What are /r/Anarchy101's favorite Products & Services?

From 3.5 billion Reddit comments

When I've managed people I've told them several things:

​

1) I'm not your superior. We just have different roles within this organization.

2) You're well-being is just as important as mine.

3) I want to train you on how to do your job, so you can run your part of the show on your own.

​

Resist the urge to tell them what to do. Present a problem and see what they come up with. There's a book called "Why We Do What We Do: Understanding Self-Motivation" which talks about how to support autonomy in the workplace. https://www.amazon.com/Why-We-What-Understanding-Self-Motivation/dp/0140255265/ref=sr_1_1?crid=1EYK0JG0VW6QO&keywords=why+we+do+what+we+do+understanding+self-motivation&qid=1555479585&s=books&sprefix=Why+We+Do+What+We+Do%2Cstripbooks%2C388&sr=1-1

​

Don't make people bend the knee to you. People are not puppets.

​

When one place I worked at was bought out by blood-sucking vampires, I told my reports what was happening and encouraged them to find other options if they could. I took severance pay and left.

Anarcho-capitalism is not leftist or anarchist, so definitely stay away from that garbage.

Some great anarchist texts are available in full at the Anarchist Library. And there’s Audible Anarchist on YouTube.

My recs: Conquest of Bread by Kropotkin and Anarchy Works by Gelderloos. You should also read Emma Goldman, George Orwell, Howard Zinn, Rudolf Rocker, and George Woodcock.

An Anarchist FAQ has a whole section dealing with these kinds of questions in-depth: "What Would An Anarchist Society Look Like?"

>"And the two groups would have to organize. Wouldn't someone need to be a commander? A leader?"

Not in the traditional military sense, no. In anarchist (and some other revolutionary) militias, to the extent there's leadership at all it's temporary, popularly elected, and subject to immediate recall.

>Wouldn't we have to organize something to prevent them from being in the commune?

For people who commit serious anti-social acts, like those you mentioned, the first priority would be making the victim or victim's loved ones whole (to the extent possible), next being rehabilitation or isolation to keep the offender from harming others. Many societies have managed to do this without a state or police for millennia, and it's something anarchists tend to think will be worked out in practice rather than a one size fits all solution — there are lots of models to try.

Venezuela likely has the most mobilized and organized population in the world aside from perhaps Rojava. Each group within this kaleidoscope of social movements maintains varying degrees of autonomy from the state.

We should seek out and support those leftist organizations which advocate keeping the revolution independent from the government. We can be critical of the Chavez/Maduro-run state without throwing away all the legitimate progress made by millions of people there. And of course we must totally oppose US imperialism.

A great book on this subject (though a bit dated now) is We Created Chavez. Another good one is Venezuela Speaks! Voices from the Grassroots.

The black rose is a pretty common symbol that might work for you, idk if this one would be to obvious but if you wanna stick it to those skinhead shitheads you can use the anti fascist three prong arrow thing (I forget exactly what its called)

> How are we supposed to overthrow the hierarchical society when the majority of the people is against a revolution?

We don't. That's why we need to convince people of our cause.

For the rest I recommend looking through this sub, filtering by top posts of all time. You'll surely find answers to this, as these questions are asked very frequently.

Here you can see the recommended works. Here you can filter for ancom literature specifically. As one user already pointed out: "The Conquest of Bread" is a nice start, even if a bit dated, it gives a good overview. I strongly recommend David Graeber's "Debts" and "Bullshitjobs", not specifically theory about how to achieve anarchism or what it looks like but about the status quo and why certain things are how they are, from the perspective of an anarchist. Chomsky's "Manufacturing Consent" is also very popular amongst anarchists, for good reason as it explains the media and their role. I think you can find all of it on "The Anarchist Library" (also linked in the sidebar of the sub).

I like how user sadeofdarkness put it in the recent r/debateanarchism thread:

>I think democracy in all forms isn't a good idea (at least interms of anarchy) and requires as a prerequiste the creation of borders (your commune), personifying the collective will and elevating it above the individual (itself a hierarchy of command and control), sufferage (who can be involved in this democracy?) and authority (if the collective is making a decision and someone dosn't go allong with it are you going to compell them to obey?). All things that are pretty incompatible with anarchism. Direct democracy is a sham - its just direct government while trying to not use the word government "and if the whole People, claiming sovereignty, assumes Government, one seeks in vain where the governed will be". > >[...] > >The only way to make "democracy" compatible with anarchy (which is how it gets crowbared in repeatedly) is to water it down so much that it becomes a general vibe as apposed to any particular form, i.e. you have to avoid this elevation of the collective will over the individual such that it is no longer a democracy in anyway. At which point it is - functionaly - useless as a term, subscribed to only because it makes people feel nice. If this is what you mean by direct democracy then fine, but your wording is somewhat missleading and inprecise, and will lead to a lot of people advocating for very non-anarchic forms.

For further reading:

Anarchists Against Democracy: In their own words. Check out some quotes and links in there, it should give you a pretty good idea on how and why anarchists oppose democracy.

David Wengrow and David Graeber deal very with this bullshit in their paper Farewell to the childhood of man: ritual, seasonality, and the origins of inequality., if you're interested.

You can find the paper here:

https://www.academia.edu/13105162/_with_David_Graeber_Farewell_to_the_childhood_of_man_ritual_seasonality_and_the_origins_of_inequality._Journal_of_the_Royal_Anthropological_Institute_2015_The_Biennial_Henry_Myers_Lecture_

And there is also this lecture about it: https://vimeo.com/145285143

On the "nature" debate, Noel Castree deals with it very well in his book Making sense of nature.

Audio books might help you, I like to listen to them whilst commuting, when work allows, and when I am cooking.

Audible Anarchist on YouTube has a fair, and growing, selection.

Librivox has a good number of audibooks in general, but you will have to look for specific entries/authors, or browse the political science/philosophy categories to find things on this topic specifically.

> Is this the real meaning of the word

well

> 1530s, from Fr. anarchie or directly from M.L. anarchia, from Gk. anarkhia "lack of a leader, the state of people without a government" (in Athens, used of the Year of Thirty Tyrants, 404 B.C., when there was no archon), noun of state from anarkhos "rulerless," from an- "without" (see an- (1)) + arkhos "leader" (see archon). > > http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=anarchy&allowed_in_frame=0

There's the etymology. Note that it says "lack of a leader," nothing about 'no order,' or 'no law' or 'general chaos.'

> is it just propaganda becoming general opinion over the ages?

Yes, where "ages" is about 200 years. States have a vested interest in getting people to think terrible things about anti-state philosophies.

> Also is there a difference between the words anarchy and anarchism?

Yes. "Anarchism" is a philosophy that wants to bring about "anarchy," which is a particular state of the world.

Maybe you aren't an anarchist, and that's fine. I can only invite you to spend some time with the anarchist critique of government and authority, and the developments on anarchic alternatives (key words probably being free association, apolitical social organization, the federative principle, learning to live with some uncertainty, and consistent opposition to every 'external imposition'). If only because it's valuable for any consistent anti-authoritarian.

A network of small democracies would probably give rise to some freedom in how we choose to relate to each other, some freedom from larger polities like the state. That seems like a taste of what anarchists are trying to get at, but we're ultimately not satisfied with 'having a say' in how to be governed as members, while authorizing "the commune". Rather, we seek to rid ourselves of that externalization.

Authority ≠ influence or force. Authority is an ongoing, coercive relationship of domination and subordination. It is not authoritarian to (say) have non-coercive influence over someone or to fight back in self defense.

I recommend this essay by Ziq: Anarchy Vs. Archy: No Justified Authority

> Plenty of anarchists identify as socialists (see social anarchism)

Just adding that anarcho-individualists are socialists as well and most of them identify as such too.

To quote myself:

> Homophobia generally strikes me as a defense mechanism of patriarchy, which depends on the conflation of sex, gender, orientation and social roles. The further the deviation from the male and female archetypes (which are mutually exclusive and mutually attracted), the greater the challenge to this model of society. Men who want to take on women's roles (whether they be jobs, hobbies, clothing/mannerisms, taste in sexual partners, etc.) challenge the self-evident superiority of all things male; women who want to take on men's roles challenge the natural division of maleness and femaleness.

As to gay marriage, not a whole lot. It's basically the smallest relaxation possible on an incentive structure that keeps families nuclear. It doesn't address gender imbalances within marriage, but it might expose and force the neutralization of regulations that have fallen on gender lines up to this point.

Fellow pacifist, it’s been made clear many times in history that the revolution itself and therefore its tactics must emulate the society it wants to create. Whilst i support self defence, I believe that the use of physical violence to dominate one sector of society to capitulate our demands will lead to nothing but perpetual war, ruthless bureaucracy, and a new hierarchy that will just dominate and control our everyday lives in the same old ways.

Google Bookchin

Surely, nothing could be more unrealistic than to keep everything the way it is and expect different results.

Anarchism is not a dogma or a blueprint. It is not a system that would supposedly work if only it were applied right, like democracy, nor a goal to be realized in some far-off future, like communism. It is a way of acting and relating that we can put into practice right now.

Or, in other words:

>Anarchy describes a particular type of situation, one in which either authority does not exist or its power to control is negated. Such a situation guarantees nothing—not even the continued existence of that situation, but it does open up the possibility for each of us to start creating our lives for ourselves in terms of our own desires and passions rather than in terms of social roles and the demands of social order. Anarchy is not the goal of revolution; it is the situation which makes the only type of revolution that interests me possible—an uprising of individuals to create their lives for themselves and destroy what stands in their way. It is a situation free of any moral implications, presenting to each of us the amoral challenge to live our lives without constraints.

Anarchy 101

Voting isn't really super useful as far as ushering anarchy in, though it can still be helpful for ameliorating conditions in the short term. One main strategy in the present moment is to build up our own independent organizations and infrastructures, things like community farms, mutual aid networks, community self defense organizations, and really just fulfilling the socially useful things currently done by oppressive bodies without being oppressive.

Need to work for your shitty boss to live? Mutual aid and community farms have you covered! Hate the pigs but like how they occasionally stop nazis from hatecriming you? We'll cover it without being pieces of shit who uphold the status quo! Want the privacy that comes with a VPN but don't want a collaborator on your phone? Riseup.net's VPN has you covered, and they also provide email services! Want a house but don't want to feed a landlord their fifth yacht? Find some squats!

Building bottom-up community controlled alternatives to infrastructure is a huge part of what we do, as well as ambitious protests and occupation movements like the ZADs in France and various other occupy movements. If we grow anarchy in the cracks in the pavement, then eventually we can break it apart and have a lush forest in its place.

Stephen Fry reading anything in the canon would be amazing. In the meantime, Audible Anarchist completed their recording of The Conquest of Bread last September.

> Other comments however say that democracy doesn’t exist in anarchism as a majority would have a hierarchy over a minority.

That’s the correct take. Anarchists oppose majority rule and thus oppose democracy. Historically, all anarchists have opppsed democracy but then American anarchists like Chomsky and Bookchin came along conflating democracy with freedom and thus ppl started saying “anarchy is direct democracy” and “anarchy is democracy taken seriously” and all other kinds of bs.

One thing I can recommend is the Anarchist Libarx. It has many free books and litarutore. Also what I can recommend, but isn't a book but a Video, is this this viseo and its follow ups.

Emma Goldman has a few things to say about markets… I’m not the most read so I can’t recommend anything in particular but giving a search of markets and feminism in the anarchist library gives a few pages of search results.

<em>Black Against Empire: The History and Politics of the Black Panther Party</em>

Anarchists oppose democracy. It's not an anarchist construct.

Democracy is ultimately a form of government. Without the line-drawing, political abstraction "the people", and without the governing of each other in the name of a shared identity of sorts, you're left with some anarchy. There are clear differences between democratic and anarchic principles; it takes some serious downwatering of ideas to conclude the two are reconcilable.

I guess it depends on what you want to get out of it? Neither are great introductory texts, in my not-too-humble opinion.

Probably a good place to start with anarchism is with the idea of anarchy:

>Anarchy is the opposition to authority, the rejection of hierarchy and the unending strive for autonomy and self-determination.

You probably already knew that much. So, where do you want to go next?

Do you wanna learn about anarchist history, projects and movements in the past? Read anarchist analysis/critiques of authoritarian instutions? Anarchist approaches to ethical questions? Anarchist theories of property, state, the individual? Read about anarchy as a living and breathing praxis that we incorporate into our everyday lives?

My suggestion is, start with whatever interests you the most. Maybe what interests you the most really is Kropotkin's case for communism, maybe it is Goldman's attacks on a variety of authoritarian nonsense. But maybe it's something completely different.

Hierarchies exist for rulers to maintain their social control & power over the population. This control is maintained with violent force by authorities appointed by the rulers: the army, national guard, police, courts, prisons, social workers, media, tax collectors, etc.

I prefer self-determination and autonomy. "Why is authority bad" is kinda like asking "why is freedom good?".

SubMedia's What is...? series is pretty good.

https://theanarchistlibrary.org/special/index Lots of documents here which you may find interesting. As to classic theory, others likely have more info than I do.

Hiiii :)

Here you'll find virtually everything related to anarchist works https://theanarchistlibrary.org/special/index

I recommend Emma Goldman's "Anarchy and other essays" And if you want a more personal experience you can always read her autobio "Living my life", which gives you a lot of insight on the early anarchist movement in the US, since she was right at the centre of it and lived with a lot of the most proeminent anarchists of the time :)

Also, read and listen to Noam Chomsky's essays and interviews on the subject of anarchism in modern society

Hope i helped!

Personally I use Facebook to keep in touch with family and friends. My posts are usually agitation or information that's suppressed or not widely available. I use browser extensions to block ads and fence out facebook as much as I can. In short I try to use Facebook more than it uses me.

More generally under capitalism everything is about capital using us for a profit. I don't think there's anything especially unique or threatening about facebook versus. Almost all of technology and science are destructive and exploitative under our current system.

related: /r/makhaevism

> Engles made a semantic argument. He was right. Sure, he’s being pedantic & contrarian, and sowing confusion for no reason, but he’s correct.

Did you read this lol?

> If you cannot substantiate that he isn’t correct, I’m going to keep thinking his argument is correct, and I’m going to keep stipulating “not all authority”.

I can, simply by pointing out the fact that Engels was confusing expertise, influence, and force, three very clearly defined concepts, with authority.

As for “not all authority”...

> Once you start justifying authority and hierarchy, you effectively twist a knife in anarchy. We've all heard the phrase "all power corrupts". It's not a meme; it's the entire reason anarchy exists as a practice. > >Legitimizing authority enables archy. Doesn't matter if you call yourself an anarchist while justifying hierarchies you personally approve of for whatever reason. NO authority is legitimate in anarchy. Yes, even in a parent-child relationship. > >When you legitimize an authority, you're granting it power, presenting it as an institution that needs to be obeyed at all costs, and it won't stop there. It'll want more power because that's the nature of power. Always grows, never stops to examine its devastating effect on its surroundings. Power is a license to do harm. Whether it was your original intention to enable a violent force of power when you legitimized an authority is irrelevant. It will do harm and the people who signed off on legitimizing it are (or should be) culpable for that harm.

Sorry for the long reply, but...

How does preference automatically imply hierarchy? We're looking at power hierarchies, not preference hierarchies. Do you not distinguish between the two? Superior skill does not automatically translate to authority over a person with less skill, especially with your example, as the medical physician should be providing the advanced care, not ordering the nurse around, no?

Everyone will bring out the tired-old argument of the "authority of the boot-maker on boots", but that's clearly about credibility, not command. Yeah, they know boots better, does that somehow imply the best way of teaching about boots is through cultivating superior-subordinate relations between people, rather than empowering and developing those whom it is their passion to rise to an equal level? It should always be charisma and expertise, not just "because I said so since I have more training". Logically, more training can only probabilistically ensure proficiency and mastery, it cannot certainly ensure it, therefore the authority should always have to demonstrate contextual merit. Maybe you agree there?

There's no rational reason for things like the physician having some exclusive right to discipline and punish the nurse, or commanding the patient, rather than explaining the reasoning for people to independently evaluate with their own conscience.

The only justified forms of leadership IMO are ones with anarchic trajectories, that actually do move in a decentralizing direction, that share knowledge and inspire those below to rise an those above to step back as learning moves forward.

Anyway, I recently posted a thing about anarchism and power, looking at criteria for anti-authoritarian, self-negating "leadership", I would be interested to see where your thinking converges and diverges there.

Absolutely not. Capitalism isn't trade, nor is it markets - that's just silly. Capitalism is the economic system in which private property exists (by private property, we mean property which is owned by somebody because the state says they own that property). This includes the means of production, but also housing.

If there is a propertied class and there is a working class, there is hierarchy. This hierarchy can only survive with the support of a state. Anarcho-capitalism is an oxymoron - it's literally a nonsense term.

This isn't to say that markets or trade is antithetical to anarchism; left market-anarchists and mutualists do believe in markets. They don't, however, believe in private property, and are still socialists. I haven't read the book myself, but <em>Markets Not Capitalism</em> seems to be the go-to text for market anarchists. The work of Kevin Carson is also very influential in those circles.

These might be helpful actually. http://veganwarfare.com/unconditional-anti-oppression-rise-anti-speciesism-anarchist-movement/

https://archive.org/details/RevStruggleNonhumanHumanAnimalLiberation

A relevant article to the distinction between Free Software and Open Source is Where The Free Software Movement Went Wrong And How To Fix It, which links to other relevant articles on the subject.

> According to Morozov, O’Reilly hijacked Richard Stallman’s free software movement and turned it into the more corporate-friendly open source movement. From there, O’Reilly would go on to redefine web freedom as freedom for companies like Google to do whatever they want online, and to redefine open government not as a movement for transparency and accountability but as the need to give free data sets to for-profit companies.

> [...]

> But most open source software — as defined by the Open Source Initiative — is also free software, as defined by the Free Software Foundation. So what’s the problem? The difference between the two movements is that Free Software is a social movement, and open source is a methodology.

If you can read a pdf, here is the corrected translation online. And there is more at the Bakunin Library site.

Democracy is a rule by the majority. An -archy. Anarchists have always opposed democracy, seeing how democracy is anti-freedom.

Anarchism is not about establishing an anarchist state or any other legal/governmental order. Anarchy is about actively working to end authoritarian relationships wherever they exist, and build non-authoritarian alternatives. Anarchy is not a blueprint. It is not about trying to prescribe a way of life for an imagined place and time, and imagined people.

If for whatever reason people decided that they want to go back to a democratic republic, anarchists will do the same thing they do now: keep opposing/fighting authority, and build non-authoritarian alternatives.

Or, as Rudolf Rocker put it:

>I am an Anarchist not because I believe Anarchism is the final goal, but because there is no such thing as a final goal.

Also matrixfor distributed instant messaging.

There are lots of distributed and decentralized technologies, but some of them suffer from a lack of adoption. Tech like i2p is hypothetically robust and could be more popular in the future, but its safety decreased as the number of network participants decreases. This causes investment (in development and security research) to also be lacking. Tor is basically the opposite. Tor is much more popular and thus has much better anonymity (all things equal) and much more development and security research going on.

I read that the guy who started faircoin which is a cryptocurrency designed for currency free of governments and corporations yet optimized for use as currency and not speculation. He funded it by hacking into european banks https://fair-coin.org/

If you speak any of the languages in the Anarchist Library’s options better than English, you might find it useful. If not, start with something more simple like Malatesta’s Anarchy or Kropotkin’s Conquest of Bread.

The languages in the Anarchist Library are: - Spanish - French - Swedish - Turkish - Polish - Russian - German - Dutch - Italian - Polish - Finnish - Danish

If you happen to speak any of these better than English, you’re in luck. This reminds me, however, that even if you aren’t, or you just want to know where to start, you can use this subreddit’s Anarchist Canon.

You could start with Proudhon's What is Property?. That's where the declaration "Property is Theft!" comes from:

>Had I to answer the following question: What is slavery? an answer with a single word--Murder--my reasoning would be grasped immediately. I would not need any protracted discourse to demonstrate that the power to strip a man of his mind, his will, his personality, is a power over life and death, and that making a man a slave is tantamount to murder. So why cannot I answer this other query: What is property? in a similar vein--Theft--without being assured that I would not be heeded, even though this second proposition is merely a re-casting of the first?

This is like criticizing a leftist for living in a capitalist society.

Reddit's structure requires subreddits to have moderators, I don't think that even the mods of the anarchist subs would argue that this is a desired situation, it's just that they have no choice in the matter. Due to the abrasive nature of Reddit, a lack of moderation makes a popular sub unusable quickly.

If you want a more direct community-based approach to moderation, use Raddle. Surprise, more open community-based moderation and a lack of advertising interests leads to more leftist content across the entire site.

The only reason that anarchist subreddits exist is because they reach a lot of people. But I don't think any anarchist would argue in favor of the paradigms here.

Agreed!

Malatesta is one of my favorite Anarchist writers as well. Everyone should read Anarchy, very simple, concise text that doesn’t get all bogged down in theory.

https://www.amazon.com/Anarchy-Errico-Malatesta/dp/1719417512/ref=nodl_#aw-udpv3-customer-reviews_feature_div

A college counselor at a school I worked at gave me a copy of colleges that change lives. The information is going to be pretty out of date, but it gives a look into some schools that don't get a lot of attention.

I have friends that went to small liberal arts colleges like Goucher, and they had a better college experience I think than I did.

The big stumbling block is the cost, but private colleges can often offer scholarships to make their tuition competitive with public schools.

If your parents can afford it, it might be worth it to meet with a college admissions counselor a few times. It sounds like maybe your school doesn't have a good admissions counselor which is a shame. They'd be able to help you find something other than like large state universities that might fit you better and help you put together a competitive admissions packet.

Picking a college is really intimidating so if you have more specific questions, I can try to help.

Yes. https://www.amazon.com/Ordinary-Men-Reserve-Battalion-Solution/dp/0062303023

If just one left-leaning person helped to make sure their brothers in arms are vigilantly aware that orders could come to be deployed against their own people, it'd make a huge difference all on it's own.

Yup, also if you have time, Marx had a manuscript for the fourth volume of Kapital that critiqued theories of surplus value. Karl Kautsky published it as a full three volume edition, I'd at least read the first one. Here's an amazon link, although you should obviously buy it somewhere else if you can find it. Or try to find a free online source.

Even though its actually critical of capitalism, there's The Wealth of Nations, which capitalists seem to like to cite. Though as far as a capitalist Conquest of Bread, the closest thing I can think of is The Road to Serfdom (Hayek). Pure capitalist ideology. There's also Capitalism is Freedom (Friedman), On Inequality (Frankfurt), Economics in One Lesson (Hazlitt), and Basic Economics (Sowell). In the slightly more libertarian/minarchist realm of things, there's also Anarchy, State, and Utopia (Nozick).

The 'modern neoliberal globalized capitalist' equivalent to Conquest of Bread would be The World is Flat (other Friedman).

EDIT: Anything by Krugman is good if you're looking for neo-Keynesian non-batshit pro-capitalism.

And seriously, read Marx. Start with Capital & watch the David Harvey Reading Capital companion series on Youtube. And if you get the Penguin edition of Capital, there's a great introduction by Ernst Mandel worth reading.

Podcast: http://www.crimethinc.com/podcast/

Docs (not really Anarchism, but interesting): The Shock Doctrine (capitalism and imperialism), Killing Hope (USA international interversions, capitalism, imperialism), Crack in the System (Capitalism-State)

Monthly news (video + documentaries) [general Anarchism]:http://www.submedia.tv/

Audiobooks: libcom.org has a lot of them.

Lectures are hard to say. There are hundreds of millions of trillions of them. We should make a Cannon of Lectures for this subreddit!

(All this is from the top of my head, I didn't think too much, I'm sure someelse can give you more and better recommendations)

I find trying to identify the "meaning of life" is actually pretty pointless. I just finished Viktor Frankl's "Man's Search for Meaning" again, so this is a bit of a re-hash of that - but for me, it's much more important to identify my purpose in life instead of life's overall meaning. The answer is much more satisfying and less abstract. My purpose in life is to love and challenge oppression whenever possible (which to me is also an expression of love). How I do that changes, but when I look over my life, regardless of what dogma I've ever ascribed to, that has remained constant.

I'd personally recommend Anarchy by Errico Malatesta (Audiobook) as a first book. It's a great piece of introductory theory.

greetings comrade! here is the curriculum for the Transformative Justice series i'm taking with just the list of learnings that we draw from. i'll be writing up more about details of each class and learnings, discussions etc as we progress.

Mia's disclaimer is that this is just an introduction into the transformative justice process, and will not prepare you to begin the process. right now, we are paced at 1 section (S1, S2 etc) every 2 weeks. the readings are heavy so i think it's paced okay for me to still balance out my other commitments.

from what i'm learning from case studies, looks like first few months of any TJ process is for the accountability groups for person who was harmed and person who caused harm to start going over resources to get an idea of what they want their process to look like.

i went thru multiple several lists of resources, here are the most commonly recommended places to start to begin your learning. i am working thru both of these lists myself, let me know if yall have a reading group or something, would love to join and learn together. hope this helps.

edit to add: the entire creative interventions toolkit has been hearalded as the bible for the transformative justice framework, so after going thru TJ series (first link) then all of the resources in second link, i'm going to skim thru the toolkit to get a sense of where reference points are. long road ahead comrade, you got this

To elaborate a little on what the comrade said above, the A and O are sometimes attributed to a line in Proudhon's What Is Property?, where he says "As man seeks justice in equality, so society seeks order in anarchy." Out of context, it's confusing, but the previous section goes over France's progress from an absolute monarchy, to a constitutional monarchy, with no monarch at all on their horizon. Anarchy, the lack of a ruler, is portrayed by him as the most advanced form of society, and not anything chaotic, it's what you get when you limit your autocratic king, then continue in the same political direction until you've dispensed with such people altogether. So now you know what that quote is about. You can find the full text here.

And like everyone else said, no connection to Satanism or any other occult or religious beliefs.

https://raddle.me/wiki/postleft

What Post-Left Anarchists Value

moving beyond anarchISM as a static historical praxis into anarchY as a living praxis

focusing on daily life & the intersectionality thereof rather than dialectics / totalizing narratives (except anarcho-primitivists tend toward epistemology)

emphasizing personal autonomy & a rejection of work (as forced labor, alienated labor, workplace-centricity)

critiquing Enlightenment notions of Cartesian dualities, rationalism, humanism, democracy, utopia, etc.

critiquing industrial notions of mass society, production, productivity, efficiency, "Progress", technophilia, civilization (esp. in anti-civilization tendencies)

I don't think you fully understand what post-left anarchy is as it, too, rejects all hierarchies.

Anarchy Works by Peter Gelderloos and Mutual Aid by Peter Kropotkin are both good entry books on the subject of anarchist economics. They're available on the anarchist library, and you can listen to them for free via Audible Anarchism, which you can find on YouTube, or your podcast aggregator of choice.

An Anarchist FAQ and The ABCs of Communist Anarchism are both good and can be found for free online. If you’re looking beyond the basics, Marquis Bey’s Anarcho-Blackness and any of David Graeber’s work or Mark Fisher’s are good. Look around on https://theanarchistlibrary.org/special/index, they have everything under the leftist sun.

https://theanarchistlibrary.org/special/index you can have your prof and then class read some real anarchist theory, good profs love when you introduce them to good, factual theory so hope it goes well! Srysly pick an article about what anarchism is and ask your prof if class can read it :)

You might want to read Kropotkin's "The Conquest of Bread" on anarcho-communism and Proudhon's "What is Property?" on mutualism. The anarchist library has some great essays.

Sorry I'm late to the thread!

Contributing to Wikipedia and The Anarchist Library are two ways I do praxis from home.

I wouldn't be a true Anarchist-Communist if I didn't recommend "The Bread book". That's what we like to call The Conquest of Bread by Peter Kropotkin. It's usually everyone's starting point. I also highly recommend Mikhail Bakunin because he's my favorite philosopher so far. I'm reading an anthology of Anarchist thought right now that goes over most of the best bits of writing from all the prominent thinkers.

An excellent resource is the Anarchist Library where you can find hundreds, if not thousands of Anarchist books for free. Almost any topic you could possibly think of, and I would be willing to guess that even new authors put their writing on there. Here's the link- https://theanarchistlibrary.org/special/index Any book someone recommends, you'll likely find it there. You can download most books in a bunch of different languages, as well as in a swathe of different file-formats such as .PDF, or .PUB (for e-readers) just know that some have formatting issues in spots due to the conversions, but that should be manageable.

If you're looking for hard copies of books, I recommend AK Press. There website is here- https://www.akpress.org/ They're a small publishing co-op that specializes in radical books. They usually print Anarchy-related book but I do believe they have some Marx and Engels too. Depending on where you are in the world, the shipping might get expensive. If it is, also check out Amazon and maybe you'll find a better deal.

Right now I'm reading No Gods, No Masters: An anthology of Anarchism by Daniel Guerin. It's a hefty book, but it goes over all the best philosophers like I mentioned above. It's a really great read so far. I got it from AK Press. Another one I recently read is Anarchy by Errico Malatesta. That one's really short, but it's also very good.

Let me know if you have any questions or need more recommendations!

I searched for it but couldn't find any copies of it online. It is a collection of articles, so maybe you could find the individual articles on http://theanarchistlibrary.org/special/index or https://www.scribd.com Good luck

I believe that Morris' News from Nowhere paints a great picture of a utopian society, although referred to as socialist,I believe it's actually closer to what I have learned of Anarchism.

This is not the answer, but it is an answer. Hope it helps. Check out chapter III: "Anarchist Communism." It's pretty short and sweet and readable.

The Conquest of Bread by Peter Kropotkin

Overthrow, no. Peacefully coexist and hope/advocate for a socio-cultural transition, yes. You're dreaming big, now come back to reality for a second.

1000 person cities, currently unattainable, potentially impossible with current global population growth rates.

Ecovillages and other planned communities, cooperative living communities, offer essentially what you're seeking.

Only kinda tbh.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_(social_and_political)

It's essentially that power/force over someone is justified by politics. Traditionally the monarch justified his power over others because it was "given by god".

Anarchists reject the paradigm that anyone should be over anyone else, but we are still justifying the use of power to prevent anyone from taking control of another.

It isn't directly said a lot but this guy goes into a lot of detail and is much more eloquent than me

https://iversity.org/en/my/courses/political-philosophy-an-introduction-january-2016

I agree with this and wanted to post some specific ideas that can help with this.

Go to shows. Buy their Merch. You do this and walk around with a band's shirt or an artist's work and people will ask you about it. The more people do this, the more that art spreads without corporate/capitalist backing but community based word of mouth. You will also likely be putting the money closer to the artist than the record labels that trickle down to the artist.

Think about using AdNauseum with your streaming services or sites you browse to (educate yourself about it first before using) https://adnauseam.io/ . It blocks viewing ads, but also does click-thoughs, still supporting the content creators by literally clicking all the ads...

If you are paying for a streaming service, who says you need to turn it off when you are not listening. If the service pays for each play, play it ALL THE TIME.

Anyone else have other ideas?

Definitely start with Stirner, and if you want to save yourself some time here are some links on Post-Structuralist strains of Anarchism (which are all heavily influenced by Stirner). If you don't think you're ready to jump right in to the good stuff I would recommend the Bread Book by Kropotkin, good, easy read, gets ya fired up, good for initiates.

But yeah Stirner is the shit, otherwise look up Post-Civilization and Post-Structuralism, that seems to be where most of the modern critiques are coming from.

I didn't answer your question because you pretty much did in your post but just in case: someone needs to have boot powers O .O

Raddle's Movies &amp; TV wiki

Some of my favorites are:

Self-Criticism of a Bourgeois Dog

Captain Fantastic

Mother Küsters Goes to Heaven (and RW Fassbinder in general really)

A German Youth

Harlan County, USA

That seems like it's restricted to certain religious traditions, doesn't it? Whereas with others, debate about it is the whole thing.

A Rabbi or an Iman is the equivalent of the cobbler you consult in the matter of shoes, but they don't have ultimate authority beyond that. I would also love to get a copy of "No masters but God: Portraits of anarcho-Judaism" because I find it so interesting.

First buy an M-17 Medic Kit refill. Then get a backpack that can store all that stuff and pack it. ~~It comes with a manual on emergency first aid and~~ should have everything you could conceivably need as a street medic. You want to avoid the pre-packed bags because they look 'tactical' and attract attention.

Info provided by Beau of the Fifth Column in a video about bug-out bags and prepping.

Utilitarians don't think ethics is subjective... And utilitarianism would also take into account the well being of animals. One of the most prominent modern utilitarian philosophers is also one of the most prominent vegans. You should check out Peter Singer's Animal Liberation.

The Art of War is the most lucid and practical thing to read on armed conflict between two organizations ever. When read closely, Sun Tzu's principles are the essence of revolutionary guerrilla warfare, and regardless of your reasons, if someone has an interest in Che or Mao's tactics, this is a good place to start. Sun Tzu argues at every point for mobility, the use of spies to keep ahead of the enemy on intel, for decoys and deception to lead the enemy into ambush, and to constantly be aware of your environment. Che really echoes him when he talks about zones of secure/insecure/mountainous/urban warfare, and again with the sugesstion to get as many supplies from your foes as possible (Che focuses on bullets, Sun Tzu on cattle etc). As Sun Tzu was often outnumbered and operating in hostile territory, he always highlights the wisdom of attacking isolated groups of the larger army where you can have the advantage, and then running for the hills. You can use a small pass, Thermopylae-style, or find a lone outpost (and maybe set it on fire), or divert them with false intel (the Spies section is really big on the use of double agents) or some tempting bait. I used to think when he said that the ideal situation was to outnumber the other army 10 to 1 that he meant you should always have huge imperial legions-- he meant use your noggin to put the odds in your favor.

That said, his personal philosophy of generalship is explicitly hierarchical. While he was perhaps more lenient than his contemporaries for advocating gentleness to gain the respect of your soldiers, he also was no stranger to punishment. In particular, the story about how he got his job by killing two women is decidedly NOT Anarchistic. It helps to have a well-annotated edition for clarity between feudalistic brutality and clear headed stratagem.

There's some really good takes in your post. I identify myself with anarchism and other libertarian socialist ideals since a few months but am still a member of a socdem party because I see a lot of great people in that party who are doing great work.

However, the socialist calculation debate afaik concerns central planning. So are you assuming that central planning is the only alternative to markets? If so, I'd like to point out that there's also proposals for decentralized economic planning which should be able to circumvent the problems pointed out in the calculation debate. One openly anarchist proposal is Parecon.

Tell me what you think of this.

And BTW, you say "we anarchists" but clearly there are different kinds of anarchists.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/227545964_Governance_Without_a_State_Can_It_Work?utm_source=reddit&amp;utm_medium=rgShare&amp;utm_campaign=shareFullTextPublication

>Government is governing people.

Okaaaay...

>The government is the group of people who govern.

Suuuure...

>To govern is to control.

Ummm, no. Not by definition, no.

>It is a necessarily hierarchical relationship between those who are controlled by others to differing degrees.

Uhhhh, nope.

government: The governing body of a nation, state, or community

govern: Conduct the policy, actions, and affairs of (a state, organization, or people):

It is not part of the definition of the makeup of who or what governs. If it was a direct democracy, something like consensus, would that make you feel better?

Yes, a plutocratic government, the one we experience, is hierarchical. Majority rule decisionmaking can be hierarchical. Representative decision making can be hierarchical.

But that really depends on the makeup of society. If the economics are not hierarchical, it would be hard for the government to be.

https://www.amazon.com/Limits-Medicine-Medical-Nemesis-Expropriation/dp/0714529931/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?crid=1O58NVTHZBLO1&amp;keywords=medical+nemesis&amp;qid=1667280086&amp;qu=eyJxc2MiOiIxLjUyIiwicXNhIjoiMS4yOSIsInFzcCI6IjEuMjcifQ%3D%3D&amp;sprefix=me...

If you live in or near a major city, a college town, or a health-conscious area, chances are that there will be vegan specific alternatives at local grocery stores and probably some restaurants as well. There are vegan versions of just about everything nowadays. And that can make the transition easier because they will feel familiar. Cheese, meats, milk, butter, and pre-made meals too. If something is not specifically labeled as vegan and you're unsure, get used to reading ingredient labels. And buy something like this:

https://www.amazon.com/Animal-Ingredients-Z-Smith-Collective/dp/1873176597

Remember though that there are lots of basic foods that are already vegan. Vegetables and fruits, peanut butter, lots of breads, pasta, rice and beans...

Really depends for an undergrad class. Familiarity with Marx definitely helps. Don't worry too much or put any undue pressure on yourself here though.

If you want something good with Marx and Bakunin, I'd recommend checking out the book the The First Socialist Schism on them, which is quite interesting. You might also check out Demanding the Impossible for an intellectual history of anarchism.

Good luck!

>Where did you read that?

Right in here, friendo. I'm sure there's a PDF of it kicking around somewhere.

>way to shit on SEK3's work.

I don't see how clarifying what SEK3 wrote is "shitting" on his work.

Same with Stalin. The root of the problem remains Marx.

He once reported Jim Hogshire's opium growing to Seattle police after Hogshire threatened him with a rifle, and he reported a fellow to the postal service for sending him a mail bomb, so many people will chime in with something about him being a snitch or a fed when he's mentioned. He also criticized some SWERFs back in the early 80s that were working with Republicans to crack down on porn and sex work, so he's often accused of being a misogynist. He was part of various left wing groups back in the day that did the collapsing and infighting that so many groups tend to do, and often gets accused of any number of things because of that - Chaz Bufe has suggested that he tried to burn down someone's house, or instructed one of his "followers" to burn down someone's house, when the zine they worked on together in the 80s fell apart. IIRC the proof of that was that the owner of the house smelled gasoline outside once. Black was the guy who came up with anti-work, so he's often accused of being a lazy drunken layabout by the non-anarchist left.

When it comes to most anarchist subs, I personally think the real reason for the negative reactions is two fold. He's very critical of Bookchin and Chomsky, so anyone whose anarchism is centered on them tends to not like him. He's pretty abrasive in his writing, so many people think he's an asshole, probably rightfully. But, it's a lot easier to just say "Hey this guy's a snitch!" than critically engage with his work, or say you disagree with him cause he seems mean.

> Suffrage is an evil, that it has only helped to enslave people, that it has but closed their eyes that they may not see how craftily they were made to submit. Is it not the most brutal imposition for one set of people to make laws that another set is coerced by force to obey? > > The poor, stupid, free American citizen! Free to starve, free to tramp the highways of this great country, he enjoys universal suffrage, and, by that right, he has forged chains about his limbs. The reward that he receives is stringent labor laws prohibiting the right of boycott, of picketing, in fact, of everything, except the right to be robbed of the fruits of his labor.

– Emma Goldman

> No one has yet fully realized the wealth of sympathy, kindness, and generosity hidden in the soul of the child. The effort of every true educator should be to unlock that treasure--to stimulate the child's impulses, and call forth the best and noblest tendencies. What greater reward can there be for one whose life-work is to watch over the growth of the human plant, than to see its nature unfold its petals, and to observe it develop into a true individuality.

– Sebastian Faure (via Emma Goldman)

If it is wordpress the website suite, that's fine. If it is Wordpress.com the blogging platform, then the reason why you shouldn't use it is because it is commodified and will commodify your work. Noblogs on the other hand is activist-run and won't sell you out.

Never heard of that cubanarchist understanding, but good for them. I don't mind looting the past; my interpretation of anarchy is from the 1840s, the anti-political stuff from the past decade or two.

Try this for a general idea of the anarchist critique of political social organization, of politics.

Our communities are in many ways already apolitical, centerless, network-like structures — e.g. with everyone having a different set of friends connecting us to a larger social network. Similar dynamics can emerge in non-governmental, non-capitalist economic relations. "Community" is a bit tricky, as it can easily be understood as a political entitiy, to be governed and constituted just the same as the governmental state.

Here, a bit more eloquently:

>Among the alternatives to external constitution explored by Proudhon, we find the idea that the distinction between society and government could perhaps be erased. In its strongest statements, the proposal to replace political relations with economic relations amounts to a proposal to simply recognize the organization of daily life as all the “government” that anarchy can accommodate—a proposal that would obviously alter the way we think about daily life.

Democracy (rule by the people) is incompatible with anarchy (the abolition of rulership). Even direct democracy is inherently authoritarian and hierarchical.

• The Anarchist Critique of Democracy

• Anarchists against democracy: In their own words

this would be one

although its filled with examples of native american societies that had clear hierarchies so i'm not sure you should read it if you're just trying to rationalize a position you already hold.

That's great! It's so important to be a lifelong learner.

"Anarchy" by Malatesta is the most succinct overview of anarchist principles I have ever cone accross.

I listened to it in the form of this free audiobook. https://librivox.org/anarchy-by-errico-malatesta/ but it is equally available in text form.

Reading theory can be important but it's not for everyone. Older works like The Conquest of Bread can be found as an audiobook for free. Looking at that website they also have texts by Emma Goldman, Enrico Malatesta, Eugene Debs, and Proudhon. They also have Marx if you're interested in that. Audiobooks can be nice because you can do other things while listening to them.

Similarly useful can be the various youtube videos and podcasts that deal with both anarchist theory and praxis. Another way to ease into theory can be to read fiction that deals with anarchist themes.

I don't know if anyone has posted this but https://librivox.org is AMAZING for theory, you cant order from them but there is a lot of good stuff there. plus they have audio books so you can listen while you read, it really helps me.

I found this Audiobook of "the Conquest of Bread" fairly easy to digest despite my own ADHD. It's very introductory, fairly short, and the chapters aren't too long.

https://librivox.org/the-conquest-of-bread-by-peter-kropotkin/

Librivox has other anarchist literature too, I just haven't listened to any of it yet.

+1 on audiobooks! Stuff like this is really hard for me to sit down and read because I don't have attention span like I used to and hard for me to comprehend, but audiobooks definitely help

https://librivox.org/conquest-bread-2-by-peter-kropotkin/ is also another version as well and the one I listened to

Here is a Chiapas travel guide... http://wikitravel.org/en/Chiapas The EZLN territory is considered anarchist, but the EZLN has said otherwise. In general it is considered an undefined form of Libertarian Socialism.

On “human nature” patch idea...some quick photoshop on something like this:

https://www.shutterstock.com/image-vector/fist-hand-logo-design-inspiration-root-1011353809

Simple enough to print, stencil, or patch

Hehe, just read Ziq. Love the critique of Chomsky's "...watering down of anarchism to suit the north-american middle class...". But what is so wrong with liberal anarchism? Is it not the context that most (on reddit, presumably) needs to take into account?

&#x200B;

https://raddle.me/wiki/expertise\_vs\_authority#the-expertise-of-the-cobbler

Sure thing.

It critiques "Leftist organizational patterns' tendencies toward managerialism, reductionism, professionalism, substitutionism & ideology" critiques the "tendencies of unions & Leftist organizations to mimic political parties"

It rejects "identity politics insofar as it preserves victimization-enabled identities & social roles (i.e. affirming rather than negating gender, class, etc.) & inflicts guilt-induced paralysis, amongst others" as well as critiquing "critiquing single-issue campaigns or orientations."

Post left anarchists value:

• moving beyond anarchISM as a static historical praxis into anarchY as a living praxis

• focusing on daily life & the intersectionality thereof rather than dialectics / totalizing narratives (except anarcho-primitivists tend toward epistemology)

• emphasizing personal autonomy & a rejection of work (as forced labor, alienated labor, workplace-centricity)

• critiquing Enlightenment notions of Cartesian dualities, rationalism, humanism, democracy, utopia, etc.

• critiquing industrial notions of mass society, production, productivity, efficiency, "Progress", technophilia, civilization (esp. in anti-civilization tendencies)

Borrowed from here: https://raddle.me/wiki/postleft

From raddle's post-left anarchy page:

>Post-left anarchy is a recent current in anarchist thought that promotes a critique of anarchism's relationship to traditional leftism. Some post-leftists seek to escape the confines of ideology in general while also presenting a critique of organizations and morality. > >In many ways, Post-left anarchy returns to the individualist roots of anarchy, pulling it free from its collectivist weights. > >Influenced by the work of Max Stirner and by the Situationist International, post-left anarchy is marked by a focus on social insurrection and a rejection of leftist social organisation. > >Post-leftists argue that the left, even the revolutionary left, is anachronistic and incapable of creating change. Post-left anarchy offers critiques of radical strategies and tactics which we consider antiquated: the demonstration, class-oriented struggle, focus on tradition, and the inability to escape the confines of history. The book Anarchy in the Age of Dinosaurs, for example, criticizes traditional leftist ideas and classical anarchism while calling for a rejuvenated anarchist movement. The CrimethInc. essay "Your Politics Are Boring as Fuck" is another critique of "leftist" movements: > >>Why has the oppressed proletariat not come to its senses and joined you in your fight for world liberation? [...] [Because] they know that your antiquated styles of protest – your marches, hand held signs, and gatherings – are now powerless to effect real change because they have become such a predictable part of the status quo. They know that your post-Marxist jargon is off-putting because it really is a language of mere academic dispute, not a weapon capable of undermining systems of control... > >— Nadia C., "Your Politics Are Boring as Fuck"

There's a good wiki of relatively heavy queer anarchic theory, here. The first baedan journal is great, but it's by no means an introductory text, so might be worth engaging once you've done a bit of building your thinking in relation to queernes and anarchism a little.

"Variety is life; uniformity is death" – Peter Kropotkin

Here's a paper ‘Uniformity is Death’: Human Nature, Variety and Conflict in Kropotkin’s Anarchism

Quote: "Kropotkin did not base his politics on a narrow vision of human nature. Instead, he offered a vision of a stateless society with practical measures aimed at maintaining cohesion, whilst simultaneously protecting the variety that lay at the heart of a vibrant community. Flexibility was, after all, the attribute that Kropotkin believed anarchism must enshrine, and conflict must necessarily smoulder in the heart of such diversity. ‘To struggle is to live’, he mused, ‘and the fiercer the struggle, the intenser the life …. And … in this … you will find a joy greater than anything else can give’. Once the struggle was won, the struggle would continue. "

"Dunbar's number" has become a piece of "pop-science" that is used and misused in billion different ways.

As far as "Dunbar's number", it's very unscientific (by real scientific standards) and has packed in it many colonialist assumptions.

Here's a taste of some the nonsense packed in it: http://pworldrworld.com/fred/?p=275

Those who use "Dunbar's number" in conversation here, also seem to assume that anything that's "big" or "complex" must be hierarchical.

For a critique of that, see David Graeber and David Wengrow's paper 'Farewell to the childhood of man: ritual, seasonality, and the origins of inequality.'

You can find the paper here: https://www.academia.edu/13105162/_with_David_Graeber_Farewell_to_the_childhood_of_man_ritual_seasonality_and_the_origins_of_inequality._Journal_of_the_Royal_Anthropological_Institute_2015_The_Biennial_Henry_Myers_Lecture_

It must important to keep in the meaning of market then (whether among intellectuals or the general) is not the same as what it is now (I recommend "Meanings of the Market" by James Carrier for classical liberal market, and the work of Philip Mirowski for the neoclassical and neoliberal/Hayekian market(s)).

I would be interested to know if Proudhon was in any way influenced by the Physiocrats' conception of the "economy".

As an historian of anarchism, what do you of these articles using Kropotkin's stuff from a Marxist perspective: https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/harry-cleaver-kropotkin-self-valorization-and-the-crisis-of-marxism

This one points a blind spot in a lot of orthodox anarchist and marxist thought when it comes to "production": https://www.academia.edu/23497370/Capitalism_mutual_aid_and_material_life_Understanding_exilic_spaces

I know that some of Kropotkin's philosophical work are often dismissed as a product of his time.

Ruth Kinna in "Kropotkin: Reviewing the Classical Anarchist Tradition" and Brian Morris in "Kropotkin: The Politics of Community" seem to disagree, any though on that?