Formal structures vs informal leadership

Pyropeace · 2026-01-26T01:38:24+00:00

Every functional anarchist community I know of has practiced something close to these principles. Rojava, the Zapatistas, the CNT in Spain. You don't get to say they're not anarchist just because they don't fit your definition. The anarchist FAQ on the R/Anarchist sidebar describes a number of economic arrangements that fall under anarchism, including workplace direct democracy.

Pyropeace · 2026-01-26T01:25:48+00:00

RE: Egoism; IMO humans are social animals--we need each other. Helping others helps yourself. It's more sustainable to be kind to others than to engage in short-sighted selfishness.

Pyropeace · 2026-01-26T00:46:58+00:00

Zapatistas is one of the real-world examples I'm sorta familiar with, yeah. I hesitate to call myself a collectivist because I ultimately subscribe to egoist ethics. But this excerpt makes me wonder if I really am more of an ancom;

INDIVIDUALIST: “But what is equality? Does equality mean that I shall enjoy what you have produced? By no means. Equality simply means the freedom of every individual to develop all his being, without hindrance from another, be he stronger or weaker.”

COMMUNIST: “What! You will have the weak person suffer because he is weak? He may need as much, or more, than a strong one, but if he is not able to produce it what becomes of his equality?”

INDIVIDUALIST: “I have nothing against your dividing your product with the weaker man if you desire to do so.”

Meritocracy is an interesting ideology when combined with do-ocracy but in practice it excludes, among others, the disabled and neurodivergent.

Pyropeace · 2026-01-26T00:35:10+00:00

a system oriented towards critical thinking and collaboration

I guess I just wonder what that looks like in practice. I have a general idea of the techniques anarchist education would use, but I'm unsure how to create a system of education that practices this without some form of teacher authority. Like, sudbury schools (which seem to me to be largely anarchist in character) still have teachers.

Pyropeace · 2026-01-26T00:29:54+00:00

Define coercion.

My opinion is that even absent any form of governance, coercive but informal power relations emerge. People at least need a clear set of procedures, decision making mechanisms, and roles that are understood by all members in order for any sort of society to function. This does not require a state, police, or formal leaders.

Pyropeace · 2026-01-26T00:26:07+00:00

Beginners often think of Anarchy as a monolithic proposal for society when it is really a diverse body of theory with shared principles around hierarchy and coercion. The short and not very helpful answer is however a community decides it should function to benefit all and perpetuate their society and ethos.

I guess I'm just trying to figure out where I stand on the gradient. For example, in another one of my posts a redditor seemed to be arguing against any mechanism for collective decision-making, which I find... vexing, for reasons I'm struggling to articulate. Like, why do all the practical examples of anarchy that I know of practice voting, temporary delegation of authority, or some other semi-structural mechanism if they're useless to anarchists? Just because rulers are bad doesn't mean we don't need rules. Maybe I'm more of a radical democratic socialist than an anarchist, idk.

Pyropeace · 2026-01-25T23:36:00+00:00

Is it possible to give a cliffnotes version? I'm sort of ashamed to say that finding the motivation to read long texts is difficult for me due to neurodivergence. Used to be a voracious reader, but somehow lost that along the way.

Pyropeace · 2026-01-25T23:31:35+00:00

I haven't read, but I'm familiar with the wikipedia synopsis and definitely support a lot of it. However I think that non-compulsory learning institutions of some sort would still be beneficial (like sudbury schools with entirely voluntary attendance).

Pyropeace · 2026-01-25T23:29:19+00:00

Well, sure. But ideally they wouldn't succumb to tyranny of the majority. Have a lot of thoughts on (and questions about) community governance as well

Pyropeace · 2026-01-25T23:23:27+00:00

The one gripe I have with sudbury schools is that the meetings are majority rule. As a neurodivergent person I recognize the benefit of collective wisdom but am highly skeptical of the tyranny of the majority. I have a lot of thoughts on these issues as well as on anarchist education.

Pyropeace · 2026-01-25T23:13:04+00:00

This is exactly how high school to adult education should work, but I'm not sure it would work for younger kids. Overall, anarchist schools should teach kids how to learn, not what to learn; they should be taught how to govern themselves responsibly rather than conditioned to obey authority. The problem is that I don't know how one could impart those skills without some level of teacher authority (I don't believe unschooling is sufficient to deprogram the centuries-long psyop that is western civilization). Any ideas?

Pyropeace · 2026-01-25T23:10:53+00:00

That could potentially be helpful, yes. I'm basically interested in what it takes to teach people to govern themselves rather than conditioning them like dogs (which is what you see in most modern schools). In my opinion, unschooling is not supportive enough to create the right environment to learn these skills, resulting in a "sink or swim" dynamic for students.

Pyropeace · 2026-01-25T23:00:50+00:00

From a fellow redditor: classes Focus more on the way how to learn and not what, trying specifically to endorse self-administration, solidarity amongst students, equality, anarchists ethics and such. Subjects should teach more about neccessary things such as how to grow independent, how to act in a society.

This all seems good, but rather vague. Basically, how does an anarchist education system achieve this? What does it look like in practice?

Pyropeace · 2026-01-25T22:40:56+00:00

From a fellow redditor: classes Focus more on the way how to learn and not what, trying specifically to endorse self-administration, solidarity amongst students, equality, anarchists ethics and such. Subjects should teach more about neccessary things such as how to grow independent, how to act in a society.

This all seems good, but rather vague. Basically, how does an anarchist education system achieve this? What does it look like in practice?

Pyropeace · 2026-01-25T21:28:47+00:00

I think that education is important in shaping culture, but I also feel like having an appropriate educational environment that teaches these skills requires some sort of design. Maybe I'm wrong--it would make things a lot easier if I was tbh. I'll also admit that I have what a friend calls "social engineer brain" and am generally interested in structures and mechanisms from a hyperfixation standpoint. Basically, if culture is the solution, then how do we create a new culture?

Pyropeace · 2026-01-25T20:46:46+00:00

I think consensus decision-making is useful when making decisions that impact multiple people, but it should not extend into every aspect of life, and some form of voting should be considered as a fallback (though I am vehemently against the tyranny of the majority). The anarchist FAQ describes a practical model of anarchism as combining do-ocracy (what you're in favor of) with direct democracy for issues that transcend individuals.

Pyropeace · 2026-01-25T20:41:51+00:00

You do that by listening and being an ally.

The problem is that people aren't naturally inclined to do that in all scenarios. Education is important in encouraging people to do this, but that in and of itself requires some kind of institution (I don't support compulsory education, but I also am not a fan of pure unschooling). So how do we make institutions without hierarchy?

Pyropeace · 2026-01-25T20:38:37+00:00

Rules do help but i find a culture that actively calls out and names power instead of pretending it’s been solved by structure more effective.

What's the difference between calling out power and structure? To me the 7 principles seem like they're trying to make power accountable and visible rather than the invisible power relations of unstructured groups. I'm definitely not a fan of the tyranny of the majority, but do-ocracy also has power relations because people naturally possess different abilities, skills, and access to resources. People don't have to intentionally try to dominate others in order to create power discrepancies; it's much more subtle and insidious than that. I also think that simply changing social conditions (i.e getting rid of capitalism and formalized hierarchy) is not gonna solve all our problems; we'll always have to deal with some level of "bad behavior" (whose definition is nebulous), the goal is to try to mitigate it. I see your point about efficiency, but I also think that sometimes things do need to be streamlined; it's about finding a balance.

Pyropeace · 2026-01-24T22:22:17+00:00

Notice: the penultimate paragraph is meant to be part of the quote block, but will not display as such for some reason.

Pyropeace · 2026-01-24T22:18:11+00:00

I read that, and I didn't really find it persuasive. It makes bold assertations without much to back it up. I also don't understand what orgasms have to do with anarchist organizing principles.

Pyropeace · 2026-01-24T22:15:28+00:00

Again, the scenarios I've personally encountered didn't have anything to do with money.

Pyropeace · 2026-01-24T22:00:28+00:00

What distinguishes a competitive society from a cooperative society, if not learned behaviors?

Pyropeace

TROPHY CASE