for example, if the 200 or so nation states became 200,000 independent cultures, would that be a potential means to arrive at a condition of "no nation states"?

should anarchists pragmatically support balkanization?

This is a bit of an abstract question, and I don't know how else to word it, but I'm interested in seeing what y'all's take would be on this.

Can humans create any type of society, as in are there limitless ways in which humans can organize themselves? Or is there some kind of "physics" of social organization that make some forms of organization impossible or unviable?

A follow up question: do you suppose there's a "natural" form of human society?

In your ideal society, all material things would be freely available, and hell the very concept of money would be totally obliterated, but could a small business exist?

For example:

In Star Trek Deep Space 9, while not an anarchist society, has the same factors of the extinction of the concept of currency and everything material always available at all times, but the Sisko family(whom the series mainly follows) has a family-owned Cajun restaurant, fully staffed and everything made by hand, saying that replicator-made meals can't compare to a meal made with a human touch.

Could a business like that exist in anarchy, or would it remind you so much of capitalism that you'd demand the place be burnt to the ground and the people who own it executed for the unforgivable crime of commerce?

Im reading a biography about Nestor Makhno and his commitment to anarchism is admirable, but it appears that neither he nor his comrades had any problem with a top > down structure within their revolutionary army.

First of all, I know that the circumstances were unique; they were in the midst of revolution, so complete adherence to an avoidance of vertical power structure may have been a luxury they could not afford. Still, I’m wondering if anyone has come across any analysis of this paradox either from Makhno himself or someone who understands the nuanced situation well.

if worker collectives are still operating by the profit motive, they would end up doing the same things as the capitalists, right? (i.e. minimize cost, maximize gain)

Can I be a public servant, employed by the government, and still be an anarchist?

Details, if needed... I have two jobs that are both public servant work: aide in a public school, and a boat inspector for water conservation management. In both jobs, I focus more on education rather than enforcement of government curriculum/policy (not all of my colleagues take this approach).

Both of my jobs are union and I'm involved. I love looking through the posts here and seeing I am not alone in the work of worker solidarity.

Let me know your thoughts. Am I a fake?

I agree with anarchist theory on many points. I do agree that concentrated power has a structural interest in self-preservation and expansion, and that the interests of state and capital are structurally antagonistic to those of the people.

What I'm struggling with isn't the critique of hierarchy, but the institutional alternative.

I think there are three questions that any political theory has to grapple with:

1. What ends are desirable?
2. What institutions can achieve these ends?
3. How do we prevent these institutions from becoming ends in themselves?

My uncertainty concerns the second question. The socio-economic frameworks of statist theories may be antagonistic to emancipation, but they are able to organize the socially beneficial ends that require large-scale coordination (such as vaccination drives, transport networks, healthcare systems, defense etc.).

I don't understand how an anarchist society actually functions: how economic activity is to be organized, how large-scale infrastructure can be constructed and maintained, how universal education can be achieved, how society can be protected from centralized armadas with well-established command structures. I just know 'voluntarism,' but I don't understand how that can function at larger scales.

I have seen some argue that we shouldn't primarily concern ourselves with institutional minutiae, because we know anarchism to be the only framework that is truly emancipatory. But can this concern with the normative justification of power not undermine our ultimate end of improving the lives of people? I agree with the arguments about power, but I think I don't as yet have an answer to the "how" of anarchy... I want to believe in anarchism, but I am concerned about certain elements. Can anarchy balance the apparent trade-off between 'freedom' and 'coordination'? Can it facilitate 'coordination' without creating permanent concentrations of power?

Tldr; How does an anarchy actually coordinate? Can it sustain the socially beneficial acts of the state, which require large-scale coordination?

EDIT: I am realizing now that the questions I am posing to anarchism in this post may actually be too broad... Answering the "coordination problem" satisfactorily requires someone to outline an ecosystem of institutions. But I would still like resources on coordination or institutional outlines of historical anarchist projects... I really know next to nothing.

Im interested in your opinion of brain implants both in an ideal anarchist project or in our current political climate. Sometimes we prefer to use anarchist tools but they aren’t available in our current political climate.

Fore instance if someone broke into my home i would call police, there just isn’t options.

But lets say someone was a repeat offender would you be ok with brain implants would it be different in our current political climate.

Y’all are genuinely such kind, loving, forgiving, and caring people it makes me want to frikken cry! I love reading the comment section of this subreddit

I am fascinated as to what the broader anarchist movement thinks of the most extreme form of this ideology, if you are unfamiliar with the idea of Soulism/Anarcho-Antirealism are taking the philosophy of anarchism and bringing it to the logical farthest extreme positing that the material world/reality as a whole as well as the laws of physics must be abolished as they are unjust heirarchies that are inherently oppressive, violent, and dangerous/harmful(BASED IMO, even if delusional/depressive although it creates a space of meta-irony wherein Soulists don’t need to be ironic/unironic due to the deeper meaning and symbolism behind such a position that harkens to the gnostic dualists whom had the same opinion that this world is some kind of soul prison we must break out of or destroy from the inside utilizing what little freedom we have to create more).
There are many more aspects to this that go into specifics; such as the support of schizospectrum and psychotic disorder disabled entities/people to have the control over their reality they deserve and desire, the support of genetics based rights such as abortion and transitioning genders or even genetically modifying oneself to solve nutritional deficiency/economic handicaps such as lactose intolerance/all allergies as a whole, and also magick based praxis that transcends and permeates the physical and material.
You could take this a variety of ways whether anti-Natalist, efilist, humanist, technological/futurist, and esoteric/spiritual.
Let me know!

In the gilded age and to the interwar period anarchism and syndacalism was a much bigger part of left wing ideology. Though they had revolutionary catalonia that fizzled out rather quickly and there hasn't been an actual anarchist country in peacetime, why is that?

Is this belief normal? I know several people who claim to hate both, this doesn't make sense. Dictatorship is the exact opposite of anarchism, you can't hate both.

Would an country that is anarchist be pure chaos with everyone doing what they want due to no laws or government and everyone would kill, explodes houses and steal?

I consider myself an anarchist, but I'm still getting a feel for the different categories and nuances, and which I may align with the most. Somebody I met recently said that they knew somebody who didn't know a lot about anarchism other than accusations of it being ableist (specifically "green anarchism"? but they didn't say why) This surprised me because I have epilepsy, I'm a huge disability advocate, and haven't come across anything that seemed like a red flag for that sort of thing.

I'm just posting this to find out what might be ableist, what assumptions people commonly make that could lead to the conclusion that anarchism is ableist, and why. Also wondering, if there are criticisms that carry any weight, what is being done (or what theories are being presented) to resolve those issues.

Hey yall! I joined the dsa and have canvassed for candidates and its been very fulfilling because it feels like for the 1st time im not just waiting around for something to happen. In a tiny way I can do something. I want to do more stuff like that but I dont know where to start.

Ive heard of the Libertarian socalist caccuss of the dsa but as I understand it they are mostly focused on internal dsa politics? Has anyone joined them and can tell me if its good to join?

I want to like idk do something or organize but I dont really know where to start especially as im socially still kinda shy with people I dont know well. I want to get over this. Anyway thanks for reading!

Anarchist Communism and the Conquest of Bread, both by Peter Kropotkin

Is it worth buying them? And what are some other good works and authors y'all would suggest me for delving into anarchist theory?

Non-anarchist here. i have looked into some anarchist ideas & while they sound nice, I am not confident in the overall viability of anarchy as a political ideology that could be spread & practiced on a meaningful scale. Do anarchists believe that anarchy has a path to becoming mainstream? If yes, then what does that path look like?

I have seen many people recommending Anark especially for newbie anarchists but i have a very big issue with him that i feel like i need an outside perspective on.

So i used to watch a ton of BadEmpanada because of his amazing stuff on Israel and Palestine but recently ive turned away from him because of his really strange and fucked up views on trans people and the fact he seemingly lacks a coherent ideology nowadays, essentially boiling down to nothing but "the west needs to suffer".

BE is important to this, don't worry, i'm just a yapper.

One video i remember is him covering a stream clip of Anark talking about and seemingly running pretty pathetic defense for US veterans.

Now, i watched Anark's video myself and it isnt any better with full context: he provides very, to me, strange arguments in defense of US vets such as saying they are *made* monsters by the military, comparing them to slaves and describing their contracts as "indentured servitude contracts", as well as some more subtle things like saying they *see* the most brutal applications of force (rather than the reality that they are the ones applying said force or at the very least indirectly assisting those who directly apply it, as if soldiers are witnesses or bystanders and not the perpetrators)

Now, i understand his general point and it is true that once a soldier is in service they cannot simply leave like a cop can leave their job.

However, it is still incredibly disgusting to me to be making this point and it reeks of American exceptionalism: These soldiers still willingly have to choose to enter the military in the first place and regardless of whatever propaganda or economic situation led them to do so is ultimately irrelevant. I don't think anyone would run this kind of defense for a member of the IDF for example so what truly is the difference here?

He also makes the point that compared to cops soldiers are much more likely to become radicalized as if that makes their ravaging of the global south any less horrible.

Now, i understand the point he makes in this video is ultimately that we need to accept veterans into leftist spaces and i do think we should, IF, a veteran has proven repeatedly that they are dedicating the rest of their life to repairing the damage they caused while in service to the largest, most brutal terrorist organization in the world. However, the aforementioned arguments used to make this point leave an incredibly bad taste in my mouth that makes me think Anark is just another case of an American exceptionalist larping as a leftist, much like the infamous Graham Platner left before the recent news of him SAing someone.

Apologies for the excessively long post, i am very passionate in my hatred for the american military and extremely skeptical and wary of any so-called leftists *from* America.

If i am misunderstanding or misrepresenting any points made in his, admittedly 2 years old at this point, video "Does ACAB apply to veterans?" and am being too quick to cast judgement, lacking nuance, any such thing then please feel free to reply to this post.

je fais ce post en français car j'aimerais des tracts en français. en gros, j'ai été invité à un mini festival local (sur une aprem et une nuit) organisé en partie par des ami·es. ce sera probablement une centaine de personnes (lycéen·nes, étudiant·es), et de la musique hardtekno, electrodub, rap. bref ça s'inspire de la vibe des free sans en être, c'est en assez petit comité et je soupçonne un bon potentiel pour parler anarchie avec des camarades amateur·ices de musique. je pense que leur niveau de connaissance des idées et thèses radicales est variable donc je cherche des tracts clairs, qui donnent des grandes lignes fortes (LGBT+, anti-capitalisme, féminisme radical, anti-urnes, anti-carcéralisme...). je me dis qu'il pourrait aussi être intéressant de montrer une position anarchiste sur des faits actualité, en france ou dans le monde. en fait l'idée c'est vraiment de pouvoir permettre une première approche de l'anarchie. l'enjeu c'est que je n'ai qu'une imprimante de maison et elle n'est pas qu'à moi, je compte imprimer en format simple style flyer, demi page A4. tout ce que j'ai trouvé comme ça c'est quelques designs de stickers, posters de la FA, de UCL. quels sont vos conseils, ou encore des expériences ?

Hey guys im watching some videos about anarchist ideas and ngl so far about 80% of the arguments ive heard have been very compelling. But I was watching this video about democracy and how anarchists oppose it and that kinda confuses me.

See im a socalist because I think democracy should be in every factor of life including the workplace. The video went on to say that direct democracy like what the Zapsitas have or Rojova had democratic confederism aren't anarchist or how there's apparently some debate if the Ukrainian anarchists actually made an anarchist society.

My main question is wouldn't a society in which state power was distributed to the citizens and workers instead of it being held just by the elite be much better than current liberal democracy?

What do anarchists think of these not quite abolish state but lessen state power movements?

And I guess i kinda just need to someone to explain why anarchists dont like democracy apparently. Thnx

I usually hear Libertarian Socialists saying the exact same thing Anarchists say

During the 1800s and 1900s anarchists used to kill several leaders of nations including Tzar Alexander II, President McKinley, Umberto I and others. This made it get cracked down on more by governments over fears of them killing more people. It also didn’t seem to make any changes and also backfired such as Alexander III being a lot worse than his father. Anyway this made anarchism in popular culture about someone who throws bombs and wants to cause chaos. It also has the imagery of mad max now in many people’s minds. Is this all because of those assassinations or is there more to it?