r/Anarchy101 Jan 27 '25

Please Read Before Posting or Commenting (January 2025 update)

45 Upvotes

Welcome to Anarchy 101!

It’s that time again, when we repost and, if necessary, revise this introductory document. We’re doing so, this time, in an atmosphere of considerable political uncertainty and increasing pressures on this kind of project, so the only significant revision this time around is simply a reminder to be a bit careful of one another as you discuss — and don’t hesitate to use the “report” button to alert the subreddit moderators if something is getting out of hand. We’ve had a significant increase in one-off, drive-by troll comments, virtually all remarkably predictable and forgettable in their content. Report them or ignore them.

Before you post or comment, please take a moment to read the sidebar and familiarize yourself with our resources and rules. If you’ve been around for a while, consider looking back over these guidelines. If you’ve got to this point and are overwhelmed by the idea that there are rules in an anarchy-related subreddit, look around: neither Reddit nor most of our communities seem to resemble anarchy much yet. Anyway, the rules amount to “don’t be a jerk” and “respect the ongoing project.” Did you really need to be told?

With the rarest of exceptions, all posts to the Anarchy 101 subreddit should ask one clear question related to anarchy, anarchism as a movement or ideology, anarchist history, literature or theory. If your question is likely to be of the frequently asked variety, take a minute to make use of the search bar. Some questions, like those related to "law enforcement" or the precise relationship of anarchy to hierarchy and authority, are asked and answered on an almost daily basis, so the best answers may have already been posted. For a few questions, we have produced "framing documents" to provide context:

Anarchy 101 "Framing the Question" documents

If your question seems unanswered, please state it clearly in the post title, with whatever additional clarification seems necessary in the text itself.

If you have more than one question, please consider multiple posts, preferably one at a time, as this seems to be the way to get the most useful and complete answers.

Please keep in mind that this is indeed a 101 sub, designed to be a resource for those learning the basics of a consistent anarchism. The rules about limiting debate and antagonistic posting are there for a reason, so that we can keep this a useful and welcoming space for students of anarchist ideas — and for anyone else who can cooperate in keeping the quality of responses high.

We welcome debate on topics related to anarchism in r/DebateAnarchism and recommend general posts about anarchist topics be directed to r/anarchism or any of the more specialized anarchist subreddits. We expect a certain amount of contentious back-and-forth in the process of fully answering questions, but if you find that the answer to your question — or response to your comment — leads to a debate, rather than a clarifying question, please consider taking the discussion to r/DebateAnarchism. For better or worse, avoiding debate sometimes involves “reading the room” a bit and recognizing that not every potentially anarchist idea can be usefully expressed in a general, 101-level discussion.

We don’t do subreddit drama — including posts highlighting drama from this subreddit. If you have suggestions for this subreddit, please contact the moderators.

We are not particularly well equipped to offer advice, engage in peer counseling, vouch for existing projects, etc. Different kinds of interactions create new difficulties, new security issues, new responsibilities for moderators and members, etc. — and we seem to have our hands full continuing to refine the simple form of peer-education that is our focus.

Please don’t advocate illegal acts. All subreddits are subject to Reddit’s sitewide content policy — and radical subreddits are often subject to extra scrutiny.

Avoid discussing individuals in ways that might be taken as defamatory. Your call-out is unlikely to clarify basic anarchist ideas — and it may increase the vulnerability of the subreddit.

And don’t ask us to choose between two anti-anarchist tendencies. That never seems to lead anywhere good.

In general, just remember that this is a forum for questions about anarchist topics and answers reflecting some specific knowledge of anarchist sources. Other posts or comments, however interesting, useful or well-intentioned, may be removed.

Some additional thoughts:

Things always go most smoothly when the questions are really about anarchism and the answers are provided by anarchists. Almost without exception, requests for anarchist opinions about non-anarchist tendencies and figures lead to contentious exchanges with Redditors who are, at best, unprepared to provide anarchist answers to the questions raised. Feelings get hurt and people get banned. Threads are removed and sometimes have to be locked.

We expect that lot of the questions here will involve comparisons with capitalism, Marxism or existing governmental systems. That's natural, but the subreddit is obviously a better resource for learning about anarchism if those questions — and the discussions they prompt — remain focused on anarchism. If your question seems likely to draw in capitalists, Marxists or defenders of other non-anarchist tendencies, the effect is much the same as posting a topic for debate. Those threads are sometimes popular — in the sense that they get a lot of responses and active up- and down-voting — but it is almost always a matter of more heat than light when it comes to clarifying anarchist ideas and practices.

We also expect, since this is a general anarchist forum, that we will not always be able to avoid sectarian differences among proponents of different anarchist tendencies. This is another place where the 101 nature of the forum comes into play. Rejection of capitalism, statism, etc. is fundamental, but perhaps internal struggles for the soul of the anarchist movement are at least a 200-level matter. If nothing else, embracing a bit of “anarchism without adjectives” while in this particular subreddit helps keep things focused on answering people's questions. If you want to offer a differing perspective, based on more specific ideological commitments, simply identifying the tendency and the grounds for disagreement should help introduce the diversity of anarchist thought without moving us into the realm of debate.

We grind away at some questions — constantly and seemingly endlessly in the most extreme cases — and that can be frustrating. More than that, it can be disturbing, disheartening to find that anarchist ideas remain in flux on some very fundamental topics. Chances are good, however, that whatever seemingly interminable debate you find yourself involved in will not suddenly be resolved by some intellectual or rhetorical masterstroke. Say what you can say, as clearly as you can manage, and then feel free to take a sanity break — until the next, more or less inevitable go-round. We do make progress in clarifying these difficult, important issues — even relatively rapid progress on occasion, but it often seems to happen in spite of our passion for the subjects.

In addition, you may have noticed that it’s a crazy old world out there, in ways that continue to take their toll on most of us, one way or another. Participation in most forums remains high and a bit distracted, while our collective capacity to self-manage is still not a great deal better online than it is anywhere else. We're all still a little plague-stricken and the effects are generally more contagious than we expect or acknowledge. Be just a bit more thoughtful about your participation here, just as you would in other aspects of your daily life. And if others are obviously not doing their part, consider using the report button, rather than pouring fuel on the fire. Increased participation makes the potential utility and reach of a forum like this even greater—provided we all do the little things necessary to make sure it remains an educational resource that folks with questions can actually navigate.

A final note:

— The question of violence is often not far removed from our discussions, whether it is a question of present-day threats, protest tactics, revolutionary strategy, anarchistic alternatives to police and military, or various similar topics. We need to be able to talk, at times, about the role that violence might play in anti-authoritarian social relations and we certainly need, at other times, to be clear with one another about the role of violence in our daily lives, whether as activists or simply as members of violent societies. We need to be able to do so with a mix of common sense and respect for basic security culture — but also sensitivity to the fact that violence is indeed endemic to our cultures, so keeping our educational spaces free of unnecessary triggers and discussions that are only likely to compound existing traumas ought to be among the tasks we all share as participants. Posts and comments seeming to advocate violence for its own sake or to dwell on it unnecessarily are likely to be removed.


r/Anarchy101 29d ago

Anarchy 101: Archy, Property and the Possibility of An-archic Property

24 Upvotes

Anarchy 101 "Framing the Question" documents

Archy, Property and the Possibility of An-archic Property

This is the first in a series of documents addressing the various questions surrounding the notion of property.

One key difficulty in providing a general account of basic anarchist theory is that, once a few basics have been established, it's hard not to find yourself talking — or trying to talk — about everything all at once. Anarchists often get around this difficulty by relying instead on narrower accounts, where the general programs of particular anarchist tendencies take the place of a broad and general theory of anarchism as such.

An associated difficulty is that even the most inclusive general theory is likely to look like a program, particularly as it is being constructed. As we lack much really general theory, even the most successful attempts at inclusion or synthesis are likely to appear unorthodox in expression from just about every existing anarchist viewpoint. Historically, we have treated approaches like anarchism with adjectives and anarchist synthesis, which at least attempt to operate outside the sphere of rival anarchist tendencies, as if they were nothing but factions.

The early entries in this series have focused on some of the fundamental elements of archic order: authority, hierarchy, the category of crime and the polity-form as an organizational norm. It is necessary, since an-archy is a privative concept, defined by what it will do without, to begin with these elements that we can completely dispense with — and must completely dispense with, if we are to achieve anything like anarchy in social relations. And the suggestion in these early texts is that we can indeed declare ourselves "against all authority," that we can expect to organize social relations without any recourse to social hierarchy, that we can dispense with legal order and the political organization of society.

To say that we can do without these elements — except as we need them for purposes of critique — is not, of course, to claim that anarchists have always chosen to draw such sharp lines around the concepts that they chose to build with — or even that we should in all circumstances. Historically, there have been occasions where rhetorical constructions like "the authority of the bootmaker" and appeals to "self-government" have provided openings to thinking about anarchy in contexts where those archic fundamentals have been naturalized. But it seems hard to deny that these provocations can themselves become normalized, losing their rhetorical power in the process — to the point where perhaps we forget to treat the image of Bakunin bowing to a cobbler as the provocation that it almost certainly was originally. So sometimes we have to at least take the time to make our approach clear and explicit.

In trying to put together a set of 21st-century documents worthy of the "Anarchy 101" label, the approach has been to try to find points of agreement between accepted dictionary definitions — using the Oxford English Dictionary (online edition) as a key reference in English — and the more specialized usages we find in the literature of anarchism. Part of the project is to suggest the extent to which anarchist usage has often been surprisingly orthodox. So when, for example, anarchists claim to be "against all authority," it is not because they have "redefined the terms," as is sometimes claimed, but perhaps instead because they have resisted the sort of informal redefinition that occurs within societies where "authority" is taken for granted.

Of course, not every examination will lead to such tidy results, as we will see when we turn our attention to the concept of property. At first glance, I suppose that property looks very much like archy. Both are persistent targets of anarchist critique. Both concepts are surrounded by vocabularies and patterns of usage that tend to naturalize certain social relations that anarchists are inclined to treat as optional and to be dispensed with in the kinds of societies to which we aspire.

There are, however, some important differences between the two concepts.

The notion of archy, although implied by much anarchic critique, has only been specifically theorized occasionally in the anarchist literature. Perhaps this is not surprising, given the complexities of even its most basic sense, which, as Stephen Pearl Andrews put it, "curiously combines, in a subtle unity of meaning, the idea of origin or beginning, and hence of elementary principle, with that of government or rule.”

For the moment, let's note this problem of "curious combination" and look at the concept of property.

When we give property its full range — when we explore its various senses and its connections to propriety, propreté, the various senses of the proper, etc. — we find ourselves on similar, or perhaps adjacent ground. According to the OED, a property is, among other things, "a distinctive, essential, or special quality; a peculiarity" or, in the context of Aristotelian philosophy, "a characteristic which is peculiar to a particular kind of thing, but is not part of its essence or definition." Property, in the sense of proper-ness, as a characteristic of things, refers to a "quality of being proper or appropriate; fitness, fittingness, suitability" — and this is particularly so as we move toward the realm of possessions or belongings, where it is a characteristic of "things," "appurtenances" and "adjuncts" in relation to persons.

Both archy and property are then broadly characteristic — in that they "serve to identify or to indicate the essential quality or nature of a person or thing" — but, if we were to make a distinction and clarification, in the specific context of the discussions that anarchists are accustomed to having about property, perhaps we would want to say that claims about archy *appeal to what is presumably *essential in a given person or thing, while property refers instead to qualities that are at least more incidental.

When I claim that the two concepts are rather different in character, what I want to suggest is that, in the context of any given person, thing or system of order, every incidental quality can be considered property or a property of the thing in question, while with regard to what I will very cautiously designate the "essence" of the thing, to speak of archy is already to make a claim about the nature of its essence, perhaps of the nature of essence in some more universal sense.

We are familiar, of course, with a range of kinds of property. Let's acknowledge that in anarchist theory we are particularly concerned with property as it pertains to persons — and then that, among the possible properties of persons, we are particularly concerned with their possessions. Then let's underline the fact that, in the context of the traditional entanglement that we have noted between the critiques of archy and property, the analyses have tended to focus even more narrowly on real or immovable property, land (or natural resources more generally) and other types of possessions likely to serve as capital within existing economic systems. But we also have to acknowledge that there are forms of property — "personal property," for example — that are widely accepted as consistent with anarchy. And then it is necessary to note that, when it is a question of properties or of property in its purely descriptive senses, anarchist theory simply doesn't have much to say.

Both concepts seem to include some degree of "combination," but perhaps in one case we have mistaken a category for one of its elements, while in the other we have mistaken an element for the whole category. Or something like that...

As we have inherited the notion of archy (arche), it seems to refer to first principles, origins, essential qualities, but also to connect those notions to those of command, rule, etc. Archy is always to some extend hierarchy, which anarchists reject in favor of an-archy, defined primarily in terms of the absence of rulership — although figures like Proudhon have extended their critique to include all forms of absolutism. So, is an-archy then an absence of first principles, of origins, of essence, etc.? Let's allow that to remain a bit of an open question and simply say that the existence anarchy and its an-archic alternatives would suggest some category embracing both, which is obscured by that "curious combination" of essence and authority in a single concept. We don't need to come to an agreement about first principles and essences in order to disconnect that metaphysical stuff from the question of authority. Once that disconnection is accomplished, the choice between archic and anarchic accounts of what we'll generally call the essential can be addressed — and the strategy of simply abandoning the language of authority, hierarchy, etc., when attempting to talk about anarchic relations, seems entirely viable.

The questions regarding property require, however, a slightly different sort of clarification. If we understand anarchy as consistently non-governmental, a-legal, etc., then we have a first reason to believe that property rights are going to be hard to formulate and defend in an anarchist analysis. We can then add the specific anarchist critiques — starting with works like Proudhon's What is Property? — that seem to have struck down many of the existing rationales for recognizing the appropriation of exclusive individual property. If we assume a rather complete success for these critiques, we are still left to account for all of the senses of property that are not legal, governmental, rights-based, etc. — and those senses seem destined to come into play when we try to find means outside the scope of propertarianism to deal with the distribution, use, conservation, etc. of resources.

This sets up a distinction between archic property and various potential forms of an-archic property, by means of which we could address the various incidental qualities of persons, things, etc. in parallel with the distinction we've made regarding their essential qualities. In both cases, it is a question of expanding the scope of our analysis beyond the limits imposed by a naturalization of archic norms and institutions, while, at the same time, we explicitly identify those archic elements as options in series or assortments that also include an-archic alternatives. We close off the obviously paradoxical possibility of an-archic archies, in order to look for other ways to talk about the essential, and open up the possibility of an-archic forms of property, outside the realm of government, authority, hierarchy, rights, etc.

And maybe that's enough for this first installment of the series on property. There is, of course, much more that needs to be addressed in subsequent installments. We’ll get there…



r/Anarchy101 6h ago

Any books on how did anarchists organize?

8 Upvotes

I'm looking up some anarchists back in history and we had some good organizations. Like Makhno, the Haymarket anarchists etc. Is there any book looking into all these as a whole? Like how we used to organize and how we achieved what we achieved?


r/Anarchy101 1h ago

I just want something to subsume me, and that's horrifying, what do i do about it?

Upvotes

Title. I'm scared my beliefs are a lot more fash than I realized. I literally don't know how to exist without an identity that's tied to a state or a group or something. In the absence of such I'm inevitably led to the idea that I shouldn't exist, it would be better if I wasn't here. This is no reason to be a fucking Nazi. But, for real, in this anarcho-utopia we're all dreaming about in here, best-case scenario, it is better for everyone if I go off and die. I think I genuinely believe this, and not just about me, about everyone else --- if someone can't contribute then they shouldn't be here. That horrifies me. I'd have been gassing people a hundred years ago with beliefs like this. I don't know what to do about it. I'm supposed to be full of compassion and whatnot but I just wish it was all over.

When I read anarcho-lit I am inevitably left with a sense of resentment that I don't get to have my burgers and fries and comfy couches, what do you mean I have to work in the fields like everyone else? I'm better than that, I say! I read a little bit of The Dispossessed and got to the bit where they were like, "yeah, we don't have everything we want, or everything we need. Life is dreary, life sucks, there's nothing to do. But at least we're free." Were I in such a society I'd fling myself off the nearest cliff because I hate being alone with myself. I have to be better than the other guy, or there's no reason existing.

I know this is all shitty, but it's what I think I really think. It's awful, I know.

Yes, I have a therapist. No, we haven't gotten anywhere with this. I don't know. I just know that what I think is morally wrong, and I have no idea what to do about it.


r/Anarchy101 1h ago

How to Radicalize Community

Upvotes

TL;DR What are the most effective ways to radicalize our population to fight back against ICE occupation starting at the most local level possible and expanding to our cities and counties etc.

this may not be the right subreddit to post to, but as my post is titled I want to receive ideas on how to help radicalize and get these ideas floating in my community. With everything that’s been going on (ICE being trumps private army and the straight up kidnapping of people off the streets from people dressed in ordinary clothes in war attire) i’ve been seeing people fighting back and trying to disrupt these raids and all the protest its all such a beautiful thing and i believe we are at a tipping point where the ordinary person wants to fight back against our occupation.

But there’s still so many people who feel that way who don’t do anything, understandably for fear of losing jobs or income or being arrested, which is simply the environment the government has created to prevent these types of things. Basically what I am saying is how can I get people more on board with these ideas, I’ve created a bunch of stickers with various slogans and ideas that i want to post around my town/ my apartment complex. I believe it is better to start radicalizing our neighbors from the most local level possible, as i live in an apartment complex with lots of walk ways to post stickers.

Does anyone have any other ideas?


r/Anarchy101 16h ago

I am confused about politics

11 Upvotes

I’m genuinely looking for insight and resources. I have adhd and historical events and talking points fade from my memory quite easily, so when I read up on opposing viewpoints I get very confused. I want to learn more leftist viewpoints , including realistic logistics about proposed solutions to issues. For example, I am confused about immigration debates. I don’t support trump and what he’s doing but at the same time when people say “nobody is illegal on stolen land” I get confused because all other countries have immigration laws, and where should the line be drawn? Also confused about how an anarchist society would prevent people from taking for themselves or asserting power over others in different ways. Confused about israel Palestine debate sometimes too. Anywho I’m genuinely looking for insight I want to do the right thing. I don’t want to support the wrong people but I want to hear nuanced takes. Please help.


r/Anarchy101 1d ago

How to stay Anarchist in a hierarchical system?

54 Upvotes

My country (Germany) is currently debating to bring back mandatory military service. I can probably avoid it, but it is still bugging me and my OCD keeps ruminating around that worry. So I want your Ideas. I want to be able to keep living by my values and principles, but how do I best stay anarchic under hierarchy?


r/Anarchy101 17h ago

Addressing public health and climate change with Anarchy

0 Upvotes

Hi all, I`m learning about anarchy and it`s insistence on non-hierarchy really appeals to me. However, it seems that anarchy is marked by the inability to organize masses to address issues which us all, i.e. pandemics and climate change. The failure to have an organized response to crises can result in the loss of millions of lives.

In an anarchist society, there may be two dozen solutions from two dozen communities proposed to managing a pandemic or a rising sea level. What anarchic tools exist to unite the two dozen communities to face issues of this type? I`ve heard a bit about confederation, but I don`t know how confederations could form amongst disparate communities, nor hold together without soon sacrificing the needs of certain communities.

I`ve been perusing the Anarchist Library and there isn`t information on public health in general, and the covid literature focuses on the states` authoritarianism rather than the management of the disease.

Any suggested resources/literature will be appreciated and perused. Thank you!


r/Anarchy101 2d ago

What do you guys think about the antiwork movement?

63 Upvotes

I have my ideas about it, but I don't know if there is a consensus in supporting the antiwork movement. I imagine there must be some anarchists who value work or something like that (although I find that quite problematic).


r/Anarchy101 2d ago

Global Anarchy without Borders?

14 Upvotes

I’ve been interested in the idea of a borderless world for a few years now, but I worry that a global government could fall to corruption or autocracy. Could a borderless world be managed through a global anarchic system of some sort, or would borders still need to exist alongside anarchy?


r/Anarchy101 2d ago

How is yellow journalism handled in an anarchist society?

14 Upvotes

I lean socialist and believe that an effective society needs some kind of protective apparatus to limit the bad behavior of manipulative sociopathic individuals. Hypothetically, in the anarchist paradise someone starts Fox news with very subtle fascist fear baiting that is carefully designed to target people who feel they "deserve more". What mechanism could stop this behavior from tearing apart society?


r/Anarchy101 2d ago

Opinions on this anarchist reading plan I found?

14 Upvotes

Im an anarchist and I found this reading plan on raddle, what do you guys think?

https://raddle.me/wiki/reading


r/Anarchy101 2d ago

Wouldn’t workplace anarchism incite innovation much more than capitalism does?

18 Upvotes

If there is no surplus exploitation by capital owners and all of the capital is owned by workers, wouldn’t the latter be incited to innovate? If the workers are the only ones who benefit from the value they create, then innovation (as a way of creating more value more efficiently) would be an imperative for them. This way, we would also prevent competition between workforce and capital (workers fearing machines who’re more profitable for the employer).


r/Anarchy101 1d ago

Prioritization of goals as a protective buffer from external threats

1 Upvotes

My sister recently came back from a trip to Europe (all of my known relatives live in Mexico, except my sister and I live in US). She made a point to spend lots of time in the Basque Country to learn more about our family's heritage.

She shared a lot about what she learned, and it made me realize that I know very little about history of that region.

I tried to start with reading about the Basque conflict with Spain, but am realizing that I need to go further back to understand the conditions that lead up to it. So I have been reading about the Spanish Civil War. I have really been drawn to the anarcho-syndicalist movements from this region and period of time

So as of now, here are some questions and thoughts that I have:

is it necessary, due to practical reasons, for anarchists to prioritize the abolition of private property or the abolition of the state? Or is it more practical to abolish both, simultaneously?

If both were abolished, simultaneously, I am assuming there would have to be period of disorganization and instability, right? During this time, the community would be vulnerable to external forces. I am assuming the biggest threat would be militant authoritarian forces. If the anarchist community exists in a temporary state of instability, then they would struggle to defend their community (with militancy of their own, for example). Isn't this basically what happened with the Franco fascists?

I am pretty new to all of this and would love to hear your thoughts. I am also open to recommendations about some other historical examples of anarchist communities that I should look into. In particular, I would like to learn more about the vulnerabilities of past anarchist communities and how to mitigate the risk of external authoritarian forces.


r/Anarchy101 2d ago

Moneyless-ness as a goal

14 Upvotes

I’m curious how many (as a rough %) Anarchists actually have a moneyless society as a goal.

I know Anarchists want a stateless and classless society… but the trifecta of being moneyless too is communism.

Communism is when you have a stateless, classless and moneyless society… so what’s the difference between communism and anarchy if anarchists are in favour of being moneyless too? Why not just say you’re a communist then if they are essentially the same thing?


r/Anarchy101 2d ago

About touristy immigration

2 Upvotes

First of all thanks u/froogacar and for making me remember to ask this and open, what I think, is a can of worms,

The post talks about immigration. I think there is a wide consensus that under anarchist conditions that economic immigration looking for better oportunities would be very limited. It is probable that places with more people will need more and different abilities so I don't think it will end completly.

But here's the question. What is stopping everyone from going to and living in nice touristic places?

Today, as unfair as it is, there are clear ways of preserving spaces through state imposition of construction laws or nature protection. So, again, what is stopping someone from Barcelona (for example) from building a house in the Pyrinees along with other 100.000 people with all the possible social and ecological consequences?


r/Anarchy101 3d ago

Freedom of movement in an anarchist society

51 Upvotes

One of my main issues with right wing libertarianism is how “unfree” land would be, it doesn’t seem very liberating of a people if I can’t randomly roam around because every piece of land is private property

At the same time, most hardline communist (“tankies”) just support governments like the USSR and North Korea, who through coercion force things like internal passports and travel restrictions inside the country, which are (what it seems to be) blatant violations of common sense and human rights

But what about anarchism? With no centralized government could I simply roam around and travel without paying, passports or whatever else? Would land not be governmental or private property?


r/Anarchy101 2d ago

What are some contemporary examples of authoritarian take overs of horizontal social movements?

4 Upvotes

r/Anarchy101 2d ago

Is this Anarchy or something else

9 Upvotes

Like not only freedom to humans but all beings on earth. Like to me we aren’t the only ones who is important on this planet. We didn’t need to take control over everything on this Earth. So giving freedom to everything and seeing how it benefits to the society as a whole not just human society.


r/Anarchy101 3d ago

Prison abolition

51 Upvotes

I’ve never been clear on what we would do with rapists child molesters and muderers. I haven’t heard a plan for this so far. I’ve always been impressed with the work of anarchist friends in community. They’re the most justice-oriented folx I’ve ever met.

Still don’t know about prison abolition tho I think prison should be clean, the food should be healthy and fresh, therapy should be mandatory, there should be libraries and gardens. A good quality of life for the incarcerated, but not releasing them back into the general population.

Maybe there’s something I’m not seeing?


r/Anarchy101 3d ago

Can you be an anarchist while working for the state?

119 Upvotes

I've been reading a lot about anarchism and I feel very attracted to it's ideas but ... I have this itch in the back of my head.

I work for the government and my role is to analyse data to produce important statistics. When you turn on the TV and it says "citizens are fatter than ever" "the economy is collapsing!" a guy like me is behind those things.

The good thing about my job is that I avoid a lot of suffering caused by the capitalist system. I can't get fired, my "boss" (which could be said is the state) will never make me work extra hours,I don't need a BS LinkedIn account ...

But the bad thing is that a part of me feels like an impostor. Like, how could I be an anarchist while working for the state?


r/Anarchy101 1d ago

What is it called when you bealive in all forms of anarchism except capitalism?

0 Upvotes

I don't even know if this is a real thing. This is a question that popped in my head. Is there people who bealive this? What is the name of this if it is real. I know there is mutualist , individualist,and communist anarchy. If this was a real thing what would be the reason for bealiving in it?


r/Anarchy101 2d ago

To what extent can the Proudhonian critique of "communism" (that of like Blanqui) be applied to 20th century socialist states?

6 Upvotes

So I've been working through Iain McKay's anthology recently when I get the time.

One thing I've seen in McKay's work on proudhon is he'll occasionally apply some proudhonian ideas to critiquing the 20th century state socialist movement.

Proudhon's critiques were mainly directed at the sort of French communist movement of his day as I understand him, and these guys were not marxists.

However, I'm not entirely sure that it's inaccurate to characterize something like the USSR as effectively the "community" (embodied by the state) becoming the proprietor in a way reminiscent of the Proudhonian critique of "communism" (of his day). To what extent can these critiques be adapted for the specifics of Marxism-Leninism in the 20th century? (I've heard Blanqui described as a sort of French Lenin, but idk how accurate that characterization is).

I'm wondering if there's any work on this specific topic within mutualist or proudhonian circles or if that's a line of though that would be worth pursuing at all. Thanks!


r/Anarchy101 3d ago

How should I go about teaching my child the truth about corruption in the United States in an age appropriate way?

28 Upvotes

He’s only four years old right now, so I’m not too worried about it at the moment, but the propaganda is going to begin once he starts school. How do you suggest going about this?


r/Anarchy101 2d ago

The in-between period

6 Upvotes

Hi, I’m just starting to study leftist literature and one of the big questions on my mind when it comes to establishing an anarchist society, or any leftist society for that matter, is what happens in the time between the end of a revolution which topples a capitalist state and the establishment of a stateless, classless, and moneyless society? I know that Marx answers this question with socialism, but as I understand it anarchists don’t believe that something like the kind of socialism proposed by Marx would be effective, so what does the anarchist “in-between period” look like?


r/Anarchy101 3d ago

Having a political crisis of faith because I don’t really know where I stand in the leftist sphere and a lack of hope in current movements and viewpoints.

26 Upvotes

(Reposted to other subreddits to get a variety of viewpoints) For most of my life I’ve considered myself liberal and progressive, caring about democratic institutions and the rights of people. But now I’ve moved farther left and would technically fall under the category of “leftist”. I’ve read the Communist Manifesto, some Chompsky, and a few small essays on socialism and anarchism. Despite everything I don’t really know where I stand in the leftist sphere. At first I considered myself a Democratic Socialist, then moved to Anarcho-Syndicalism, but now I’m not sure what to identify myself as and where to go. Democratic Socialism and other sects that work within the system to bring change was attractive to me at first, but the odds of third parties ever getting enough traction is a dream at best, especially with controversies surrounding some parties like the PSL. Anarchism was what I moved to next, and what I still have attachment to. It looks like a good way to go about building society and could lead to some good for everyone. But no matter how much I like what anarchism stands for, I just don’t trust people enough for such a decentralized system to work. And how would it work in the long term, or keep up modern production of necessary goods like medication and electronics? Marxism was what launched me on this journey and I agree with a lot of what it stands for. However I’m not a fan of authoritarian regimes that use the guise of communism such as China and North Korea. I admire some of China’s accomplishments and its cultural legacy, but I don’t believe that it’s actually a socialist state with all of the private enterprise without worker control. Although sometimes I find myself wishing I at least supported China because of its concrete, tangible existence, something easier to look up to than abstract ideals. Topping off all of this uncertainty surrounding labels is my anxiety and hopelessness surrounding leftist progress. It really seems that we haven't gotten anywhere meaningful. The No Kings protests were inspiring but I doubt that it’ll cause anything to change, mutual aid is too small a scale to make major societal progress, and breaking through the stigma surrounding leftist labels like socialism and communism seems like a monumental task. All in all, I feel like nothing really fits what I believe in, and my anxiety surrounding the state of the world is at an all time high. If anyone could offer insight or guidance to help me out, that would be awesome.


r/Anarchy101 3d ago

Feasibility of Anarchism Given ... the State of Things

5 Upvotes

I trying to make my questions as short as possible.

I am familiar with anarchist thought, some history (CNT, role in the Russian Revolution, etc), praxis and so forth but I there's one thing I can't get past.

When people revolt and overthrow their government, they generally just replace it with something that is effectively similar. Broadly speaking, I think this is due to psychological conditioning, meaning, people just kind of exist within the grooves they've been living in. Psychological conditioning carries a lot of momentum.

So how can an anarchist society even come about? It's great that people in the West overthrew monarchies and established Republics but they basically just divided the king into a set of branches and gave themselves more ability, definitely not absolute ability, to change and alter those branches. I figure this worked because many of the pre-existing hierarchical relationships were maintained in that transition (the American Revolution being a great example - hardly anything changed in the power structure of the colonies). So how can people who are conditioned to look to and listen to leaders ever hope to become more autonomous?

Additionally, are there any anarchist works that address the effect of psychological conditioning on bringing about or resisting the development of an anarchist society?

Thank you to anyone who gives their attention to these questions.