theanarchistlibrary.org/library/kim-kelly-anarchy-what-it-is-and-why-pop-culture-loves-it

Unironically, a great piece about what Anarchism is, from TeenVogue

in actual politics, you know cause it's supposed to govern other ppl and not just appeal to me, i tend to get a form of socialist when i take the tests

will check out that read tho

libcom.org/library/abolition-labour-marxs-teachings-uri-zilbersheid

Uri Zilbersheid on Marx's little-discussed ideas on the abolition of labour.

anti-statist libertarian socialism/anarchism has always been a part of the left, it's existed before the modern interpretations of marxism, and marx got inspiration from anarchists like Proudhon

plutobooks.com/9780745345819/anarchism-and-the-black-revolution
finally getting republished

classic

this is cool asf, they got pulley systems to climb trees and s*** to occupy and protect the forest

whats' up with you guys and bedtimes lately?

yeah i don't give a s*** about that discourse or the majority of leftist twitter bullshit, it's just useless

@krishna_bound en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_Bakunin_to_Lacan

you should check this out

Thanks for the recommendation, I'll check that out, i haven't heard of that book before. Seems interesting.

itsgoingdown.org/anarchist-organizing-in-the-canary-islands-an-interview-with-ruyman-rodriguez

rly cool stuff

@sniper (or others here too) in your view how do you define the overall intentions of anarchism? Is the idea essentially just to move ultimately toward mutualism or syndicalism? I've read a lot of different anarchist writings but everyone seems to have a radically different view of what anarchism actually consists of. In its simplest form i know the description that tends to get thrown around is "removal of unneeded hierarchies and ensuring of voluntary association", but how far does that go down? Like what is the view of native american tribes for example (which Engels once described as primitive communism), since they still had hierarchy, designated roles, and a strong emphasis on identity and mutual tradition?

@Yuzzy i think you generally lean in this direction too iirc so also curious on your view of the above

I think the overall intentions of an anarchist or an anarchist movement are deternined by what lead that body to consider removal of unjust hierachies paramount. For me there is no unified definition of anarchism, rather strains which form when the anarchist mindset is adopted and applied to a certain situation.

As for the example, I can only reply with my own strain of anarchism which is based on the fulfillment of ends which are not at the expense of others. Unjust hierachies enable some bodies unjust access to their ends at the expense of others, as well as harming community ends (the politcian elected through nepotism). In a tribe this isnt a problem since the only ends are community oriented rather than selfish. So the hierachies cant enable unjust power/ability to those at the top since they will use it on nothing aside from helping the community. I would agree that Primitive Communism is a good way to describe this. Its not my model society, but it is not bad at all. People who live this way will be healthier and likely more fulfilled than others.

@krishna_bound I'll get back to you ASAP on that question, it'll probably be somewhat long i feel

@krishna_bound

This is my description and I mostly lean more towards "social anarchism"/libertarian socialism, which takes from the classical anti-state socialist traditions and Marx and stuff like that, but I still find some value in the more esoteric individualist (Max Stirner, egoism, anti-civ/post-civ/"post-left", etc.) stuff, and there are good lessons to be learned from both, even if I disagree with a good amount of the esoteric individualist stuff.

Anarchism is one of the misunderstood political ideologies in all of the politics sphere, by both the left and the right.

Anarchism, to me, is not a unified "static" ideology made up of only one system. I believe it is more a philosophy, than a political ideology IMO.

It is a broad set of intersecting movements, some which I will agree with more than others. The intersection (which makes these movements "anarchist"/"anarchistic") is usually anti-state, anti-capitalism, horizontal organization, opposition to all forms of hierarchy and employing an intersectional approach to taking down oppression/working in class struggle, and free association. We don't believe that anarchy is a "static" state that should be reached and everything is done, it is a constant process, there is no "endgame". It's actually a good thing (but it has its issues sometimes) that different anarchists have different ideas of what anarchism is to them. There is an absolute diversity of opinions, thus discouraging a groupthink "party" mentality, that has held back other movements. It causes you to self-reflect on what you believe in, and to decide for yourself, not to have a leader decide for you. Of course, there is internal struggle considering the diversity and people argue amongst each other all the time, but we all want similar goals of liberation, and this independence of thought is ultimately a good thing, it allows for amorphous decentralization, and people can find their own common niches.

"We are anarcho-syndicalists on the shop floor, green anarchists in the woods, social anarchists in our communities, individualists when you catch us alone, anarcho-communists when there’s something to share, insurrectionists when we strike a blow." - Putting the “Social” in Social War’, in, Rolling Thunder, No. 8, Fall 2009.

Some movements that aren't necessarily anarchist because they lack some core principles like for example, Rojava, which does have some hierarchy in their system, and that they follow Bookchin's Democratic Confederalism which was the ideology Apo learned about while imprisoned. It broke from anarchism for various reasons, but it does get critically supported because it is in the realm of general libertarian socialism, and has some anarchistic principles.

In general, Anarchism helps me answer the world-changing questions I want to answer, without turning to something that is bigger than us in a paternalistic sense (the nation-state, hierarchy, domination, etc.), because through the materialist a***ysis of history, we have found that these domineering authoritative principles have only held back humanity, and have led to numerous atrocities, as we all know.

I would like to expand on my contentions with some of my statist peeps but I feel like I've done it a lot recently, and I've tired myself out. But I will say that it gives me breathing room to have consistent ethics and I don't have to play defense for whatever nation-state I like, and when anarchists have done bad s***, I will acknowledge it, and I think we should learn from our mistakes, not valorize and repeat them.

And to answer this question real quick, "Anarcho-Capitalism" and the Mises/Rothbardian "right-libertarianism" is not anything close to anarchism, it's inherently hierarchical and statist and promotes domination.

Like what is the view of native american tribes for example (which Engels once described as primitive communism), since they still had hierarchy, designated roles, and a strong emphasis on identity and mutual tradition?

With this, I understand the indigenous Native Americans are not monolithic people, they had many tribes with many different traditions and styles of society/organization. I feel like a lot of anarchists tend to forget this and talk about them patronizingly like they are mythical beings with ancient wisdom or something like that, which is something that pisses me off with the "white guilt anarchist" part of the movement but I digress.

I support the landback movement, as most others do, and I absolutely agree with it, but this is a legitimately good question (that you wouldn't really be able to ask in white-dominated anarchist spaces because it would be considered "chauvinism" most likely), that I think is up to the tribespeople when they get it back. Most indigenous anarchists say they want a directly-democratic system or to use systems similar to the Zapatistas in Mexico, which is sorta "liquid democracy". I feel like you would have to ask places like the IAF (Indigenous Anarchist Foundation) about this, and the various other individuals/groups to get a better picture. This is just telling my observations.

I believe anarchism and non-nationalistic Marxism preserves tradition and culture the best, because it won't be commodified and exploited by the overarching capitalist system. People are free to practice whatever they would like. Breaking from nation-state nationalism does not mean the elimination of ethnic culture into some congealed "we moved past idpol" s***

@krishna_bound