It is not that simple, but no matter what, you cant force someone to live any certain way and expect they will be happy and that you transformed someone
Seeing all these sub labels just overwhelms me. What I want is simple. People being able to live in a way that works with nature rather than against nature such as exploitation or domination.
While I appreciate the values of what anarchism has to offer, I don't want to wear the label of anarchist. I'm too complex to be contained to a single idea.
Anarcho-communism, but as a guiding principle rather than a rigid blueprint. I.e. as long as it's freely associated, horizontal, internationalist, and anti-state, I'm down. We don't have to agree on the internal details.
So long as we agree on a few basics, we will associate with you and share as freely as we wish. When you decide to turn off the street lamps is up to your community and I got no business telling you otherwise. You start throwing weight around or we find you're keeping slaves then someone is biting a curb.
Anarcho-syndicalism, with a healthy dose of pacifism. I hold no illusions though, the final general strike that will liberate us from capitalism will be violent, and we'll need to fight back. I'll find a role in the strike that doesn't directly require violence.
Will be violent against whom, exactly? I'm afraid the violence you refer to will inevitably be between members of the same (oppressed) class. Those on top will do all thay can to protect their privilege, but they won't do it themselves. They will push others to do it. I'm not making a counterargument, just pointing out an observation that troubles me
The violence will primarily come from the ruling class against the strikers. Further violence will ensue by the strikers in retaliation. I cannot predict what the dynamics of this will look like, but I imagine that it would primarily class traitors fighting on behalf of the ruling class. Infighting with the strikers will have to be suppressed through education in the prelude to the strike
Categorizing anarchists is one of the most ironic things I've seen today.
The core of anarchism is the rejection of imposed structures and rigid definitions. By categorizing anarchists into boxes, you are replicating the very authoritarian logic that anarchism seeks to dismantle. Oh the irony.
It's almost like categorisation is a social and language technology that keeps getting applied because it helps communicate concepts without having to spend the first half of the conversation redefining all your terms.
If common definitions described by a collective in a list is authoritarian, does this make dictionaries authoritarian as well?
Atleast in Europe it was more popular post Marx, while also being quite different from indoviualist anarchism that was popular 50 years earlier in the US. Pretty well known example would be the Bonnot gang.
I think that different "flavors" of anarchism really would prefigure distinct societal outcomes. I do think there are many potential ways to arrange a classless, stateless society and and they're all anarchism but some would indeed be more or less preferable for different people. So exploring these various theories and organizational concepts really does matter, not that one is necessarily better than another but because they make us ask questions previously unconsidered about what we really want, why we want it, and how we'd most prefer it operate should we achieve it.
For my part I really like communalism, and it's agenda libertarian municipalism. I like how Bookchin went into serious philosophical consideration concerning how to operate truly durable and honest social institutions, honest about how to practically operate communal deliberation and honest about the fact that social institution itself is inescapable, important, and perfectly compatible. I like how the whole thing is founded on the philosophy of social ecology, which hold us accountable to our responsibility for our surroundings. And I like how municipalism is a practical, step-by-step process to building dual power beginning at the hyper-local level in a way that prefigures communalist outcomes through education and face-to-face practice.
I'd love to know what's really different between -communism, -collectivism, -syndicalism and -mutualism because they all sit well with me (I'm assuming "communism" refers to the end state of society and not the bolshevik autoritarism)
Individualist I guess, specifically in the sense that the individual should be able to live outside of society unbothered. Not sure if that really counts though.
But socially I usually roll with "anarchism" because it's easier, better understood. and slightly less crazy sounding. I'm sympathetic to any "legit" branch of anarchism.
It is not that simple, but no matter what, you cant force someone to live any certain way and expect they will be happy and that you transformed someone
Seeing all these sub labels just overwhelms me. What I want is simple. People being able to live in a way that works with nature rather than against nature such as exploitation or domination.
While I appreciate the values of what anarchism has to offer, I don't want to wear the label of anarchist. I'm too complex to be contained to a single idea.
Fair enough.
They are mostly mandatory anarchy ingredients, apart primitivism and individualism which are reactionary theories.
I agree with you on primitivism, but calling individualists reactionary is delusional
Anarcho-communism, but as a guiding principle rather than a rigid blueprint. I.e. as long as it's freely associated, horizontal, internationalist, and anti-state, I'm down. We don't have to agree on the internal details.
The beauty of decentralized, free association.
So long as we agree on a few basics, we will associate with you and share as freely as we wish. When you decide to turn off the street lamps is up to your community and I got no business telling you otherwise. You start throwing weight around or we find you're keeping slaves then someone is biting a curb.
Hear hear!
I don't know, I haven't been to Anarchist Hogwarts.
Anarcho-syndicalism, with a healthy dose of pacifism. I hold no illusions though, the final general strike that will liberate us from capitalism will be violent, and we'll need to fight back. I'll find a role in the strike that doesn't directly require violence.
Will be violent against whom, exactly? I'm afraid the violence you refer to will inevitably be between members of the same (oppressed) class. Those on top will do all thay can to protect their privilege, but they won't do it themselves. They will push others to do it. I'm not making a counterargument, just pointing out an observation that troubles me
The violence will primarily come from the ruling class against the strikers. Further violence will ensue by the strikers in retaliation. I cannot predict what the dynamics of this will look like, but I imagine that it would primarily class traitors fighting on behalf of the ruling class. Infighting with the strikers will have to be suppressed through education in the prelude to the strike
Categorizing anarchists is one of the most ironic things I've seen today.
The core of anarchism is the rejection of imposed structures and rigid definitions. By categorizing anarchists into boxes, you are replicating the very authoritarian logic that anarchism seeks to dismantle. Oh the irony.
It's almost like categorisation is a social and language technology that keeps getting applied because it helps communicate concepts without having to spend the first half of the conversation redefining all your terms.
If common definitions described by a collective in a list is authoritarian, does this make dictionaries authoritarian as well?
Another example would be music genres, and sub-genres within those.
Individualist Anarchism seems like a contradiction.
It was more popular in the pre-Marx era
Atleast in Europe it was more popular post Marx, while also being quite different from indoviualist anarchism that was popular 50 years earlier in the US. Pretty well known example would be the Bonnot gang.
Anarchosyndicalism to achieve anarchocommunism eventually
“We take it in turns, to act as a sort of executive officer for the week.”
I would consider myself a green anarchist. Capitalism has stepped into A LOT of progess traps.
Anarcho-monarchist, I want to praise the emperor, but I don't want to pay taxes. /s
I am an anarchist without adjectives.
I think that different "flavors" of anarchism really would prefigure distinct societal outcomes. I do think there are many potential ways to arrange a classless, stateless society and and they're all anarchism but some would indeed be more or less preferable for different people. So exploring these various theories and organizational concepts really does matter, not that one is necessarily better than another but because they make us ask questions previously unconsidered about what we really want, why we want it, and how we'd most prefer it operate should we achieve it.
For my part I really like communalism, and it's agenda libertarian municipalism. I like how Bookchin went into serious philosophical consideration concerning how to operate truly durable and honest social institutions, honest about how to practically operate communal deliberation and honest about the fact that social institution itself is inescapable, important, and perfectly compatible. I like how the whole thing is founded on the philosophy of social ecology, which hold us accountable to our responsibility for our surroundings. And I like how municipalism is a practical, step-by-step process to building dual power beginning at the hyper-local level in a way that prefigures communalist outcomes through education and face-to-face practice.
I'd love to know what's really different between -communism, -collectivism, -syndicalism and -mutualism because they all sit well with me (I'm assuming "communism" refers to the end state of society and not the bolshevik autoritarism)
https://anarchism.crd.co/#currents
thanks !
Would appreciate a link to an article describing the differences between those.
So far, mine is somewhat generic "dgaf and let dgaf", I.e. do whatever you want as long as you don't force it upon others.
https://anarchism.crd.co/#currents
Much appreciated
No gods. No masters.
Individualist I guess, specifically in the sense that the individual should be able to live outside of society unbothered. Not sure if that really counts though.
Internally I feel closest to "nihilism".
But socially I usually roll with "anarchism" because it's easier, better understood. and slightly less crazy sounding. I'm sympathetic to any "legit" branch of anarchism.