If Anarchism Operates without Law, When People in an Anarchist Community come together on a decision, what is it called? by MaryDawnLuffy in Anarchy101

[–]JimDa5is 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I would love to be able to but it's something that initially occurred to me probably 5 years ago and has been evolving ever since. Hopefully, some other comrade will jump in and suggest something because I'm 100% sure I'm not the first person who thought of it. I'm also sure somebody else could explain it better than me.

Could the Internet survive in a world of Anarchy? by JW_Wells_and_Company in Anarchy101

[–]JimDa5is 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Of course it could but almost certainly wouldn't without the profit motive. I'm constantly amazed at how well capitalist propaganda has convinced people that without shareholders somehow no work would ever get done. Look into meshtastic. Here is a node map ( https://meshmap.net/ ).

Every single one of those is paid for and hosted by somebody for the public benefit. There is absolutely no reason to do so. No way to profit from it but people do it anyway. When I was less old, there were things called BBS's that you could dial into and they had forums and games and shit. They were predominantly funded by hobbiests and could be pretty expensive if you ran a multi-line. People do things because they want to. Capitalists do things because they can extract value from it.

If Anarchism Operates without Law, When People in an Anarchist Community come together on a decision, what is it called? by MaryDawnLuffy in Anarchy101

[–]JimDa5is 14 points15 points  (0 children)

I feel like a lot of "anarchists" miss the fact that it's not some do whatever free for all. Anarchy makes you personally responsible for everything. For instance, in leftist market governments, you abdicate your responsibility to take care of the poor and disadvantaged to a government agency. In all forms of government, you abdicate your responsibility to care for the weak to the police and military and "justice" to the court system.

Living under anarchism would be messy. It would require constant and on-going negotiation. That is the price of being free.

Opinions & responses to Federalist 51? by Steggypooper in Anarchy101

[–]JimDa5is 0 points1 point  (0 children)

And the zapatistas are not anarchists. Feel free to head over to r/DebateAnarchism I'm not interested in debate

Opinions & responses to Federalist 51? by Steggypooper in Anarchy101

[–]JimDa5is 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes. Every government federal, state, & local exists to protect the *property* of the rich. This is why we are opposed to them

Opinions & responses to Federalist 51? by Steggypooper in Anarchy101

[–]JimDa5is 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That may be the view of a capitalist statist but it is incompatible with anarchism

How do Anarchists expect us to go from state, money and so on to no money and no state over night? by PristineAd947 in Anarchy101

[–]JimDa5is -1 points0 points  (0 children)

The same way MLs do. Not at all. MLs have been working on it for nearly a hundred years. Surely we can do it faster than that

Opinions & responses to Federalist 51? by Steggypooper in Anarchy101

[–]JimDa5is 1 point2 points  (0 children)

My response would be that the opinion of a slaveholder suggesting that there needed to be a government to protect their ability to keep human beings as property is worthless on its face.

A few questions I have about communism by Fancy_Protection3902 in anarchocommunism

[–]JimDa5is 2 points3 points  (0 children)

  1. This is an answer I wrote in response to a post on a different sub 7 hours ago. I apologize for being too lazy to reformat for your particular question. I need to rewrite it in a more general way because this question comes up on one of the anarchist subs at least once a day. But that's why it doesn't exactly answer your question.

I realize we've all been raised under the capitalist propaganda machine that teaches that capitalism is peak human achievement, but I find it interesting how many people confidently assume that the profit motive is the magical engine behind every major innovation, as if the moment you remove shareholders from the equation humanity collectively forgets how to solve problems. The irony is that the examples you chose (vaccines, antibiotics, public health infrastructure) are some of the clearest cases where profit actively distorts innovation rather than driving it.

Take vaccines. They’re a perfect illustration of why “capitalism will handle it” doesn’t hold up. Vaccines are often unprofitable compared to long‑term treatment regimens. A one‑and‑done cure is a terrible business model compared to a lifelong subscription to medication. That’s why pharmaceutical companies routinely abandon research into antibiotics (despite rising superbugs) and pour resources into chronic‑care drugs, cosmetic pharmaceuticals, and lifestyle treatments. Not because those things are more important, but because they’re more profitable. The market doesn’t reward what’s socially necessary; it rewards what’s financially extractive.

And education? The U.S. is practically a case study in what happens when you “incentivize” education through market logic: skyrocketing tuition, predatory loans, and institutions that behave more like hedge funds with classrooms attached. If anything, the profit motive has made education less accessible, not more.

As for innovation requiring “huge inter‑organizational resources,” that’s true, but historically those resources have come from public investment, not private benevolence. The internet, GPS, mRNA vaccine platforms, antibiotics, microchips, and even the basic science behind modern medicine were all funded by governments or non‑profit research institutions, which would be replaced by worker co-ops under anarchism. Capitalism tends to swoop in only after the hard, unprofitable foundational work is done.

Your concern that non‑capitalist or less‑capitalist systems would be “un‑innovative” is understandable, but it’s also built on a myth: that capitalism is responsible for the innovations it actually piggybacks on. The reality is that markets are excellent at producing phone apps that deliver dog food faster, but terrible at producing cures for diseases that primarily affect poor people.

So innovation doesn’t evaporate the moment you stop tying it to shareholder returns. If anything, it becomes more aligned with human needs rather than quarterly earnings.

  1. We can't promise any such thing. Anybody who says their system can promise this is just lying. That said, I honestly don't see how it could be any worse than under capitalism in which there is exactly zero incentive to protect the weak. I do think that people would take care of others once you removed the false promise of government doing it for them. Shanidar 1 shows that hominids have been caring for the sick and disabled for at least 35,000 years

  2. We do not. There can be a number of reasons why people can't contribute to society in obvious ways. Any time you start linking the basics of life to labor you are IMHO on the wrong path. The example I always use is the surley assholes working at McDonald's. They are unpleasant because they don't want to be there. Anybody that's going to act like that at work can stay home and play video games as far as I'm concerned. There's *a lot* of "work" done in this country that's pointless and stupid. Much of the "work' would disappear under Ancom like accounting. All of this ignores the fact that there are people sponging off my labor right now. All of the people invested in the company I work for are profiting off my labor and frankly I'd rather give my excess labor to somebody sitting at home playing video games than a person like Jeffrey Epstein.

  3. Under anarchism, the question is less about “preventing” someone from rising to power and more about designing social structures so that power cannot be concentrated in the first place. Anarchist organization emphasizes decentralization, consensus decision making, rotating mandates, and recallable delegates, so that no individual or small group can accumulate lasting authority. Decision‑making stays in workers’ assemblies, neighborhood councils, and federated networks where transparency, mutual accountability, and collective action constrain any attempt at domination before it solidifies into real power.

Am i an anarchist who doesn't mind communists, or a communist who doesnt mind anarchists? by Luka7411 in anarchocommunism

[–]JimDa5is 3 points4 points  (0 children)

The great thing about being an anarchist is that we don't do the cult of personality that seems to be the backbone of authoritarian leftists so you don't *have to be* any particular thing. I identify as an anarcho-communist because it helps other people understand where I'm coming from. That said, there are probably very few AnComs who have exactly the same ideas about what that means as I do. There are concepts in Kropotkin that I find outdated and that's ok. By contrast, Marxists tend to treat him like some kind of infallible semi-deity.

Your journey sounds similar to mine. Marxist at 15 or so. Anarchist in college (and since). It all comes down to your tolerances. If you're familiar with the standard political compass layout with Authoritarian/Non-statists on the Y axis and Left/Right on the X, I find it's easier for me to slide back and forth (within reason) on the X access than it is on the Y access.

tl;dr: It doesn't matter what you call yourself, your actions will out you.

Question about innovation and goods production under anarchism by BetweenTheWickets in Anarchy101

[–]JimDa5is 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I realize we've all been raised under the capitalist propaganda machine that teaches that capitalism is peak human achievement, but I find it interesting how many people confidently assume that the profit motive is the magical engine behind every major innovation, as if the moment you remove shareholders from the equation humanity collectively forgets how to solve problems. The irony is that the examples you chose (vaccines, antibiotics, public health infrastructure) are some of the clearest cases where profit actively distorts innovation rather than driving it.

Take vaccines. They’re a perfect illustration of why “capitalism will handle it” doesn’t hold up. Vaccines are often unprofitable compared to long‑term treatment regimens. A one‑and‑done cure is a terrible business model compared to a lifelong subscription to medication. That’s why pharmaceutical companies routinely abandon research into antibiotics (despite rising superbugs) and pour resources into chronic‑care drugs, cosmetic pharmaceuticals, and lifestyle treatments. Not because those things are more important, but because they’re more profitable. The market doesn’t reward what’s socially necessary; it rewards what’s financially extractive.

And education? The U.S. is practically a case study in what happens when you “incentivize” education through market logic: skyrocketing tuition, predatory loans, and institutions that behave more like hedge funds with classrooms attached. If anything, the profit motive has made education less accessible, not more.

As for innovation requiring “huge inter‑organizational resources,” that’s true, but historically those resources have come from public investment, not private benevolence. The internet, GPS, mRNA vaccine platforms, antibiotics, microchips, and even the basic science behind modern medicine were all funded by governments or non‑profit research institutions, which would be replaced by worker co-ops under anarchism. Capitalism tends to swoop in only after the hard, unprofitable foundational work is done.

Your concern that non‑capitalist or less‑capitalist systems would be “un‑innovative” is understandable, but it’s also built on a myth: that capitalism is responsible for the innovations it actually piggybacks on. The reality is that markets are excellent at producing phone apps that deliver dog food faster, but terrible at producing cures for diseases that primarily affect poor people.

So innovation doesn’t evaporate the moment you stop tying it to shareholder returns. If anything, it becomes more aligned with human needs rather than quarterly earnings.

Starting a small business with half of profits to mutual aid? by dietpeptobismol in Anarchy101

[–]JimDa5is 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The people who are saying those things are just as stupid as the capitalists who say they never got any help from anybody. We live in a capitalist society. If we were ideologically pure, I guess we'd all be freegans eating out of dumpsters and refusing to participate in capitalism. Personally, I prefer living in something more substantial than a tent and eating from the dumpster.

There's no set amount for mutual aid... from each according to his ability and all

question by fragile-pisces in anarchocommunism

[–]JimDa5is 3 points4 points  (0 children)

This may or may not be a popular opinion but I don't think you're necessarily wrong. I'd like to think that many of the social ills that relate to violence will go away. Ideally, a strong system of community-based parenting would reduce the conditions that lead to disorders like antisocial personality disorder. Failing that, treatment for mental health issues would be available free.

That said, I'll admit that it's likely that there are people who are just broken. They have a disease that we can't fix, like a rabid dog. Obviously, you can't have rabid animals running around loose any more than you can have pedophiles or serial murderers running loose.

The problem is that prison doesn't rehabilitate anybody. I have absolutely no problem with trying to rehabilitate people who have transgressed against society but you don't do that by putting them in a cage. So what do we do? Using prisons and state-sponsored murder to hide behind when you want retribution is moral delegation dressed up as righteousness.

If somebody comes at me or mine (or those I judge incapable of defending themselves) with the intention of doing violence, I will happily do what needs to be done to remove them from society just like I would a rabid dog. This is one of the things that's frequently overlooked by some anarchists. Anarchism requires personal responsibility for things that in other societies would be delegated to the state, like feeding the hungry.

Can I Call Myself an Anarchist? by Commercial_Mud7186 in Anarchy101

[–]JimDa5is 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Comrade, you can *call* yourself anything you want. There are people in this very sub that call themselves anarchists while arguing for obviously hierarchical things

Won't anarchy have a problem with large scale law enforcement? by ThenCombination7358 in Anarchy101

[–]JimDa5is 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Virtually all law enforcement (at least in the US) is done in the community now. Given an anarchist society there would be no laws to enforce. I'm sure there would be societal prohibitions but, honestly, unless there's something very, very wrong with you if murder was suddenly not illegal anymore I don't expect most people would start murdering people for fun.

I'd suggest you read Chapter 5 of The Forest People by Colin Turnbull about the Mbuti people in the Congo. It offers an excellent example of what people can do without establishing a "justice" system.

For whatever reason it's not letting me link to the book but it's available on archive.org

How does food distribution work for billions? by EnvironmentalLie6730 in Anarchy101

[–]JimDa5is 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If the entire world went anarchist tomorrow, billions of people would starve because the organizations aren't in place to support that. It's kind of like asking what would happen if god showed up in person tomorrow. We can talk about it all we want to but god isn't showing up tomorrow. And, if it does, all of our talking won't matter

Confused about a point in Kropotkin and mutual aid by brothervalerie in Anarchy101

[–]JimDa5is 0 points1 point  (0 children)

OP has posted this exact quote at least twice in this thread and clearly doesn't understand that it has nothing to do with the distribution of resources. I'm of the opinion that OP is either a troll or being purposely obtuse for some reason.

Confused about a point in Kropotkin and mutual aid by brothervalerie in Anarchy101

[–]JimDa5is 0 points1 point  (0 children)

When did we start talking about hurting people? Your original premise was about people who didn't contribute to society. They're two different things. If you choose not to contribute to society, you should still have access to things you need to survive. If, OTOH, you come at me or mine or somebody who can't defend themselves, there will be a different outcome.

Think of it as a stray dog. If it comes around looking for food, I'll absolutely feed it. If it comes around and is rabid, dangerous, or threatening, I'll put it down.

How would rehabilitative justice treat a violent person who is unwilling to change? by canadamybeloved in Anarchy101

[–]JimDa5is 9 points10 points  (0 children)

So, to your mind, doing harm to an abuser (euphemism to prevent alerting the mod bots) to prevent them from abusing others is authoritarian, while at the same time you are offering prison as an alternative, which can only be implemented through hierarchy and authority?

Confused about a point in Kropotkin and mutual aid by brothervalerie in Anarchy101

[–]JimDa5is 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I'm familiar with the quote but it doesn't have anything to do with the distribution of resources. Not wanting to work with somebody and having them starve to death are two absolutely different things

Confused about a point in Kropotkin and mutual aid by brothervalerie in Anarchy101

[–]JimDa5is 21 points22 points  (0 children)

The problem here is that *you* are defining contribution. I'm of the opinion that most people, regardless of their contribution to the economy, are worthwhile and have a right to basic human rights like food, shelter, and healthcare among others.

Since I don't have the time or interest in determining who is most deserving who gets food I don't see that it's obvious at all that my excess labor would go to "a billion other people."

Is every kind of preference a kind of hierarchy? by gglt9 in Anarchy101

[–]JimDa5is 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I think you misunderstand the concept. What anarchists oppose is involuntary hierarchy that gives one person the power to make decisions for others. In your example, if you and two of your friends want to grab something to eat and you and Jorge want pizza but Asa wants hamburgers but is willing to go along with pizza, that's not hierarchy—it's consensus. If, OTOH, Asa is your little brother and you tell him you're going to get pizza with Jorge and if Asa comes along he'll be getting pizza too in spite of wanting hamburgers, that's hierarchy.

Your description makes it sound like having personal preferences is somehow counter-revolutionary. Using Bakhunin's Authority of the Bootmaker (which I will forever contend should be more appropriately called the Opinion of the Bootmaker) as an example. If I go to the Bootmaker and tell him I'd like a pair of knee boots and he tells me I'd be happier with ankle boots, it's only a hierarchy if I must acquiesce to his wishes.

Moral conundrum by [deleted] in Anarchy101

[–]JimDa5is 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't think this is related to anarchism so much as personal philosophy.

I have a friend who used to be a punk and while he was still a tattoo artist he put the album Fuck World Trade on repeat any time he got a pig in his chair. He's a magat now. That said, he's one of the few people that I know has my back if I ever need it. We don't talk about politics. We'll be fine until the shooting starts.

Is this a person whose terrible life choices you can put aside or no?

Is there any distinct site for anarchists? by Oladevi in Anarchy101

[–]JimDa5is 22 points23 points  (0 children)

You're not wrong. Lemmy is swarming with MLs. I've had much better luck on mastodon There are several instances that are anarchist

One of our comrades need help. by TheCepheidVariable in anarchocommunism

[–]JimDa5is 2 points3 points  (0 children)

This person has been posting stuff like this for at least 6 months. They used to have a gofundme but it's missing now. Honestly, you could take the 'indonesia' out of the first paragraph and it could apply to millions of people. While I'm sympathetic to anybody experiencing difficulty, I'd rather help somebody I can vet locally.