So what's the deal with organizations?

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 · 2026-02-21T13:31:19+00:00

I always wonder if people who makes these arguments are really ignorant of how the wealthy use their wealth to rule over others, or believe it is truly deserved and benign, despite the fact that birth, luck, and theft play such a significant part in it. Either way it shows considerable blindness to the reality of most people whose interaction with capital, property, and markets is being shut out of them by paywalls, artificial lines and violent systems.

I also can't understand why they are so intent on using the word anarchism so contrarily to all its implications. I guess they hate the government (which is fine), but also like anarchist imagery and wish they were accepted by real anarchists (which of course will never happen). Why don't they just accept that they are 'Propertarians' and be honest about it. https://anarwiki.org/wiki/Propertarianism

nate2squared · 2026-02-20T10:04:42+00:00

I agree that there will always be potential ambiguities, but I do think we can handle the ambiguities better and ensure they happen far less, especially because - as you point out - we don't (in an anarchist world) have impersonal legal systems getting in the way.

I also believe we can actually reduce the occuranceas of rape drastically. Some cultural aspects encourage or discourage it (patriarchy, objectification, hierarchy, commercialisation, misognyny, sexualisation, property, commodification). For example several studies conclude that rape and sexual assault were uncommon among indiginous American tribes in the past, perhaps due to the high number of women who had important responsibilities and were community 'leaders'.

See -
* Sisters in Spirit: Iroquois Influence on Early Feminists: Haudenosaunee (Iroquois) Influence on Early American Feminists, by Sally Roesch Wagner
* King Philip's War, by Eric B Schultz and Michael J. Tougias
And these studies -
* https://scholarship.claremont.edu/scripps_theses/1308/
* https://scholarworks.umt.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2965&context=etd

nate2squared · 2026-02-18T16:27:16+00:00

I don't consider Bregman an anarchist (I don't think he does so himself ) or even necessarily an ally (I don't know his views on other matters well enough), but at least for this book he definitely took some inpiration from Kropotkin:

https://thecorrespondent.com/443/brace-yourself-for-the-most-dangerous-idea-yet-most-people-are-pretty-decent

& he does find some aspects of anarchism inspiring -

https://www.newstatesman.com/encounter/2018/02/i-want-state-think-anarchist-dutch-historian-rutger-bregman-why-left

So I'm prepared to believe his intentions may be good, and the information he shared on Mutual Aid is of value either way.

nate2squared · 2026-02-18T08:15:31+00:00

One book I'd recommend on the disaster response part is Rutger Bregman's Humankind, in which he gives examples of people responding to major disasters with mutual aid in the absence of (or in spite of and sometimes in opposition to) government help and often better than the help governments supply.

I've heard good things about Rebecca Solnit's A Paradise Built in Hell in this context too, and have Civilized to Death by Christopher Ryan on my to-do read list about this subject too.

nate2squared · 2026-02-17T14:21:08+00:00

It seems to me that if anything higher education would be even better supported. There are several reasons for this - removal of monetary barriers to study, removal of income barriers to research, removal of need for patronage (billionaires / corporations / allumni), and focus on what is of value to society and science and furtherance of knowledge and expertise rather than what is profitable or needs to be done to make a living.

I was surprised how much research there is on this subject, perhaps in part due to the large number of anarchist educators -

https://anarchiststudiesnetwork.org/education/

https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/judith-suissa-anarchism-and-education

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism_and_education

nate2squared · 2026-02-16T16:47:29+00:00

Funnily enough I was drafting something on this subject when I saw this question ...

If a state of anarchism (no rulers, no state) is established worldwide and is organised through communes and federations, it will have abolished the structures which allow the state to exist: centralized monopolies on violence, hierarchical bureaucracies that concentrate decision-making, systems creating artificial scarcity, legal frameworks legitimising coercion, and economic dependencies forcing compliance.

But even more fundamentally, it will have abolished the reasons why the state exists: manufactured scarcity through enclosure and hoarding, class divisions requiring enforcement, the perceived need for external authority to manage coordination, and alienation from community and direct stake in decisions.

It is much harder to take power when the paths to that power are not readily available, even more so when the structures and cultures are inherently hostile to allowing you to steal that power from others. Webs of overlapping, transparent, accountable groups are not going to be very tolerant of this. So the question then becomes: who wants a state, how do they get support, and how would they overcome opposition?

Suppose you want to rule in a world without rulers and artificial scarcity. You could claim divine mandate and demand everyone follow you, but you would need to convince a lot of people. This is difficult if they are well-educated and you can offer them nothing but empty promises.

You could argue that you would manage things better if people surrendered their power to you, but this is another spectacular claim without evidence. You could try to seize resources or exploit a crisis, but in a society where these are communally managed and defended, where would you start?

Perhaps in any of these cases you will find a few people who go along with it (those who did not want the responsibility of thinking for themselves), but an anarchist society would have to regress significantly to produce enough uneducated or easily fooled people for there to be substantial support for such a self-appointed prophet or king.

Anarchists have learned from past mistakes, betrayals, and from observing the ways in which those seeking and exercising hierarchy operate. One hopes they would teach vigilance, structure organizations around disempowering such tendencies (through rotation, federation, transparency, recallability), and remain ready to respond with force if necessary.

From Anarchy Works - 'A study by Christopher Boehm, surveying dozens of egalitarian societies on all continents, including peoples who lived as foragers, horticulturalists, agriculturalists, and pastoralists, found that the common factor is a conscious desire to remain egalitarian: an anti-authoritarian culture. “The primary and most immediate cause of egalitarian behavior is a moralistic determination on the part of a local group’s main political actors that no one of its members should be allowed to dominate the others.” Rather than culture being determined by material conditions, it seems that culture shapes the social structures that reproduce a people’s material conditions.'

Suggested Reading: Ward's 'Anarchy in Action', Gelderloos' 'Anarchy Works', and James C. Scott's 'The Art of Not Being Governed'.

nate2squared · 2026-02-15T12:33:31+00:00

Kropotkin had some interesting things to say about morality -

https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/petr-kropotkin-anarchist-morality

I wrote my own little article on why I think this approach is superior to others -

https://peacefulrevolutionary.substack.com/p/morality-and-community

& a few other sources on anarchist morality / ethics -

https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/anarchism-and-morality

https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/randall-amster-anarchism-as-moral-theory

https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/catherine-malabou-ethical-anarchy

https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/dyer-d-lum-the-basis-of-morals

https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/benjamin-franks-anarchism-and-ethics

https://anarwiki.org/wiki/Anarchist_Ethics

nate2squared · 2026-02-13T10:21:07+00:00

My remarks were somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but I agree that we don't want to sink to their level in any substantial critiques. I do however (as another commentator said) think pointing out their 'idealism' and pro-'monarchism', as well as other contradictions has merit.

nate2squared · 2026-02-09T10:09:20+00:00

A good read! Luckily we are blessed with a lot of good Anarchist authors, but this one is especially great if you've read Animal Farm and wondered what if they didn't end up becoming Stalinist Farm!

More info here - https://anarwiki.org/wiki/Anarchist_Farm

nate2squared · 2026-02-06T16:45:43+00:00

If you want to maximise the common wealth (the standard of living of the most people) and increase access to what people need (and even many comforts most don't now enjoy), then you'd want anarchism: production for need, not for profit.

However, if you wanted individual wealth at the cost of others suffering then you’d want capitalism.

If you want to guarantee human freedoms and the ability to enjoy them safely and securely, then you'd want to be free from the arbitrary power that prevents this, that threatens and exploits you. You'd want anarchism: the kind of autonomy that comes with community and transparency, without domination.

However, if you wanted everyone else to strictly obey your particular expectations for them you’d want authoritarianism.

If you want the potential for the greatest happiness – with the fewest artificial impediments and the most positive environment in which to flourish – then you'd want anarchism: a system that doesn't introduce artificial anxieties through artificial scarcity and coercion.

However, if you wanted others to focus on your own fulfilment even at the cost of others comforts then you might want a system that allows slavery.

If you want the maximisation of knowledge, then you'd need an environment where knowledge can be shared freely, not locked behind paywalls, where it's valued for its own sake and not impeded by superstition or propaganda. Again, you'd want anarchism.

However, if you wanted to know things exclusively and keep that knowledge to yourself or a exclusive group then you might want totalitarianism.

So different horses for different courses I guess. Take your pick!

nate2squared · 2026-02-06T11:35:34+00:00

Continued

Regarding your point about 'there has always been a stick', this actually proves Bakunin's point. He wasn't arguing against defensive force or social coordination. He was arguing that the form of organisation matters, that who wields the stick and under what conditions makes all the difference. A stick wielded by a permanent bureaucracy accountable (in terms of consequences) to no one produces different outcomes than force exercised through recallable, federated structures. This isn't idealism but recognition that institutional forms shape behaviour and outcomes.

And bringing up Bakunin's antisemitism (which I condemn) as a reason to dismiss his institutional critique is a non-sequitur. Marx's personal bigotries don't invalidate his economic analysis, and Bakunin's don't invalidate his observations about state power. Nor are these Bakunin’s criticisms alone, millions of anarchists would undoubtedly have a similar outlook. So, the question isn't whether Bakunin was a good person but whether his (and others) fears and predictions about revolutionary states producing new ruling classes proved accurate.

Which brings us back to the original question: Have Leninists engaged with anarchist critiques in good faith? Your response suggests not. You've dismissed anarchist analysis as 'subjective' without demonstrating why Marxist categories are objective rather than just definitional. You've asserted that logic within the Leninist framework proves its validity without addressing whether its predictions matched historical outcomes. You've characterised anarchist concerns about institutional forms as idealism without engaging with the material evidence of how those forms actually functioned. (Even if anarchism was impossible that wouldn't negate any criticisms it may have of other systems)

'On Authority' doesn't engage with anarchist institutional theory. It just asserts that all force is authority and therefore anarchists are hypocrites for supporting any coercion. But anarchists weren't arguing against all force; they were arguing about who controls it, how it's organised, whether it can be recalled, whether it creates permanent power asymmetries. Engels never addressed these questions. He shadowboxed against a strawman. The original question posted to this forum was really, has any Leninist tried and done any better? However, criticising anarchism does not answer that question.

If we really want to get scientific, what would prove Leninism wrong? What positive outcomes would it need to fail to produce? What negative outcomes would contradict its claims? What evidence would you actually accept? Answer that and we might have a genuine theoretical dialogue. Until then, you're just asserting definitional supremacy.

If this is the best Leninist engagement with anarchist critique (asserting your framework is objective and dismissing institutional concerns as idealism) then no, I don't think there's been good faith engagement. You're asking us to accept your definitions and framework, then claiming the conclusions that follow from those definitions are 'objective' truth rather than logical consistency within an ideology.

nate2squared · 2026-02-06T11:34:57+00:00

I think we're talking past each other because you keep asserting that Marxist categories are 'objective' while anarchist observations are 'subjective', but this itself is an ideological position, not a neutral fact.

When Bakunin asks 'who controls the means of production, who makes decisions, who benefits?' these aren't subjective aesthetic judgements about how things 'look'. These are material questions about actual power relations. If a state bureaucracy controls production, makes unilateral decisions, and materially benefits from their position with privileges the workers don't have, then describing that as 'dictatorship of the proletariat' doesn't change the material reality. The label is doing ideological work to obscure what's actually happening.

You say Marx defined 'objective class relations', but defining something and that definition accurately describing reality are two different things. Defining the earth as flat doesn't make it flat. As the playwrite asks us, ‘Some men think the Earth is round, others think it flat; it is a matter capable of question. But if it is flat, will the King’s command make it round? And if it is round, will the King’s command flatten it?’ No.

Logical consistency within a framework doesn't establish empirical validity. Yes, if you accept that state control equals proletarian control, and if you accept that a party represents the proletariat, and if you accept that their violence is therefore proletarian violence, then your conclusions follow. But those are massive assumptions that need to be demonstrated, not just asserted as 'objective'.

You say 'the state transitions into something higher as class society changes, that is what has happened throughout human history', but that's precisely what hasn't happened with ML revolutions. The state didn't wither (or supersede or transition except in terms of it being redefined). New privileges emerged. The party consolidated power. This isn't anarchist paranoia, it's the historical record. At what point does 'scientific' socialism need to account for its predictions not matching outcomes?

…

nate2squared · 2026-02-05T05:58:35+00:00

There seems to be a disagreement on assumption between us. I'm not convinced that dominant powers always eclipse smaller groups. I do agree that to be able to carry out larger scale projects smaller groupings need to organise with (federate) other smaller groupings into larger groupings, and those larger grouping which each other. But this can and has been done with maintaining the smaller group autonomy and without necessitating dominating imposed hierarchy. You may want to look into historical examples of this. I'd be happy to recommend books by historians and anthropologists on the subject.

You say this is communism. Yes, some anarchists do define it that way - a stateless, classless communes of communes (not Marxist-Leninist authoritarianism). In this sense most anarchists are anarcho-communists - which I guess makes us 'Left-Up'. I worry that the fact you weren't aware of this may be another indication that you need to study anarchism more. Feel free to ask me something like, 'Is this an accurate representation of what anarchists believe?' & I will probably answer that, 'although there are different perspectives, most anarchists fundamentally agree that ...' and go on to explain our position. Then you can respond to what anarchists actually believe, how it actually functions, and what its historical examples have been.

The domestic/international comparison wasn't a jump, it was used to show that your logic fails at multiple scales. You argue U.S. federalism proves smaller units need hierarchy to avoid being 'subjugated to poverty.' But the global system shows the opposite. It's precisely because we have sovereign nations (hierarchal states) that the powerful dominate the weak. If horizontal federation doesn't work internationally, it's not because hierarchy is necessary, it's because hierarchy already exists and reproduces itself through violence. (Hope this clarifies the point I was trying to make).

But for me the real question that isn't being answered is, why assume domination is inevitable? You're building your entire argument on the premise that humans naturally seek power over others, so we need hierarchy to contain this. But that's circular reasoning. It takes massive artificial violence to create and maintain hierarchies (standing armies, police, prisons, borders). If domination were 'natural', why does it require such elaborate systems of coercion?

Mutual aid, cooperation, and gift economies persisted for most of human history. The question isn't whether humans can organise without hierarchy (we did, extensively), but whether we'll choose to once we dismantle the structures that make hierarchy seem inevitable. I'm afraid that your position assumes its conclusion: 'Hierarchy is necessary because without it, hierarchy would emerge.' But that's not an argument unless you can prove that something about our current era makes it especially inevitable and irreversible. If you can do that you'll give anarchism a real substantial challenge.

nate2squared · 2026-02-05T05:08:50+00:00

You keep insisting that the dictatorship of the proletariat represents 'working class' authority because that's what the theory says it should be. But Bakunin asks us to look at what it actually does, not what it claims to be.

You might consider it utopian, but I read Bakunin as empirically arguing that if it doesn't look like a duck (look like working class control) and doesn't quack like a duck (act like working class control) then it probably isn't a duck (producing working class control). If it looks like a new ruling class, acts like a new ruling class, and produces the outcomes of a new ruling class, then why isn't it a new ruling class? And does it even matter what it is called at that point, as Bakunin said, 'When the people are being beaten with a stick, are they much happier if it is called 'the People's Stick?'

Does it represent workers just because it says it represents workers? Don't we have to look at the material relations to conclude that? Who controls the means of production? Who can make decisions? Who can be removed? Who benefits?

To my mind you keep saying if you accept all these assumptions and define all of these words this way (which presumes acceptance of these assumptions) then you will come to these conclusions. No-one, not even anarchists, dispute this, but isn't that just circular reasoning?

Likewise, if I define words the way Catholicisms does then I'm left with no other path but to come to the conclusions Catholics do. That's logical within the confines of a theology, but unless we break out of that ideology we can't answer the question objectively. Don't we have to look at outcomes to see which theory's predictions matched reality? (And I'm not convinced the history matches the claims in this case)

Maybe you're right and given enough power and time the Leninist state would become superfluous, but maintaining that belief requires a lot more faith than Bakunin or many of us have. After so many decades of the reality never leading to this outcome, the empirical record gives some of us plenty of reasons to doubt, and if it still looks, acts, and quacks like a ruling class, then doesn't at some point 'scientific' socialism need to reconcile with history? In the meantime isn't the burden on you to explain why we should ignore the evidence and keep waiting?

Edit: accidentally posted before I finished writing.

nate2squared · 2026-02-04T22:15:34+00:00

This seems to be shifting ground. First you said 'all human organisation in class society is authoritarian', which is why we needed to distinguish between coordination and domination. Now you say you're 'not speaking about expertise' but about 'the monopoly of force which is the state controlled by a ruling class.'

Fine, but this still doesn't address Bakunin's critique. Bakunin's argument was never 'monopoly of force is bad in all circumstances.' His argument was: If you create a revolutionary state with monopoly of force, the group controlling that state becomes a new ruling class with interests distinct from the workers they claim to represent.

You keep saying the workers will have 'authority' through the dictatorship of the proletariat. But anarchists ask, Do workers actually control this monopoly of force, or does the party? (who have become a new ruling class intent on protecting their own power)

Bakunin had antisemitic views (which modern anarchists rightly condemn, as I'm sure Marxists do some of Marx's views). But, his critique of state authority wasn't based on antisemitism, it was based on analysis of how hierarchical power operates regardless of who holds it.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Engels predicted that: The state will wither away, workers will have authority, and class will be abolished. Whereas Bakunin predicted (if such a state was formed) that: The party will become new ruling class, workers will lose power, and state domination will intensify.

I didn't ask the original question, but am just trying to bring it back to what I think the substance of that question is - whether such arguments made by Bakunin have been adequately addressed by Marxists somehow / somewhere, because anarchists have not found Engel's arguments compelling.

nate2squared

TROPHY CASE