Val

You just had to phrase it like that didn't you?

Rant incoming. (if you like this for some weird reason there's more on my profile)

Preface that non of the following arguments are against you or your ideas. You just said something in a way that got me thinking. Any reference to "you" is a straw-man. I don't want to make any assumptions about your ideas but will inevitably use a fictional person to talk to because it's easier to structure a rant that way.

There is nothing wrong with "dividing people into labels and treating them differently". It is wrong to try and derive any absolute value (good/bad, strong/weak, smart/dumb) out of people since humans are far too complex to fit on a single point on a spectrum. Sometimes you act smart sometimes dumb. In some situations you are strong in others you nope out as soon as possible. But that's not all labels are.

Labels are primarily a tool for self-identification. "Anarchist" is a label. One that I've attached unto myself quite firmly. It's the label I use as my primary identity and view the world through an anarchist lens because of that. Labels are a way to categorize and understand ourselves and those around us.

Even if you haven't labelled yourself you can have one be attached to you, and that's not necessarily bad. When categorizing you will reach a point where you need a label for "the rest". This means that a group of people creates a label for you (some examples include cis, strait/hetero, gender-conforming, neurotypical). These labels get created and attached to you whether you want it or not and there is nothing wrong with that. The world is filled with different people and in order for that difference to be understood by both yourself and others you need words to describe things.

The problems begin when you add extra value to those labels. Fascist slogans work well here since fascism is built on this othering. By saying that there is some intrinsic or natural value in a label you are encouraging the behaviour associated with that label. And same vice-versa. This is how cultural control works. Through shaping a common concept of a type of person and then laughing at it, or showing respect to it, depending on the desired outcome. This phenomena exists everywhere, because it is a useful tool for managing groups. It's a lot easier to call someone a statist to ignore their arguments than actually engage with them.

But this isn't bad. some people are different and in a certain space you don't want some people so labelling them to make sure they know they aren't welcome. This community uses it in it's about section:

Yes, if you're an obnoxious (-->)neo-lib(<--) you're going to get banned.

To sum it up, it's not that simple. Everyone labels people. It's how we understand the world around us. We treat others differently due to their labels so we can keep a culture we cherish alive. And I believe cultural control is a societal tactic, not just fascist one, ingrained into human social interaction and by extension society just as much as culture. It's how we maintain long-term control over the world, over the future.

At the end of the day you should try and understand and get along with everyone. But to say everyone needs to be treated the same is to ignore the fact that we're all different. We can't be treated the same.

Power structures can't be dismantled but hierarchical (or archic as I like calling) ones can be turned into anarchic ones. Instead of structures of domination and subordination you use structures based on mutual trust and symbiotic gain.

It also implies that people are divided into strong and weak. That there is some inherent qualities in people that are inferior to other people who don't have those qualities. No-one is better than anyone else, a human beings is far too diverse for that. We're all just different. Not better. Not worse. Just different.

Glad to see I'm not the only one having rambling problems. Hope you're ready for a swim (of an alphabetic variety).

But just quickly wanted to get in that I very much dislike cars, just a convenient example because of cars being notoriously long to get in the Soviet union.

the soviet union is the primary reason why I shy away from communism (technically state capitalism but that doesn't matter).

any system has successfully met all the fundamental basic needs of health, shelter and food, and is no longer capitalist.

I'm using the word capitalist the classical (marx) sense of private ownership of the means of production. Companies are capitalist and coops are socialist. one is privately owned, the other collectively.

Freely associated groups, who set rules amongst themselves? Doesn't sound very anarchist at all, sounds quick democratic

Why? If there are no hierarchical structures, Eg the rules are made collectively, why would it not be anarchism? On the democratic part I would say that without majority rule, which is still rule and thus would be opposed by anarchists, it shouldn't be called democracy as the original meaning of the word is "people rule".

Sure, Europeans states are free to do what they want, with certain restrictions they agree to by being part of the EU.

States are fundamentally archic structures, and the EU is even more archic. They are all managed top-down. You have someone at the top of the pyramid who says what will be done. That's archy. That's vertical organisation.

Anarchy is managed differently, through horizontal organisation. Instead of choosing people who will have power over you, you use your own social potential to build collective power to resist the archic power. I view anarchy as a fluid machine. Like a water bubble in 0g. The parts of the machine (people) can move around and bounce off of each-other which changes the shape of the machine. Every cog shapes the machine to fit them. Archy is a machine made of steel someone comes along, sets up the shape, and if a gear doesn't fit they get ground to dust. Anarchy is chaotic organisation. It doesn't do in-groups and out-groups, instead seeing the world as a single group, and empowering everyone in that group to find their place. In such conditions any harmful activity is completely pointless.

Bad people will always exist. But archy rewards bad behaviour by allowing them to get to the top. Anarchy is nothing more than saying "people are imperfect, so no-one should have the right to rule, as every ruler will make mistakes".

On the topic of defence. There is no need to have centralized defence. decentralized defence forces can work wonders. If someone comes and attacks your group the entire group will defend itself. Why should it fall on anyone specific. There are many ways to defend and an anarchist group would encourage everyone to defend the group in their own way.

supply and demand aren't made up things we can leave behind in a post capitalist world.

Maybe supply and demand aren't, but economics are: https://anarchistfaq.org/afaq/sectionC.html#secc12. (If you didn't notice the AFAQ has different sections, The complete A4 PDF is 3077 pages)

Money is great. It's just accounting, and allows for greater personal choice

Money is one of the foundations of archy. as soon as you have a concrete number that is associated with a single person those people have power and authority over those with a smaller number. You can't have a fair society with money. And if everyone's basic needs are met then why do you even need it. how can you have an economy if people can just opt out of it.

Small freely associating groups are no longer possible we have cities of millions.

Why? Computers have allowed people to stay connected to hundreds of people. And even though it's currently used to incentivise consumerist isolationism, it doesn't have to be. Why do you think that millions of groups of millions of people can't work without some centralized oversight? I would say they would work better because they won't have the bottlenecks of centralisation. Why can't every apartment block be a commune? Why can't the chef that lives next door make the meals for all of you? Why can't the cleaner clean all of your appartments? Why can't that truck driver bring the chef fresh produce from the farmer he's known for 20 years so all of you can eat and be merry? Why can't that work in a city of millions? If an apartment block doesn't have a chef someone who wants to go to the nearby school and learn. Why does society need to be made up of people who don't know each-other, doing everything they can to screw over everyone else because that's how you get ahead in life? AND WHY SHOULD WE LIVE IN A SYSTEM THAT ENCOURAGES IT? That's all archy is. Means for awful people to screw over others. If not everyone is good then no-one is capable of rule.

are you seriously suggesting not having a police force? Not having courts?

ABSOLUTELY! ACAB! (Originally an anarchist slogan until it's mainstream adoption during BLM) The police are professional bullies, no matter what shape they take. If the responsibility of the enforcement of rules falls on a single group, that group makes the rules. Law enforcement should be the duty of everyone. you see something doing something you think is wrong, go up to them and tell them to stop. If other people are around ask them what they think is going on. no-one else is responsible for your safety but yourself, by keeping others safe. Tit-for-tat. By protecting those around you, you're creating a culture of mutual protection so when you're in trouble that culture will help you. The courts and police were not meant to protect people. They were made to protect property and the ruling class. The only reason they protect people is because the people that threaten the ruling class often threaten normal people as well. (Also the facade of justice gives them plenty of bootlickers) For every person that got justice out of the courts there is another that got screwed over. For every woman that sent their abuser to jail there is another whose life was screwed owner by false allegations.

Justice does not come from books and laws. but from the reactions of people. in a communal justice system the shame of being outed is far more motivating for not committing crimes than fear of jail. Just look at how effective christian rule was during the medieval ages.

Anarchy is about creating a culture that opposes archy. A culture that makes the security of all the people the responsibility of all the people. A culture that ensures everyone has a place in society that they have chosen, not been pushed into. A culture that doesn't assume anyone needs to be governed.

To me anarchy is the society of kindness. Where the power consolidates among those that gain the most respect. Respect that, if abused, will be taken away.

Anarchy is society in it's most complicatedly simple, chaotically ordered, and collectively individual. It's my reason to live. So I hope you can see why these ideas matter to me.

saksa comes from saxony, which was historically a major power in the region. (My knowledge comes from CK2)

As an Anarchist I'm irresistibly compelled to respond to this in order to spread propaganda. (Sorry for the ramble I don't know how to write concisely.)

To start I don't use communism, democracy or even socialism to refer to my beliefs. I use anarchy. That's because anarchy in my mind is concrete. no-archy. against hierarchy. Even though anarchy does follow the classical definition of communism, and is socialism, as in worker-owned means of production. These words are unnecessary as anarchy does the trick. And communism has too much bloody history to most people, me included.

Anarchy is not possible in the current cultural space. Anarchy requires a complete transformation of all parts of society, including culture. A lot of your problems come from having underlying archic (hierarchical/capitalist) beliefs. For an anarchist society to succeed these beliefs must be abandoned.

This is because of some of the variants I think are a bit generous in their belief that people won't act selfishly:

This is a comprehensive answer on a popular FAQ: https://anarchistfaq.org/afaq/sectionA.html#seca215

Anarcho-communism? Sure, if ...

This entire paragraph is based in tribalism. An inherent idea that people belong to distinct groups that compete with each-other. It is one of those archic beliefs that I mentioned. There are many different responses to this but I believe in federation (Thanks to this video: https://youtu.be/lrTzjaXskUU timestamp 36:44). This system envisions the anarchist society not as distinct groups but a large number of intersecting groups. No group would "raid" other groups because they have friends in all those groups. On top of that everyone in an anarchist society should be educated enough to understand that everyone in the society has a role to play and hurting them is hurting the society which is in turn hurting them.

On your opinions on money. It seems you do not understand how an anarchist economy would function. In anarchy you wouldn't buy something, you would order it from the person or co-op who makes those things. Generally used items like food and clothes would probably be available for free, but anything requiring construction would be ordered. This allows you to receive a completely personalized item. Otherwise people would just work for no reason and end up with things they don't need. I don't see any point in producing an item just so it would sit on a shelf somewhere. There might be a small storage for conveyor-produced items in order to reduce order times, but in general retail wouldn't need to exist.

Also due to your usage of "managers wield influence" I can see you haven't read any socialist theory as in socialism and anarchism the managers are responsible to the workers. If they are acting in corrupt ways that's because the workers don't care enough to uncover it and change the manager. And when it comes to "oversee production for their own personal gain" I am left wondering what personal gain would that be. without money there is no incentive to hoard and if that personal gain is abusive then it will be discovered and the manager changed.

Else you're left with a system where you're waiting years to get a car,

The fact that you think cars are a thing in a socialist society again reveals your inexperience. Cars are a fundamentally capitalist construct that have no use in socialist societies.

finite resources but unlimited desires.

The unlimited desires (that I'm interpreting as material as spiritual and mental desires don't need resources) are exactly the thing that anarchy seeks to destroy. It is a poisonous mindset cultivated by capitalism that leads to catastrophe (for example look out the window). It is incompatible with continued existence and the destruction of it in an individual is the first step towards anarchism. It was made with the specific need to fuel the hyper-consumerism of the modern age. You get told from everywhere that you need more stuff. Understanding that you don't is fundamental to all anti-capitalist thought.

I want to suffix this post with a point that if any of this comes across as rude then that was not my intention. The points made reflect my own ideas and opinions and other anarchist will have their own. I hope you consider what I wrote (and again sorry for the rambling.)

Anti-statism. Anarchism is against all hierarchy. Including class.

I mean the entire thing is meant as a joke. No-one is actually going to bother to memorize this abbreviation because it's too long and so arguing about feels part of the joke. Both are equally useless, the abbreviation and the argument.

Ultimately this is meant as fun, and pedantry can be fun. I have often just made jokes about something insignificant because for me that's fun.

The reason why I asked is because for me this comment enforces that "no rules" mindset by implying that voicing your opinion about something or upholding rules is not welcome, which is the opposite of anarchy. Anarchy is everyone having their own rules that grow and evolve to better fit into society, a process that would not work if everyone kept their rules for themselves.

Eg: I think abbreviating an abbreviation to fit inside a bigger abbreviation is fine, but I am also a programmer so I am used to nonsensical abbreviations (look up the full name of GIMP for example).

I think arguing about this is fun, and to me that's what anarchy is all about. FUN.

And now I think about it this argument is not that useless. If this was an abbreviation that was actually used you would want as many people as possible to understand it and for that it needs to make sense to most people.

How is being pedantic in an anarchist community ironic?

Ma väga loodan et sa suudad osad oma mõtted sellese kogukonda postitada. Mul ise praktilisi kogemusi ei ole, ainult väga palju mõtlemist ja teooriat. Samas tahan ma üritada neid mõtteid tegevusse panna, lihtsalt et proovida kas töötab. Selle pärast ma selle kogukonna lõin.

I wonder if the people who downvoted actually listened to the song, or just did it based on the name.

If you want a comprehensive resource then An Anarchist FAQ has an entire section dedicated to state socialism https://anarchistfaq.org/afaq/sectionH.html.

Some your questions are answered there like:

• H.1.4 Do anarchists have "absolutely no idea" of what to put in place of the state?
• H.3.7 What is wrong with the Marxist theory of the state?

And if you want some more examples of an anarchist society then Section I is dedicated to that.

Although It is worth noting that there are a lot of different anarchists and the FAQ does not speak for all of them. I just think it manages to get the basics across very well.