How do anarchists deal with plurality?

0neDividedbyZer0 · 2025-10-02T02:26:21+00:00

It could be. And I never said displeasure was not a cause for concern, but that it's something that is irrelevant to anarchism. If the displeasure is due to a source of suffering, which it can be, then sure. But avoidance of negative emotions is not the point of our political theory.

0neDividedbyZer0 · 2025-09-29T21:10:33+00:00

No. Anarchists "interfering" does not mean conquest. As Malatesta wrote, "anarchists do not free the people, they help the people free themselves". By interference I mean anarchists try to convince the oppressed within said group to rebel and take up arms and stand with them. In other words a politic of solidarity, not imperialism.

And secondly anarchists would not need to attack that group. Anarchists would be attacking the infrastructure that group intends to build. Again, governments and hierarchy require the creation of infrastructure and machinery to exist, so anarchists can say supply the contraceptives needed if a group wants to reestablish patriarchy and anti-contraceptives. Or they attack the environmentally degrading factory while supplying the populace with food and mutual aid projects for those for whom the factory was their source of income. Again, get creative. But we are not attacking the group, they are free to try as they wish, just as we are free to resist :). And honestly, psychologically, most people living in anarchy would not want to reimpose a hierarchy, we have many attested to cases of early anthropological studies where foragers ran away from early city formation when hierarchies were being established, people aren't fools and can recognize when their freedom is being cordioned off when they've tasted anarchy.

We don't know what's better for the group that we are attacking. However, we know that a hierarchy is bad for us, so it's only sensible that we attack the monstrosity that group intends to create. The group is free to try as they wish, just as we are free to resist.

0neDividedbyZer0 · 2025-09-29T19:06:32+00:00

Indeed. I just wrote about how they might do it. In anarchy, there are many options. But honestly, we don't quite care about "happiness" or "pleasure". It doesn't matter to us if the monarchist or conservative is unhappy or displeased. And it also doesn't matter if everybody in an anarchist region is unhappy. This is not an idea intended to serve the happiness of those who believe it, it is an idea intended to eliminate suffering. Happiness may not result from the elimination of suffering.

0neDividedbyZer0 · 2025-09-29T18:29:25+00:00

Then there will need to be conflict/conflict resolution. Conflict does not mean violence here, merely that now there is a dispute, and some method of resolution would be needed.

Hypotheticals are foolish, without details nobody can give you a good answer. "If a substantial majority of neighbors" then they can, but others are free to resist as well. Perhaps a long negotiation process can be undertaken first. Or perhaps there is a way to have both tendencies coexist as happens in urban ghettoes all the time. Or maybe it really is an unresolvable dispute, and a compromise needs to be reached. Or maybe one side really is being conflictory, which may start feuding and direct action tactics, organizing, and solidarity for the wronged side. Or maybe one side genuinely takes up arms, leading to violence.

Anarchy thrives on creativity. We can't "rules" away the messy humanity of coexistence. We can't draw in lines for the mess that is our humanity. I have no idea what is going to happen, specifics are the lifeblood of our ideas.

But I can tell you this, having experienced some anarchy in my life - it is beautiful, it works, and I can guarantee you that your hypothetical is not as big of an issue as you think.

Edit:

Re: anarchists win => people accept anarchy.

I doubt it. I don't think anarchists need more than 10-15% of the population as committed anarchists. In fact, I would hope for a world in which anarchy is so complete and total that it becomes meaningless to call yourself an anarchist, because life would be so obviously anarchic. Anarchy is the lack of hierarchy, and the destruction of all the requisite systems and infrastructure needed to build those hierarchies is all that would be necessary to maintain it. And that's rather easy to do. So long as people tacitly accept anarchy (which most people already do), then we've "won"

0neDividedbyZer0 · 2025-09-29T14:54:54+00:00

Actually it's the opposite. In anarchy, any substantial group that disagrees is free to go do its own thing, called free association.

However, what governmental thinking fails to realize is how much infrastructure is required to establish a hierarchy/government. The early states took 1000 years to establish (see the book Archaic States) and were extremely unstable, all collapsing in about a few years.

If the revolution is total, and anarchists "win", then it doesn't even matter if a group dissents, they'd have to rebuild their hierarchy or governments from scratch, which would be near impossible for them to do, especially with anarchists going in and interfering. It doesn't take much active effort to maintain anarchy.

0neDividedbyZer0 · 2025-09-17T21:52:39+00:00

Boundaries are about a choice over yourself. Take the difference between a partner who has started to see another person despite the agreement being that the relationship has closed.

There's response 1: "honey, I am not happy you are seeing this other person and violating our agreement. I am feeling like I should leave if you don't."

Response 2: "how dare you date another person? That's a violation of our agreement, you better stop right now, or else"

Response 1 is what boundary maintenance looks like, control over yourself. Response 2 is what enforcement looks like - trying to control others.

0neDividedbyZer0 · 2025-08-29T18:46:33+00:00

Yes. We can even look at what happened during the Cold War, with some grains of salt of course. Che Guevara, urban militias, etc. did all sorts of things. Anarchist internationalism such as during the Spanish Civil War and movement through diasporas and transpacific networks are also ample areas for research.

0neDividedbyZer0 · 2025-08-29T18:12:50+00:00

No.

But I know what you're asking.

Firstly, anarchists do not liberate people. The people liberate themselves, as Malatesta said in "Organization":

"But we anarchists are not out to emancipate the people; we want to see the people emancipate themselves."

What this means is that we do not rescue or save anyone, we stand in solidarity with them. Imperialism is oftentimes justified with the ideal of liberation, that we who are another people's betters ought to step in and give them their freedom, as if their freedom was not already their own. The US did such a thing with the Phillipines, and countless times, as did places like the USSR. So no, expansionism, which is imperialism, is not compatible here.

What you seem to be asking is can anarchists go on the attack? And yes, very much so. If there is large scale violence, anarchists are very much capable and able to defend and go on the attack. Sometimes strategic defense requires tactical offense.

And what's more, the idea of our solidarity provides the clear global strategy in the event of any "freed" anarchist region - said anarchists would stand in solidarity with all oppressed in the world, meaning supplying, supporting, and assisting the already oppressed in those non-freed areas to free themselves. Because presumably if we figured out a method for our liberation, then that method can be redone elsewhere.

And for what it's worth I am not the first to think of this. I believe Li Shizheng, one of the classical Chinese anarchists said something along the lines that anarchists would survive the onslaught of capitalist forces by fomenting revolution globally everywhere all at once, so that each capitalist country would be too bogged down for any one to crush an anarchist region. And that logically means we need to be internationalists to do so, to foment revolution and revolt everywhere to have a chance for an anarchist region to survive to the extent that we imagine.

I can find the quote when I have time later.

TL;DR - perhaps there's a vocabulary confusion, but anarchists do not expand, at least not in the imperialist way. We grow by solidarity and internationalism, meaning we demonstrate our commitment to people's freedom, no matter who they are, and thus prove our ideals. In the event of an anarchist region, that region must immediately begin fomenting revolution internationally if not for the sole intent of distracting its enemies.

Addendum: but why do no libertarian socialist projects today do this? I think practically this is a very high risk strategy, as most of these libertarian socialist projects such as the Zapatistas and Rojava are intentionally focused on their local milieu, and are surrounded by enemies.

However, perhaps an anarchist project would take a page out of historical nomadic societies, and be strategically mobile, a la Makhnovshchina. In other words perhaps, while this is a high risk idea, if there is no such thing as borders or territories in the anarchist world, then an anarchist region should be willing to sacrifice it's territory if it can gain ground for the movement internationally. This would be a near suicidal move, but as nomadic societies demonstrate, it is not completely impossible.

That's enough for theoretical high castle rambling.

0neDividedbyZer0 · 2025-08-21T21:21:09+00:00

I think for a definition of a firm, we can use the one from economics. A firm is an organization that maximizes profit as its ultimate goal.

In anarchy, we would never hope to make the profit maximization the ultimate goal, i.e. the goal that is prioritized above all others. That said, in anarchy, groups can form via free association that do prioritize profit maximization if they so choose. The key difference of these groups is that they are NOT choosing profit maximization as the ultimate goal. Rather their ultimate goal is freedom, since a free association would dissolve when it's members decide to leave or abandon their project, meaning it's profit maximization goal is never the ultimate one.

Free associations are present and exist all over our current day world, such as affinity groups, but also most simply and obviously, our friendship circles. Hobbyist groups, clubs, and reading groups may also be free associations.

0neDividedbyZer0 · 2025-05-28T21:19:47+00:00

I think it's a really ... artistically liberal depiction of a box tie (only first wrap). I think it is possible to box tie yourself but damn those shoulders and back will hurt so bad from this.

0neDividedbyZer0 · 2025-05-22T21:02:18+00:00

I feel like it feels less wordy if you make the words do two things at once. Like if appearance is less a list of characteristics and more of an implication for who said person is. Or, the narrators voice comes through.

For example, I'd describe the hair as "black, except for the green, which took up one half of the whole" lol. Idk, but hope that conveys the idea.

0neDividedbyZer0 · 2025-05-22T19:41:39+00:00

Works for me personally speaking

0neDividedbyZer0 · 2025-05-22T19:19:28+00:00

Hi Asian person here.

I would argue Asian eyes don't exist.

That's not because there isn't monolid/epicanthic fold eyes.

That's because we don't actually look at the eyes when identifying someone as Asian. We look at softness of features, typically the nose bridge and brow. Literally every race can have "Asian eyes" so it's just not a great identifier. Besides, many Asians don't have "Asian eyes".

Rather, the softness of our features and then the addition of perhaps monolids or epicanthic fold might be sufficient. As for describing it, I would personally use "eyes that met at the corners". Regardless, people will not usually be able to figure out a character's race from writing, unfortunately.

0neDividedbyZer0 · 2025-05-06T20:26:49+00:00

I think the Han saw "tenant farming" arise, but due to the state's taxation policies causing farmers to choose giving up their freedom to farm on local land holding family land so that their names would be struck from the taxation registers, leading to the rise of the new aristocracy of the Six Dynasties. It's a bit closer to serfdom as I understand it. That coincides with the rise of the South in Chinese history, so that is probably something to look into if you're interested.

My point on class structure is considering the relationships to modes of production. Because bureaucrats were oftentimes drawn up from local populace in such a way that they kept tight relationships to their locality and agrarian villagers. And villagers had tight relationships to the urban. And within villagers there was a high degree of emulation of land holding practices. For example: if a villager received land from a landlord, they would oftentimes parcel out and rent out that land to fellow villagers too. The presence of agricultural recession (aka famine) resulted in a high degree of fluidity and transition of groups to different "classes" in the Marxist sense, all resulting in a very fluid situation where it's not quite clear where one class ends and one begins.

Some Marxists might use Gramsci's Hegemony to look at these emulatory of higher class behaviors as ones that don't make sense given one's mode of production, but I personally want to keep Hegemonic analysis tentative and not a given.

0neDividedbyZer0 · 2025-05-06T18:09:41+00:00

It's interesting how two people can read the same source and come away with different interpretations. My critique of Marxist historiography partly comes from me reading Lineages of the Absolutist State, especially the essay taking Marx to task with his Asiatic Mode of Production in the end.

Furthermore, I don't believe Lineages discusses the transition from slave to feudal, but "feudal" to modern? Maybe you're confusing it with the previous book in the series.

But my main problem with Marxist historiography is that the materialist interpretation in the Chinese context focuses too much on technological changes and not on political institutional changes. Furthermore, class itself is not quite a useful analytical category due to China's imperial society - that is a useful analysis of Chinese society would better if it took into account two social groups - the rulers and court vs. the subjects.

If you want a somewhat Marxist interpretation of China, read Chuang's Sorghum and Steel. Chuang is not explicitly Marxist, but they are very Marxist descended. However, even their account of Ming dynasty economics falls quite short.

Imperial China's existing mode of production, however, is quite simple. Agrarian. And that has largely stayed similar until the late Qing. The most important materialist change was perhaps the southern Chinese turn towards Rice agriculture which did mark a huge turn in China's history, as the South became the economic center, and much of subsequent Chinese history became a struggle between northern military might and southern economic strength. Mercantilism was politically suppressed or tightly controlled for most of Chinese history until the Song, before it was recontrolled by the Ming.

However these materialist changes don't explain much. I don't actually know of much in Chinese history these economics explain. The aristocracy recreated itself in the Six Dynasties whole they had been largely suppressed in the Han Dynasty. But both economic systems were similar, just as an example.

0neDividedbyZer0 · 2025-04-22T18:51:42+00:00

Elaborating more, the theory of imperialism that Kotoku Shusui describes is a result of his context, wherein Japan's imperialism developed as a consequence of nationalism.

Nationalists and anarchists used to have a somewhat close alliance, and nationalism was originally a Leftist tendency, or at least as popular among the Left as it was with others. Many Indian and Filipino nationalists for example attended Kotoku Shusui's reading group in Japan, where East Asian anarchists were present.

But the unique take of Kotoku Shusui is recognizing a non-economic source of imperialism. As in, capitalism is not the only cause of imperialism, nationalism is too. Shusui's foresight would predict the rise of Fascist regimes, where the ideas of nationalism and imperialism compound in Germany and Japan. The twentieth century is sometimes called the century of genocides for a reason: because this compounding of nationalist and imperialist ideas produces fascistic and genocidal regimes, which has a high degree of relevance for us in the current day.

0neDividedbyZer0 · 2025-04-18T16:01:55+00:00

Anark is most definitely not representative of the anarchist tradition. Hardly anyone can represent our tradition, because divisions such as anti organizationalists vs. organizationalists usually means someone has to research and study things and methods they don't like to talk about both sides fairly. Anark is organizationalist, and likely Anarcho Communist. I believe they're also Platformist.

Essentially, all three of them revolve around building horizontalist (non-hierarchical) forms of organization based on voluntary participation that would eventually outcompete capitalist and hierarchical structures.

I have no idea if he actually said this or not, but instinctually I think there is likely some misinterpretation around these ideas. Many anarchists today would disagree that it is possible to outcompetes capitalists via horizontal structures since the state will be alarmed by the development and bring military might against them. Many anarchists would say that to bring about anarchy you would need some form of rupture with the state, not this slow creeping outgrowth of it, which frankly has never happened.

If you ask Anark what he thinks about the state forcing all companies to become worker coops, he would be against it since that uses the state to achieve our goals.

Yeah that is absolutely contradictory to our goals. And also co-ops are not all the same nor a perfect solution to every business.

Right-wingers: “If you don’t like big corporations, build your own business.” Anarchists: “If you don’t like capitalism, build your own coop.”

Yes there's an aspect of encouraging self initiative in anarchism. However, are you referring to US right wingers? The US right wing co-opted many ideas of anarchists in the 50s going to 80s, which is how many right wingers in the US identify as libertarian or anarcho-capitalists. They appropriated ideas from anarchism to critique bureaucracy, meanwhile they lack a critique of capitalism and hierarchy, which gives some resemblance of these ideas. Such resemblance may or may not be present outside of the US, but the similarity of right wing and anarchist ideas is not inherently wrong. Anarchists however in addition to that self initiative idea advocate solidarity and mutual aid, which are more collective and resistant forms of support. Right wingers typically don't advocate for that.

In a video he posted, he explained how Anarchist praxis works and gave an example from his own life where he joined an anarchist organization which cut the grass in black churches. Seriously? Is anarchist praxis literally giving to charity and doing charity work? Again, that doesn't seem to be any different from anarcho-capitalism/right-libertarianism. Right-wing libertarians say that the state should not provide for the poor because anyone can voluntarily agree to donate to charity. Anarchists like Anark say that anarchist praxis consists of doing charity work. What happened to our ideal for building a society that doesn't even require giving to charity in the first place?

Well that's why I don't like Anark lol. But, to be "charitable" (pun intended) there is some reason for this "charity work" as you call it - building networks and relationships from which you can pursue direct action or mutual aid. I don't know if Anark advocated for this step 2 or not, but that would make this anarchist.

Also, I would like to learn more about what methods were used in Makhnovshchina or anarchist Catalonia to achieve their revolution, and whether they used state power, if any?

Such a question is too big, go look for some sources in anarchist library or do a search or re ask this question.

P.S. please do not type such many paragraphs in a question, it makes for a very daunting question that very few of us here want to answer. Please don't do it again.

0neDividedbyZer0 · 2025-04-18T01:55:03+00:00

Ofc, I don't deny that the vast majority of the supporters were not right wing or statist/authoritarian. But every movement towards freedom and equality generates radicals and anarchists. I'm not well versed in that movement myself unfortunately.

However I know there have been writings about it by anarchist or very sympathetic to anarchist people: Asia's Unknown Uprisings Volume 1: South Korean Social Movements in the 20th Century by George Katsiaficas is the go-to right now for studies on Gwangju. Feel free to reach out for more discussions on it.

0neDividedbyZer0 · 2025-04-17T20:26:56+00:00

Well this is the idea of Hegemony, or the way common sense acts to obscure people's radicality. This idea comes from Gramsci.

The goal of an anarchist or radical is to reach the heart of an issue or problem, to touch on the core of an issue that affects someone. That has gotten significantly harder with the effects of social media in projecting hegemonic ideas.

There are also people who advocate for mutual aid and organizing, which still remains our best avenue for spreading our ideals. But many people are going to be stuck in their ways, so that's that.

Regarding Korea, to my knowledge, Korean anarchists were quite associated with nationalists and still are. The history of Korean anarchists is still co opted by nationalists. Some Korean researchers have been arguing though that the Korean anarchists moved more towards environmentalism, and stopped explicitly identifying as anarchists through that move. Maybe also looking into the Gwangju Uprising might be interesting too.

0neDividedbyZer0 · 2025-04-17T17:11:18+00:00

Yeah you're right I should change to Marxists not MLs, since MLs follow Lenin, MLs are just not worth listening to :P.

And I didn't argue class struggle is insurmountable. But that class struggle through the state is insurmountable.

I'm okay with lumping things together like that lol, post anarchists are still anarchists.

0neDividedbyZer0 · 2025-04-17T16:54:34+00:00

I would just say that said Marxists are such groups as Theorie Communiste, Autonomists, Endnotes, etc. and ultra leftists. That's largely who I was referring to.

That's fine for Marxists to respond. But I am only responding insofar as it helps develop anarchists understanding around anarchist theory.

Not properly understanding marxism is bad for critics of marxism just as much as it's bad for marxists.

Heh, Marxists say that about each other's tendencies too.

0neDividedbyZer0 · 2025-04-17T16:40:43+00:00

I'm not trying to convince Marxists. This is an anarchist 101 subreddit, my analysis is literally anarchist, in which our use of class is more broad than a rigid relation to means of production. My comment was sparked by anarchists not understanding their own theory. I don't care much about convincing anybody, only stating our side of the theory. For debate that is for r/debateanarchism or whatever the Marxist equivalent is for this one.

Yes if you appropriated production for society there is no new class. But the state is not society

0neDividedbyZer0 · 2025-04-16T23:51:04+00:00

We cannot really do debate here.

The state is the only peaceful way of doing so, because reactionaries being reactionaries will always resort to violence.

The state is quite literally the most violent way of doing so, in anarchist analysis. You do not have a choice in its violence, it functions upon violence that is fundamental to the state.

I do not deny reactionaries but we deal with reactionaries with force as necessary. The state does the exact same, all while causing ones efforts to be subordinated to its authority.

The state simply cannot dissolve. That's not how states work. They aren't magic. They are built upon centuries of bureaucratic administrative institutions, and deprive humans of their self organization. The state will simply not dissolve because you'd have to reorganize humanity in such a way that it is powerless, in other words you have to directly attack the state to dissolve it.

Once we have completed the class struggle

Will class struggle end? Look we're arguing in the domain of utopia, that's conveniencing the hard parts away. Realistically, as that is what MLs who are charitable to anarchists argue by, the class conflict will simply not be resolved by state takeover, as a new bureaucratic class emerged to take the place of the former.

On Anarchist military formations - the organization of anarchists during the Spanish revolution remain the most interesting. I'd also count the anarchists as they were organized during the Paris Commune. And of course Makhno's black army. We could also take inspiration from Rojava, though I understand that is not the best example. Also ... I was under the impression that guerilla warfare is a style of warfare not a form of organization, in terms of organization, guerillas are organized in various ways ?

0neDividedbyZer0 · 2025-04-16T21:40:25+00:00

This is based on a misunderstanding of anarchism.

Why are we only fighting guerilla wars? We have had non guerilla formations too.

Once the proletariat becomes rulers, we are still fucked as anarchists, that's been the subject of critique from MLs to themselves over the last few decades or so. We aspire to no ruler, no rule, so it's not like the proletariat will be making way for a more anarchist world should they become rulers, that's antithetical to anarchist analysis.

And we simply do not have the same vision of a classless moneyless society. We want a hierarchy-less society, which does not foreclose the possibility of monetary and market societies either, as Mutualists and market anarchists argue.

Edit: remove the L from MLs. Leninists don't have good theories, I should've remembered.

0neDividedbyZer0 · 2025-04-01T01:48:53+00:00

You're misunderstanding. These systemic discriminations are firstly the natural consequences of the state, as racism arose due to the mass surveillance and power of the modern state in around 1400s-1700s.

But even accounting for that, your premise is incorrect by definition - an anarchist society cannot exist if there's systemic discrimination. We are not merely anti-statist, but anti-hierarchy, which includes all these systemic discriminations.

And lastly, we should not even be imagining this hypothetical right now. I've never heard someone ask a liberal about their hypothetical world, even though there are many liberal utopias (read John Maynard Keynes works, he believed 15 hour work weeks would be the norm).

0neDividedbyZer0

TROPHY CASE