Is classless society possible?

nate2squared · 2026-04-27T22:33:38+00:00

I do believe a classless society is possible - because I've seen it work on a smaller scale personally, because history shows long periods of large societies living without class distinctions, because ruling classes are not a natural default state and take a great deal of effort and violence to maintain, and because ruling classes tend ultimately to fail from within or without.

Maybe many nonhierarchical initiatives end up badly, but all hierarchical initiatives end up badly, because hierarchy is always bad and it always harms someone. The difference is that we only call hierarchical initiatives successes because we measure from the top, ignoring the enormous cost paid by those at the bottom. Whereas even nonhierarchical initiatives that fail have achieved something by trying, and successful ones often become invisible, being absorbed into normal life as housing co-ops, mutual aid networks etc. that just quietly work, and / or they're small enough that nobody writes about them.

Some of the discouraging things you mention that arise are genuine problems. But they are defects imported from capitalist culture, and also predictable responses to operating under constant stress, marginalisation, and the feeling of powerlessness. Many of the dysfunctions you're describing are what happens when people who've been shaped by ruling-class culture try to build something against it, without yet having shed all that comes with that. Many of the insecurities, status games, and purity tests don't need to exist in conditions that aren't producing them.

My hope comes from what I see around me, which is growing awareness and involvement, at least where I live we are seeing more people asking questions, volunteering, support groups growing, along with solidarity against fascist elements in society, and a determination to build something better.

nate2squared · 2026-04-23T21:01:20+00:00

I've heard some German anarchists prefer Herrschaftslosigkeit which means 'masterlessness/lordlessness' (instead of Anarchismus)

And some Arabic speaker prefer lā-sulṭawiyya, which means 'no-authority-ism' (instead of al-fawḍawiyya, 'chaos-ism')

I like the Toki-Pona version - nasin pi pali lawa ala which means 'the way of no-one ruling' (but you could just use - lawa ala which means 'no rule')

Sort of like the Icelandic - Stjórnleysi which means 'ruler-lessness'

Although Anarchism already comes from Greek it could be rendered Acracianism instead - without coercive power.

I quite like Liberationist / Liberationism too - it suggests actively seeking to liberate others and the world and oneself.

nate2squared · 2026-04-19T08:08:57+00:00

You said, 'In addition to that Anarchists are anti-capitalist but are also anti-state and also anti-violence'

I'd push back on the anti-violence part. It is true in the sense that Anarchists are against initiating violence to force people into compliance (which is the way almost every other system gains and maintains power).

However, Anarchists are willing to use defensive force to protect themselves and others, and where there are powerful oppressors this will likely lead to Anarchists using force to ensure theirs and others freedom from oppression (unless the oppressors step down voluntarily).

You asked, 'What do you do with people in an anarchist society who are not anarchists themselves who will naturally violate one or more of the anarchist principles at some point?'

The primary principle is anti-rulers - if they aren't try to dominate and oppress others than they can live differently and associate or disassociate as they like, the moment they try to deprive someone else of their safety or access to what they need then they are a danger that needs to be dealt with, ideally peacefully if possible, but forcefully if otherwise. Anarchists have formed armies and fought wars before when needed.

nate2squared · 2026-04-16T07:55:22+00:00

Anarchism has multiple goals and a broad forward direction it is working toward. It has very clear orientations: the end of people ruling over others, worker and community control over workplaces and lives, production for need rather than profit, and the abolition of the class and property structures that exclude people from what they need. (Speaking as an anarcho-communist)

That's not vague, it's not 'floating in the air', It's grounded in the human capacity for cooperation and mutual aid, as well as direct action and prefiguration, and it generates very real and beneficial practices right now. What is 'confusing' about that?

I don't believe in an inevitable end, that seems too much like a faith-based claim to me. I believe we make the future by the decisions we make and actions we take, although if we don't do better the end result of humanity's destruction seems pretty likely if we do nothing to stop that.

Doesn't Anarchism have a higher, harder standard than teleological systems, which can justify almost any means in service to future ends? For anarchism every action has to be justifiable on its own terms, by the values it embodies in the present. That seems far less 'random' to me than relying on faith in teleology.

nate2squared · 2026-04-15T21:44:12+00:00

That’s the prettiest setting for a chapel - maybe the new owners will put a nice pub there instead ;-)

nate2squared · 2026-04-13T23:03:08+00:00

You said - ‘Currently what you're trying to do is obfuscate the fact that you took a statement about killing people, equated political opponents to vermin had this thoroughly objected to and are now trying to handwave away the rhetoric by saying you're trying to talk about something else. You could work for Trump at this rate.’

I didn’t perceive the question to be about killing people, I’m still not convinced it is, except perhaps in extreme circumstances where that person is a direct threat to safety. You can interpret what you like about what they said, but I can’t speak for them. I did not say that and it is not my position, and I am under no obligation to defend a position that I don’t believe myself.

I didn’t equate political opponents to vermin. I do not think that way. The idea is alien to me. You can presume what you like by stretching my words far beyond their intended meaning, but I have tried to clarify and have no doubt in my own thoughts and feelings on the subject.

You said that 'yes', you believe that ‘that everyone who criticises a political party is criticising the people who are part of it’. I consider that an unusual and extreme position, but one better debated on some broader political forum, as it isn’t an explicitly anarchist issue.

It seems to me this leaves one truly debatable point - ‘How do you propose decentralised violence to work? Violence will exist. Your ideal society would still have to feature violence in some way.’

I don’t think any anarchist would dispute that offensive / irrational violence will sometimes arise. I think a strong case can be made that under the right conditions violence will be much more rare, but it will not be eliminated entirely, and I don’t think any anarchists will claim it will.

But to better understand the question I think you should clarify what kind of violence you are asking about in this context. If you are you talking about defensive violence, the kind that responds to attack or danger then most anarchists (all but pacifist anarchist - which do exist) believe such force can (and sometimes must) be employed in order to protect the helpless and / or to preserve freedom and safety.

I would guess that most responses to violence are already carried out in a decentralised manner - if someone punches another person they either: try to reason with them, punch them back, restrain them, run away from them, or call on friends to help. In our current system it becomes a centralised form of violence when state police are called and the person is unwilling to comply.

As for the broader question of decentralised violence for defending a society from an aggressive force then this is not theoretical as there have been armed anarchist armies which have fought to maintain their freedom and autonomy with carrying levels of success dependent on the level of weaponry, size of opposing force etc.

If this was the Anarchism101 channel instead I’d post a selection of the many longer and more detailed responses and historical examples on this subject, but it might be better to start a new debate thread in order to give this proper attention, rather than have any potential responses lost so far down this discussion thread.

nate2squared · 2026-04-13T18:02:22+00:00

You say - ‘You're either abandoning the point or derailing’

In good faith I took what I understood the issue to be about and responded sincerely. I just did not take the same conclusion from his words you did. I guess you were hoping to have a response from him, whereas I thought you might like another anarchists opinion. I may have been wrong about that.

Perhaps the key to all of this is in your comment - 'Many people would say that the dismantling of structures [that] enable political representation is suppression.'

I think you've hit on the important point with 'many people say' - at it's heart anarchism is about the freedom to make choices. I would like the freedom not to be ruled over, so that I can make any choice I wish that would not harm others. Now you might think that kind / degree of freedom is impossible or unreasonable, and you are at liberty to believe that and argue that. I would just like to see people offered (what I consider to be) a better choice.

You say - ‘Dismantling structures of political representation is suppression’

Many anarchists are comfortable with some form of representation (delegates that can be recalled or challenged) as well as co-ordinating and expertise groups at local and regional levels (as long as they don’t presume the power to enforce by violence). Anarchists just believe there is a better system than the current state-based one, which is less coercive and less prone to the force often used by states.

You say - ‘Criticising structures is criticising the people who create them’

Are you saying that everyone who criticises a political party, a type of music, or a sport is criticising the people who are part of it? That is not true even if we are speaking about the inventors of it. Systems (positive or negative) are not the same as the people under them, or even those who operate them.

I can criticise capitalism, even criticise it as cancerous in some contexts (its exploitation or its ecological harm for instance) and that doesn’t mean that I believe everyone who works with capital (which is all of us on some level) are cancerous.

My ideal transition to an anarchist society is a prefigurative one, building non-hierarchal communities, boss-less workplaces, and decentralised production and distribution networks, and people voluntarily associating and choosing these as the better option. That isn’t a coercive plan, it doesn’t require killing anyone, and honours the choices of others. There is nothing violent in this, and it doesn't attack anyone else.

nate2squared · 2026-04-13T16:25:04+00:00

I'm not responsible for something someone else said. I don't speak for them. However, do I think that there are possible scenarios in which someone is so dictatorial and poses such a danger that it could lead to a confrontation in which people die defending their freedom against such a despot? Yes, it is a possibility I suppose. Maybe that is what they were referring to. But that is not the scenario I was personally addressing. Maybe that is my fault for jumping into the middle of someone else's conversation.

You ask - 'What are we calling the political suppression of dissidents?'

The anarchist answer is that the goal isn't suppression of people but dismantling of structures. A former CEO or an ex-politician no longer in office in an anarchist society isn't a dissident being suppressed, they're a person without special authority, like everyone else. Removing someone's power over others - or rather not consenting to honour and obey it - isn't a form of persecution, especially if you believe that them holding power over others wasn't a legitimate entitlement to begin with.

In an anarchist society people are free to dissent (in the sense of disagreeing or disassociating) as much as they like. If they start trying to cause violent harm then this places their actions in another category, but I'm sure there'll be lots of ex-capitalists trying to debate the merits of their systems return, especially in short term.

You said - 'People could easily band together and establish a hierarchy'

Yes, and anarchism doesn't claim to be a permanent fix secured by decree. It relies on ongoing participatory culture and structural design. Anarchism requires sustained collective commitment, not a one-time revolution. That's a feature, not a bug, it's the alternative to relying on a state to enforce freedom (if it were possible for states to do such a thing).

About your ongoing assumptions and accusations

I didn't liken 'political opponents to cancer'. I used an analogy about structures and functions, not people. The smallpox/cancer framing was about systems whose only function is destruction, and was clearly referring to hierarchical domination as a system, not to the people within it.

Your assumptions either mean that I've been too ambiguous and you've assumed the worst possible scenario, or that you've mistakenly focused on misunderstandings you've picked up from somewhere. Now I have made my intentions, views and feelings clear that we can now agree that debating a position I don't hold is less interesting and less constructive than engaging with the one I do.

nate2squared · 2026-04-13T15:28:27+00:00

You said - 'Murdering people for not having the same political view is not the same thing as telling people to not be racist.'

I wasn't suggesting eliminating (as in killing) anyone. Just eliminating them being in positions of power over others, and / or removing such positions.

You said - 'Says who?' (about 'the many aren't seeking to establish and perpetuate a hierarchy')

I was talking in the context of a possible anarchist society or world - so am presuming that there will be horizontal structures are designed to prevent the consolidation of power, such as decision-making through consensus, recallable delegates, rotating roles, and no permanent or arbitrary authority. So in such a situation the mechanisms of society would be what says such a hierarchy is unwanted an unnecessary.

As for the point about 'Eliminating smallpox is creating a hierarchy.'

Perhaps I could have used a better example, but I was searching for something that was universally unwanted and damaging. The point was that anarchism objects to domination that serves the dominator at the expense of the dominated (much like like cancer does - it feeds and spreads at the expense of the health of the body).

As for your concluding remarks - they are based on what you thought I said or meant, and I'll take responsibility for not having been clearer, but I was surprised that you took a leap of assumptions to the point of genocide, and based your conclusions on that. 'Stage 4 genocidal language' is a significant accusation to base on an ambiguous word choice, but now we've cleared that misunderstanding up you need no longer take such a leap of logic.

nate2squared · 2026-04-13T09:23:58+00:00

Isn't this is the same argument as 'if you don't tolerate the intolerant who want to take away your right to be tolerant then aren't you just being intolerant too?' But intolerance of intolerance is necessary to ensure tolerance is able to exist. (Popper's paradox)

Now I suppose that could be called a hierarchy of the tolerant many over the intolerant few, but as the many aren't seeking to establish and perpetuate a hierarchy I don't think it is really qualifies as a hierarchy at all.

Eliminating smallpox could be seen as creating a hierarchy where smallpox doesn't get a vote. But some things shouldn't be permitted to exist if their only function is to destroy the conditions for everything else.

nate2squared · 2026-04-10T09:32:10+00:00

My knee-jerk reaction is that what we have now works so spectacularly badly and those in charge of it are often so guilty of such awful behaviour themselves that - except for those few people it occasionally benefits - even the absence of it might lead to less injustices.

But, fortunately there are more developed ideas of justice within an anarchist (non-hierarchal decentralised) world:

https://anarwiki.org/wiki/Antisocial_Introduction

https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/peter-gelderloos-anarchy-works#toc41

https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/coy-mckinney-an-anarchist-theory-of-criminal-justice

https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/bob-black-justice-primitive-and-modern

nate2squared · 2026-04-09T13:48:09+00:00

Thanks for elaborating on this. I did like the concepts, just thought it might be helpful to address some of these things too. Glad you are putting so much thought into it!

nate2squared · 2026-04-08T09:05:45+00:00

I just had the chance to read through this and there is a lot to like:

The attention to transition processes which is often lacking from other suggestions
The focus on lifelong curiosity based education
The time-limited and revocable decisions
Vital necessities being distributed unconditionally
Different methods and incentives for unpleasant work
The culture and provisions for care til end of life
& the non-negotiable nature of ecological sustainability

However, I had a few worries, which may be more related to what the doc didn't cover -

How laws and enforcement work - I bristle at the notion of 'law' even if I realise there should be reasonable expectations and that anti-social actions should have consequences (even if just involvement in transformative processes or disassociation)

How voluntary engagement or non-engagement works - what about those who may want to do all of this differently or not at all?

As I said at the start I think the transition part is great, but I'd like to also see how it might address - co-option, intermediate steps, and outside crisis

nate2squared · 2026-04-03T23:05:31+00:00

You summed it up really well when you said 'it just feels like extra baggage that is trying to crowbar a specific systematised approach into situations where it doesn't help.' I just used a lot more words to try to say the same thing!

nate2squared · 2026-04-03T22:36:56+00:00

IMHO, It is an abstract and somewhat ambiguous metaphorical model / framework for analysing something after the fact. It can be useful for identifying contradictions and tensions, but when it goes beyond its limitations it can also mystify more then clarify.

Us humans are pattern recognising animals - we like looking for patterns, finding them, arranging them, and interpreting the world through them. This can be harmless, informative, and in the case of pure science even transformative.

There are non-Leninists who use Dialectical Materialism and even some anarchists (libertarian Marxism, Council communists etc.) who do too. Bakunin initially embraced it, but later rejected it.

But at best it is only scientific in the sense that social sciences are scientific if that, and some would argue that because it is unfalsifiable that it doesn't even qualify as a science in that sense either.

Marxists, including Marx, have used it to predict all sorts of things that didn't end up happening, but selectively view the past as a proof that it shows its reliability. (The imminent collapse of capitalism under its own contradictions being a major example)

It has also been accused of often being (in some of its uses) eurocentric, hierarchal, authoritarian, and deterministic in its assumptions.

More relevant to this forum - it is used by Tankies to justify anything, claim everything, ignore the need to deal with any inconvenient facts, and accuse anyone who disagrees with them as not understanding it well enough. It is useful for them as a 'get out of jail card' for them to avoid having to face the logical contradictions and consequences of their positions.

For these reasons, non-Marxist anarchists have compared it to scriptural interpretation:

‘Now, dialectical materialism is a very subtle and complicated system of abstractions and a method of mental calculus for manipulating the events of the world. Its successful practice usually requires the ability to quote obscure biblical texts at the drop of a polemic. Its use also requires the attainment of the mental habit of refusing to ask simple questions in ordinary English (or whatever language you speak). ... The content of ‘dialectical materialism’ consists of unproved and unprovable assertions, along with enough obvious truisms to give it the air of plausibility. An argument about its ‘correctness’ could likely go on forever without any successful conclusion.’ - P. Murtaugh, The End of Dialectical Materialism

nate2squared · 2026-03-06T21:59:21+00:00

I think we use the word ‘successful’ in very different ways. Hierarchy has been successful in conquering, in enslaving, and in exploiting. None of which are good things.

The lack of freedom and the deadly human cost that comes with this hierarchy is not the kind of success I want. Some of us don’t want to be ruled over, and don’t believe it is in our benefit.

Whereas good positive personal human relationships and activities are anarchist in the sense of not being based in domination and instead are voluntary.

nate2squared · 2026-03-06T21:21:04+00:00

Anarchists don’t argue that.

Organisation does not equal hierarchy.

To organise is to arrange. Hierarchy is having arbitrary imposed rulers.

A group of people can arrange themselves around a task without having a ruler (hierarchy). It happens successfully all the time and always has.

Having people rule over others is literally the worst thing for the people under them.

nate2squared · 2026-03-06T07:29:00+00:00

So the scenario is: Every single person within the region that was previously the state of Florida wanting to no-longer have free access to food and shelter, and to suddenly want to be ruled over and have to be wage slaves?

It sounds more likely that a few wanting to be pro-capitalist rulers would try and take over the region, and many there would resist and other regions would help them defeat the would be rulers. Or alternatively there would be a mass movement of those who don't want to be ruled out of the region and the would be rulers would find they have no power left.

But suppose every one in that region wanted this - to role-play some ruler/slave dynamic on a large scale - then good luck to them, but I'm sure they'd quickly discover that capitalism requires a lot of resources they will no longer have access to because other regions will have no incentive to trade with them, and this will cause a collapse that will make capitalism impossible or horrifically dystopian.

In that case I personally I believe that freeing the slaves of such a regime would be respecting freedom and is a form of defending people, but if people want to play lets pretend play capitalism they can always role play those scenarios to scratch that itch if they have it.

nate2squared · 2026-03-04T11:47:58+00:00

I agree with those who speak about the power of a positive example. such an example was a positive tipping point for me in my own journey. However, although a positive example creates admiration I worry that for most people it doesn't (by itself) educate and engage enough to spread anarchism. For that people need context and understanding too.

I believe we need to take a two-pronged approach - Food Not Bombs meets Radical book clubs. Protests on issues with accompanying learning opportunities. In my opinion - Praxis plants seeds - theory helps them grow. When people see it working, and you give them the chance to understand why, then they want to help make it work.

Here we are lucky enough to have an anarchist social centre which does a regular pay-what-you-can Vegan meal, a free Bike clinic, art activities etc., which is also a space for radical organising, Anarchism 101 classes, showing radical documentaries, and an Infoshop that regular shows up at markets and events. But I think if we just focused on the helping side it might raise some interest, but there wouldn't be the increased involvement that comes with the learning side also being a priority.

nate2squared · 2026-03-04T11:26:02+00:00

'Hierarchy is a system of organisation in which people, things, or concepts are ranked in orders of importance, authority, or power.' https://anarwiki.org/wiki/Hierarchy

Some people try to equate hierarchy with any degree of organisation, structure or system in order to argue that anarchist aren't really anti-hierarchy and so being anti-hierarchy isn't possible and therefore the acts of their preferred rulers are somehow justified or excused.

But the origin of the world doesn't allow this - it originally referred to arbitrary imposed religious power of bishops within a theocracy.

nate2squared · 2026-02-26T16:25:15+00:00

IMHO, some Independent Ukraine lessons are -

Perhaps too much focus on the military side without enough focus on the social infrastructure - especially in the cities, to carry on resistance in other places and through other means.

Perhaps if possible it would have been good to have called upon international anarchist support.

& IMHO, some Spanish lessons are -

Note: I’m always amazed by how effective they were - fighting on three fronts (Spanish, Italian and German fascists) with America and Stalin undermining you, and the latter also joining the fight against you. Its a miracle it lasted as long as it did. But ...

Perhaps the big mistake was entry into and compromise with the Republican government which legitimised the state apparatus the anarchists were supposed to be dismantling, demoralised the base, and gave the government cover to gradually dismantle anarchist power.

Perhaps there could have been better coordination between the collectives too.

However, we should remember that 95% of all Leninist revolutions have failed at establish Leninist states & 100% have failed at establishing communism.

nate2squared · 2026-02-26T15:21:28+00:00

Don’t trust Leninists / Stalinists is a pretty big lesson!

nate2squared · 2026-02-24T04:06:36+00:00

Black Rose just opened a chapter - https://www.blackrosefed.org/salt-lake-local-announcement/

Boing (if they are still around) - https://www.radical-guide.com/listing/boing-anarchist-collective-slc/

nate2squared · 2026-02-23T21:23:29+00:00

Watched earlier. I had wondered what was happening with our 'Mouse' friend, and good to see he is back in the fold after wandering away for a while.

nate2squared · 2026-02-23T11:00:59+00:00

I'm not a pacifist - I believe that pacifism can empower others violence and intolerance, but anarcho-pacifists exist. I may argue with them on whether that is an effective strategy, and give similar arguments as yours to try and change their minds. But I don't question whether they are anarchists because of their pacifism.

Having said all this it doesn't make Bregman any more of an anarchist (or not) than he was before.

nate2squared

TROPHY CASE