Can anyone point me in the direction on how affairs such as public transportation would be subsidized outside of a state infrastructure/decentralized? Should it even be decentralized?

I know my communist comrades are always down to ride share, but at the same time if someone independently wants to get somewhere, how are we going to enable them to do that?

This is a genuine question, I want to get into more anarchopacifist school of thought after my religious studies, and if someone can point me in the direction to answer this question, it would be very appreciated!

Great question, I've not read any literature on this but searching the keywords on anarchist library may give good results.

Personally, I think best practice is to localize services as much as possible without sacrificing their goals, so I would keep city wide transport systems, country wide is a bit tougher

not an anarchist but a general answer ive seen people have on this is that widespread centralized infrastructure doesn't really matter if fractured local communities are essentially self-sufficient and insulated. it's not to say that they want to return to primitivism or something, but rather that when you get to eliminating societal excess and things truly unneeded, the fractured return to self-serving local communities over state conglomerates or similar results in a situation where theoretically "infrastructure" as a mode of facilitating transportation isn't needed, and if it is, then it's handled in an individualized manner as per the needs of either the local community or the cross-community transactions. You can imagine therefore why so many anarchists care about environmentalism and climate change in turn though, because this type of idealism doesn't work if you start accounting for harsh climate change conditions

I don't see why this isn't the most popular ideology, seems like people just see it as violent (propaganda), unrealistic, or they are just too brainwashed by other ideas. Why the hell would I want to be controlled and told what to do when everybody could be free? Typical for this existence, I guess.

How would you expect an anarchist movement to succeed against an organized, centralized political body like the US empire

I have no clue, especially considering our military, but ideologically I still don't support or defend the idea of government, it has benefits, but I am completely against how societies operate when it didn't have to be this way

Most people do not know anything about it besides connotations of terrorism and crime

yeah that's what I meant with the propaganda part, all by design it seems

Of course

Having your ideology be the most “clean” and “right” is exactly what you shouldn’t be doing when being confronted with real, practical problems

Communists and Anarchists have the same end goals but entirely different methods in achieving those goals, as a result of the fact that communists account for the fact that your ideology position is not something that is necessarily practical

There’s a reason almost every successful leftist revolution has been a Marxist one

Also government and social coordination is good. The state is the bad part

"Real socialism, it is argued, would be controlled by the workers themselves through direct participation instead of being run by Leninists, Stalinists, Castroites, or other ill-willed, power-hungry, bureaucratic, cabals of evil men who betray revolutions. Unfortunately, this ‘pure socialism’ view is ahistorical and nonfalsifiable; it cannot be tested against the actualities of history. It compares an ideal against an imperfect reality, and the reality comes off a poor second. It imagines what socialism would be like in a world far better than this one, where no strong state structure or security force is required, where none of the value produced by workers needs to be expropriated to rebuild society and defend it from invasion and internal sabotage. The pure socialists’ ideological anticipations remain untainted by existing practice. They do not explain how the manifold functions of a revolutionary society would be organized, how external attack and internal sabotage would be thwarted, how bureaucracy would be avoided, scarce resources allocated, policy differences settled, priorities set, and production and distribution conducted. Instead, they offer vague statements about how the workers themselves will directly own and control the means of production and will arrive at their own solutions through creative struggle. No surprise then that the pure socialist support every revolution except the ones that succeed."

Restricting freedom of movement is one of the most evil things a state can do

I'd recommend the book "Seeing like a State" by James C. Scott, it's very dense with information but it's really good.

It is not an anarchist critique of the state, he specifically denies that, but it is more of a critique on utopian "high-modernist" authoritarian social-engineering schemes that failed, and he lays out why. It's definitely a useful and detailed text for assisting the aforementioned direct anarchist critique

theanarchistlibrary.org/library/james-c-scott-seeing-like-a-state.pdf

I'd recommend to read the introduction/the last chapter, if you don't want to read a big book, it's well-explained in there.

I've been putting off reading this far too long to be honest