The Culture is often described as an anarchists, but the Minds seem to call most of the shots, being near godlike entities that allocate resources and manage the place, and I think I heard somewhere that their use of genetic engineering has helped to make people less violent or aggressive(at least not unless provoked). However, from what I've seen, any person or group of individuals having any amount of power over the majority of people is staunchly against anarchist principals, even if the Minds are by-and-large benevolent.

So how can they be an anarchy is there's clearly somebody pulling the strings, especially beings near comparable to gods(since you guys also staunchly detest religion)?

Hi, I'm in a country where there are manifestations and protests every time, and I want to help my people in them, so I want to participate also, but I don't know what to do, the protests will be pacific but we all know that any moment the police will start with the violence, so I need to know what to be prepared for, like gas, water cannons, riots squads, also, what to do in every situation, like what if I get caught and they are beating me, or if they try to circle us, or if they put barricades

Hii,

I have been diving into the anarchist theory recently, and I often see the claim "Capitalism requires the state to work" (commonly when debunking "an"cap). Although I hold anti-capitalistic views, I am struggling with understanding why it requires the state.

Is it because "private police and courts" would not work? Or is it because establishing such institutions would be considered a state?

If anyone can give me a more throrough explanation, or direct me to an article/video explaining it, I will be truly grateful <3

I don’t have any idea of how anarchism actually works or the theory behind it, and I wanna know how it works

funny side note on "family":

"family" originates from the Latin familia, which referred to the servants and slaves of a household rather than blood relatives. This Latin term is derived from famulus, meaning "servant" or "slave".

but i reckon most of you are thinking parents and their offspring in a shared household, rather than servants and slaves - funny, that semantic drift, eh?

Anarchy type of shit.

This post is against the current goverment of Colombia.

A recent post on here was arguing that Libertarian Socialist projects are doomed to fail like Rojava due to the existence of a state and half measures. My question is why are the Zapistas able to survive and what lessons do we take from this?

Hello, sorry if this questions have been asked before. I'm still new to the anarchy scene so I have a lot of questions that I want to ask but for now I have one.

I want to ask because I know that states and hierarchies exacerbate bigotry. But in my mind even if hierarchy is abolished there is still some in-group out-group dynamic at hand. How will majority of groups (as in the groups, not the individuals) prevented from ganging of minority of groups?

If domination emerges from human cooperation whenever collective capacity evolves into power-over capacity. Then why would a revolutionary movement, built through organization, shared purpose, and often force then be exempt from that process?

I fear anarchism often mistakes the abolition of a particular institution or institutions for the abolition of the human tendency that produces such institutions.

Edit:DOMINATION*, DOMINATION*, DOMINATION*. not heirarchy.

I know obviously anarchists are against slavery. But if the south was all "states rights" wouldn't that be decentralization ? Saying the federal government cant control them?

Hello, I'd like to know if anyone has any recommendations of socialist/communist/anarchist for books on Germany, would appreciate if they were about cold war Germany, but before world war 1, world war 1 and world war 2 books would be great.

This is a cross-post that's why I included the 3 ideologies.

Thank you very much

My understanding of it is that Indigenous worldviews are often more relational, and kinship focused, and have sacred aspects to them. Some commonalities between many tribes would be a lack of formal institutions oftentimes, an ecological focus, as well almost universally, a separation between land and property.

My understanding of anarchic worldviews is that there is a focus on essentially no coercion. This is where governance relies on local social trust, instead of hierarchical arrangements. However this worldview is ideological and intentionally built, and largely views the world in an instrumental way.

There is also the EZLN which is a fusion between Indigenous traditions and libertarian socialist ideas.

A Wendat statesman named Kondiaronk argued with French people a couple of centuries ago. He said something about prisons and money being the root of all the bad things in French society. He also considered French people unfree because they listened to orders from kings and lords. He was a debater who liked arguing with French colonists.

Also, I noted in a thread about Rojava failing that someone suggested that guerrilla warfare was better than conscription. This is precisely what happened with some Indigenous tribes during the colonial era. The Shawnee did this with Amercan colonists/the US, and it was very effective. I think in one battle, during the 7 Years War (French and Indigenous War), the Shawnee managed to defeat American colonists almost 10 to 1 in casualty rate.

Edit: This varies greatly in different regions. I was talking mostly about northeast NA Indigenous tribes, but generalized it later on in a draft of my writing.

I know some times when Indigenous people did bad things. For example, I believe some tribes sided with the Confederacy during the American Civil War, and did slavery. Also, the Haudenosaunee committed genocide during the Beaver Wars against the Wendat and other tribes. The Comanche Empire probably did plenty of evil stuff. All societies can commit wrongdoing, just like Revolutionary Catalonia did for a period against religious people.

A place like my town would starve if independent since we have no farms and none of the infrastructure, so needless to say, we'd need to be members of a coallition of conmunities. This does make me wonder how secession would work. Would secession for say, an ethnic separatist community like a white community or black community be allowed? Or of a religious community whose members want theocracy?

do you think that anarchy only applies to governance? does anarchy apply to family and other interpersonal relationships? does anarchy apply to how humans interact with non-human life?

where are the boundaries of where anarchy is applicable?

i have looked towards permacomputing as a way we should use computers in anarchism,and i was wondering if critques and alternative visions exist ?

I am new to learning about libertarian socialism, communalism more specifically and am currently reading some bookchin which I am very much enjoying.

I have a question though. With decentralised power and politics taking place at the local assembly scale, how does society avoid encouraging the creation of conservative communities, NIMBYism, tribalism, or other kinds of enclave like communities that are hostile to otherness.

Thanks!

I’m not an anarchist but I know some socialists who claim that anarchism is solely based off of critiquing other systems/the state. I find it hard to believe that’s all there is to it. essentially is there any theory that presents a concrete solution to the state and how we can reach it?

So I've heard that in anarchist Spain there was success in socializing most of the land, however they never came close to eliminating all private enterprise, and clearly wouldn't see state appropriation as being a socialist solution. If the experiment had survived, do you believe that with time the amount of private ownership would have slowly risen, or eventually have been eliminated? How would a future anarchist project go about the complete elimination of the exploiting class?

I don't know if this is the best place to ask, but Rojava is always the first thing that comes to mind when I think of anarchist societies. I found this text on a YouTube video about the fall of Rojava. I just want to ask what your opinion is on this case and if this negatively affects the anarchist movement, because if this is actually true, it would honestly feel quite sad to me

The text:

I'm from Syria, and I'll tell you what happened and how quickly they collapsed. As for Assad's army, it was internally broken. Soldiers didn't receive enough food and money, not to mention the injustice they suffered. A large number of soldiers were also conscripted. With the removal of Russian support, the army fell (which would have happened in 2015 anyway). As for the SDF, 90% of its military formation consisted of Arab tribesmen who were forced to join under threat of imprisonment or forced conscription. This was in addition to the existing conscription system. Furthermore, the SDF controlled areas with an overwhelming Arab tribal majority.

Therefore, as soon as news arrived of the Syrian army's approach to fight the SDF, a large number defected, and the local population took up arms against the SDF (The leadership coordinated with senior Arab tribes to coordinate military action as the army approached). As the Syrian army advanced, it was a multi-pronged and meticulously planned war. The army used new tactics on the ground. Moreover, the American forces stationed there remained neutral in the end, even though at the beginning of the army's advance, their aircraft issued warning signals to the army not to proceed. However, the army commanders used tactics to strike from within distract then and cause the, to lose control and they succeeded , and so the other one collapsed.

I am thinking about what happened over at /r/antiwork, which was an anarchist space 5 years ago, but during covid, the subreddit was flooded with soc-dems and liberals, and the subreddit became predominately oriented towards work reform, rather than anti-work as such.

so, whats to stop larger political cohorts from taking over anarchist spaces and making them decidedly not-anarchist?

I would be interested in reading more about the concept of family abolition.

anarchism and borders?

The distinction between "private property" (in a broader sense) and possession is a bit vague and context-based in my opinion. For example, if a worker possesses a tool to do their job, that tool is technically considered "means of production" thus individual ownership could morph into capitalist accumulation given enough time, or if the worker is much more skilled etc. So perhaps individual possession over any productive instrument is too far? But the real question is who gets to decide whether that is or is not allowed. There could be a danger of reproducing an authority. I guess I'm asking for what specifically should and should not be tolerated with regards to control and access, and who would be able to prevent it from being used for exploitation, without devolving into a sort of majority rule scenario. (I know different anarchists have different answers, that's part of the reason why I ask.)