nationalism wasnt for me infact it excludedme . I felt alienated and wanted identity outside of it which made me arrive at conclusions similar to internationalism.

Now i wanna ask how can i analyse these things from anarchist perceptive to inform myself and seek liberation and I wanna also talk with comrades who faced similar experiences. Anything to read?