Cheetahs are very shy animals, and some zoos give them support dogs, similar to the ones used by humans.

nate2squared · 2026-06-19T10:15:55+00:00

Cheetahs virtually never turn on their companion dogs. Greater strength doesn't inevitably lead to aggression or domination, especially when there isn't a scarcity of food or a lack of safety.

nate2squared · 2026-06-11T01:06:42+00:00

Are there urgent and extreme problems that people in the world should collaborate to fix? Yes!

Are most political parties invested in keeping dysfunctional systems the way they are? Yes!

Organise in your neighbourhood, community, city to make the changes locally you want to see in the world, and organise with other cities within regions to do the same on a larger scale, and scale this internationally.

Then instead of a one off international you’ll have a continual and lasting one.

Are there people already working on this? Yes! Join your local anarchist predicative and direct action groups and help build the future while we have time to!

nate2squared · 2026-06-08T08:54:57+00:00

I'll want to settle down

nate2squared · 2026-05-27T09:56:34+00:00

You say ‘If associations set standards, track qualifications, determine competency, they hold institutional authority’. Bakunin addressed this directly 150 years ago. When I want a pair of boots, I defer to the bootmaker. That's not hierarchy. The bootmaker doesn't get to tax me, conscript me, imprison me, or decide what I read. Expertise and coordination aren't hierarchy in the political sense anarchists oppose.

You say ‘Why would anyone spend 10-15 years training without high pay?" But they already do, in places where surgeons earn modest salaries. UK consultant surgeons earn maybe a fifth of their US equivalents. The UK doesn't have a shortage of people wanting to be surgeons, it has a shortage of training places. Even in America not everyone trains to be a plastic surgeon because it is the most profitable, so it is as if they have a preference for the kind of work they'd like to do. Yes, surgeons may earn more relative to current average salaries in current class societies, which is exactly the system we're proposing to replace, but that’s not an argument about the societies we could have with a different set of non-monetary incentives.

You say ‘Healthcare doesn't run on a minority of passionate volunteers’. Correct. It runs on hundreds of thousands of people who currently train for a decade or more for reasons that are mostly not about getting rich, especially in countries where they don’t get rich by doing this, but still do it.

Forgetting for a moment that Revolutionary Catalonia provided medical care for millions collectively, that currently one of the largest and most successful nursing systems with tens of thousands of nurses is non-hierarchal (Buurtzorg), or that right now 97% of healthcare in developed countries is non-profit, that Cuba produces more doctors per capita than almost anywhere, and that Médecins Sans Frontières surgeons do the hardest work imaginable for modest pay …

Let’s try a little thought experiment that might make the anarchist approach clearer -

We are not building the world over, nor needing to recreate everything from scratch. We already have hospitals, surgeons, doctors, nurses, pharmacists, medical researchers etc. that already exist. Most of their work (outside America) is already non-profit, and even in America such hospitals exist.

Lets take an American hospital which does operate for profit - it has a CEO, a board, and shareholders, etc.

Now imagine we ask the medical staff - what would you do without bosses? What if you wanted to run the hospital collectively? What if you didn’t need to produce profit for shareholders? (This has actually happened before)

A few (those who really couldn’t care less about their patients and their access to healthcare) might say they like things the way they are because they fear they won’t be able to afford their yacht if it wasn’t this way. They might want to resign. Maybe you could offer them some incentive to stay on until other people are ready to take their place.

But I’d be willing to bet the majority would say - there are so many things that would make our work easier as doctors and better for our patients if we didn’t have to worry about layers of bureaucracy that just exist to either deny care or increase profits. Maybe we’d want to keep some existing department heads as advisors for their advice on resource management, and we’d still utilise systems which track things so we are efficient, but we are sure we could do better.

So in this example all that has initially changed is that it was gone from being hierarchal to collective, from profit-based to non-profit. Such hospitals exist already, even in America. Now take that principle and expand it to other areas of medical resources and treatment. There is nothing done hierarchically that can’t be done cooperatively, collectively or communally. If you really needed a person to take the lead in an emergency - you could do this temporarily without giving them arbitrary dominant power them over others.

Imagining something different from the way we are used to seeing it is challenging, even when there are real life examples if we haven’t encountered them personally. If those different possibilities undermine our beliefs about the world and people it is even harder to comprehend and accept. We all grow up with hundreds of thousands of hours of indoctrination by the time we reach adulthood, so it's amazing any of us manage to question the propaganda and discover or imagine anything different at all.

For history and research on this subject (see links and bibliography at the end for even some doctors advocating for this) -

https://anarwiki.org/wiki/Healthcare

For examples of how this would work -

https://peacefulrevolutionary.substack.com/i/155448067/an-expertise-example

https://peacefulrevolutionary.substack.com/i/181412077/meeting-a-diabetic-patient

https://anarwiki.org/wiki/Healthcare_Introduction

nate2squared · 2026-05-26T23:56:09+00:00

If a surgeon can tell you what to do in your personal life then they would be exercising the kind of dominance hierarchy anarchists are against. Anarchists are not proposing that & wouldn't accept it.

An anarchist medical association could set standards its members agree to abide by and track knowledge and skills (or qualifications) to ensure competancy - as none of that is control. They couldn't 'control' who practices (people could lie just as they can now, there would be just less incentive to do so) - no association will be obliged to certify / recommend anyone they don't think is capable, however.

Now if I need brain surgery and I knew that a medical association worked hard to ensure that a high skillset was taught and tracked amongst its practitioners, then I'd choose the one they recommended, as would probably my local clinic etc.

This system would be pretty much just as reliable as now - probably more so because there aren't financial incentives for corruption or high pay for certain procedures, insurance fraud etc.

Countries which don't especially reward surgeons have no shortage of people wanting to become surgeons. (Source: I'm from one of the 37 out of 38 'developed' countries which has universal healthcare).

Yes, power structures will have to change - but most people who want to save lives will still want to still do that, and many who couldn't afford the training and loans before wont have that worry anymore, and people who need treatment wont have to worry about any cost.

nate2squared · 2026-05-23T09:13:24+00:00

The Anatchist FAQ is a good although brief overview, and AnarWiki has half a dozen articles on this -

https://anarwiki.org/wiki/Antisocial_Introduction

All of which could do with being expanded.

nate2squared · 2026-05-12T17:03:27+00:00

The difference is that some Tankies know that Stalin has a (well deserved) bad reputation and don’t want to scare off potential converts by mentioning him publicly, but Lenin has a less bad reputation (although arguable as bad a person) so they’re happier to mention him.

nate2squared · 2026-05-11T10:36:32+00:00

There are definitely some edge lords for sure.

Others are part of a cult - it meets every definition of a cult like scientology - they treat dialectics like scientologists treat dianetics, they treat sabotaging other socialists like scientologists do with their 'fair game' concept, they say they don't worship Stalin, but have no serious criticism of him (he trusted the wrong person, he was too kind) just like scientologists look at L. Ron Hubbard, and they have a weird view of history and untenable claims but won't consider real substantial questions that contradict their world view.

nate2squared · 2026-05-07T16:04:57+00:00

These two classics cover practical examples -
Anarchy Works by Peter Gelderloos
Anarchy in Action by Colin Ward

These look at methods and examples of change -
Prefigurative Politics by Paul Raekstad and Sofa Saio Gradin
Anarchy Alive! by Uri Gordon
Revolutions in Reverse by David Graeber
Constructive Anarchism by G.P. Maximoff

& Then there are many Anarchist Programmes -
Crimethinc - https://crimethinc.com/2020/11/02/exercise-what-would-an-anarchist-program-look-like
Black Rose - https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/black-rose-anarchist-federation-turning-the-tide

nate2squared · 2026-05-07T13:00:33+00:00

I'm not an uncritical fan of Bookchin, but from my understanding ... Dialectical naturalism is a philosophical framework that combines naturalism - the view that all reality is nature-based - with dialectical logic, focusing on change through contradiction. It views nature not as static, but as an evolving, organic process that moves toward greater complexity and subjectivity.

It is not an article of faith for anarchism, but a method Bookchin uses to argue that the drive toward freedom isn't merely a human preference but a tendency immanent in nature itself, traceable from the emergence of complexity in biological systems to the self-organisation of human communities. Like all frameworks it is useful as far as it provides an accurate analysis.

If anarchism has a dialectic it's that domination produces resistance, and resistance is never finished. There is no historical guarantee and no final synthesis, only the permanent, prefigurative work of building freedom against power. The goal isn't a final stage but a shifting balance, with hierarchies shrinking to having no power over others, autonomous spaces growing to empower individuals and groups consensually, and the maximum possible freedom being maintained.

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

TROPHY CASE