I haven't read it all yet but from the titles it looks to be covered in the link above. Big quote dump but the titles all seemed relevant. Still yet to read myself! just placing here for reference.

What An Anarchist Society Would Look Like

There have been many different visions of what an anarchist society would look like. Any vision that abolishes the things anarchists are opposed to and is consistent with the earlier stated principles of anarchism is compatible with anarchy. There are, however, many institutions that have been proposed by anarchists to run a non-hierarchical society. Most of these are not based on idle speculation but by looking at how actually existing anarchist societies have worked. Some of them are:

Popular Assemblies

Also called general assemblies or mass assemblies. In any organization people can come together to meet and discuss whatever common problems or activities they face. At these assemblies everyone should have an equal opportunity to participate in both the discussion/debate and the final decisions. These can be formed in workplaces where they would take over the running of all workplaces. Worker assemblies would then meet regularly to plan production, divvy up the tasks that need to be accomplished, etc. They can be formed in each neighborhood in order to deal with whatever particular issues confront that neighborhood and organize to deal with them. These are based on free association so whenever a group of people wants to get together to accomplish some goal they can simply form a general assembly to organize it. Free association also means that no one would have to participate in an assembly if they did not want to. Such assemblies can be formed to organize around anything — not only around workplace and neighborhood issues but potentially also universities, clubs, space exploration, etc. Worker assemblies, neighborhood assemblies, university assemblies, community assemblies and the like can all be formed to run society without hierarchy, based on self-management.

Councils

The different assemblies can coordinate their activities through the use of a council system. This is done by each assembly assigning a contact person(s) (sometimes called a spoke or delegate) to meet with other contact people from other assemblies which they want to coordinate things with. The meeting of contact people is called a council or spokescouncil. Position of contact person should rotate frequently. Each contact person is mandated, meaning that they are instructed by the assembly that they come from on how to deal with any issue. The contact people would be given binding instructions, committing them to a framework of policies, developed by their assembly, within which they would have to act. If at any time they violate their mandate their assembly would instantly recall them and their decisions revoked. Decision making power stays in the assemblies; contact people simply convey and implement those positions. Contact people do not have any authority or special privileges. Councils are organized from the bottom up, with control staying in the assemblies. They are not hierarchical organizations but simply coordinate the activities of the assemblies without authority. Instead of hierarchy there are decentralized confederations and networks. This differs from representative institutions in that decision making power stays in the assemblies whereas representatives can make whatever decisions they want and have authority over others. These councils can be formed to coordinate the activities of assemblies on whatever level needed. Worker councils can coordinate the activities of the worker assemblies; neighborhood councils can coordinate the activities of different neighborhood assemblies, etc. They can also do this on a regional scale — forming regional worker councils, etc — and those regional confederations can use the same method to coordinate with each other. In all cases decision making power stays with the assemblies upon which the councils are based — the assemblies would be the core of any organization.

Decision Making Processes

Any decision making process in which everyone has control over their own life and all members have an equal say, rather than dividing people into order givers and order takers, is theoretically compatible with anarchism. Although there are many different ways in which this can be done, there are two main methods of non-hierarchical decision making which are advocated by most anarchists:

Consensus

In consensus everyone in the group must agree to a decision before it can be put into action. All contributions are valued and participation is encouraged. Any member can block consensus, stopping a decision they strongly object to. Members may also “stand aside,” allowing a decision they do not like to be made without blocking or supporting it.

Direct Democracy

Decisions would be made by directly voting on the options — the option with a majority of votes is implemented. Anarchists who advocate direct democracy do not believe in a mechanical process whereby the majority just votes away the minority and ignores them. It is intended to be a dynamic discussion process where different people listen to each other and exchange ideas. Direct Democracy is combined with free association as well — meaning that anyone who is out-voted does not absolutely have to abide by the decision. They can simply leave the group.

These decision making processes would be used in the popular assemblies, councils, etc. There are many variations on them and it is also possible to synthesize consensus and direct democracy. Some groups could use direct democracy but require the majority be of a certain size (such as 2/3rds or 3/4ths) instead of a simple majority. Another variation is to attempt to achieve the largest majority possible.

Sure on reflection I was being overly sensitive mainly due to the earlier priming seeing a whole front page almost devoted to stuff like that earlier on another anarchist website.

The issue I was having was not the subject matter itself but rather hogging the limelight for such things at the expense of core concepts, which I admit is not the case here from the looks of things. So a false positive on my part there.

As my edit above, there is a lot of good meat and potatoes explanations.

Ok I was reading the anarchist library and things were looking good then soon hit upon the identity politics again:

What Anarchists Oppose

Heterosexism

Heterosexism is a natural outcome of the form of patriarchy that exists in the west and many other parts of the world. Gender in most modern patriarchical societies is constructed so that heterosexual behavior is the norm. Homosexuals deviate from how men and women are expected to behave and so are subjected to various forms of coercion as a result. There is thus a hierarchy between hetero and homosexuals. Anarchists are opposed to any sort of oppression on the basis of one’s sexuality.

I don't think you would read that in any of the canon texts. :lol:

Skipping over those obvious crowbarred in amendments there it does seem a lot of questions I have made above are answered there.

that list on Reddit — Jamal

What 'that list' are you referring to here? but yes I was meaning actual real life organizations that call themselves anarchists.

Yeah, think of it like a municipality -- but rather than voting on representatives to vote for what to do everyone represents themselves and can speak on what to do. I've heard this described as the "spokes and wheel" model of organization: where working groups are organized in accord with a central working group which deals with communications between working groups.

Or, if you'd like, think of it as a team at your workplace -- but rather than having a boss all the workers set the rules for the workplace. This would be a workers collective. — Moliere

Coming back to this I was on the phone with my mother today trying to explain some of what had been discussed here and when the question came from her, when I told her it is not just no laws and survival of the fittest style dog eat dog, of how are rules formed and such and such. I tried to explain this about local government but then she said "well we have that already" at which point I didn't really know what else to say as I thought the same.

So what is the difference then of current municipalities as you mention and the anarchist way? Also if there are no higher ups elected then how do the different small conglomerations communicate with each other if there is no spokesperson acting on there behalf.

She made the example of how in the current government you have a local councilor which you can go to if you have issues within their ward then they can then take it to the parliament to be heard by the other cronies there.

So how would that work in anarchy if hierarchies are not allowed and everyone has as much as a say as everyone else?

Would there be no central government at all then? It has been stated earlier, and I read it in The Conquest of Bread yesterday, that there would still be federation between these small groups. As such how would that happen?

Interesting to read that some that are not the usual righties have also critiqued it. I know that Sam Harris has also done so.

With the way any kind of critique of wokeism is immediately lambasted by the contemporary left as fascist or similar it does make one wonder if is a manufactured 'controlled opposition' ploy by the capitalists.

The endless cancel culture have made the Left impotent. Having lost its teeth it is no longer a threat to the establishment.

I feel such views would be very unpopular if voiced in public Left circles. Are there any bulwarks on the contemporary Left that are seeing through this?

too much virtue signalling — boethius

I was just looking up local anarchist forums and the front page of the first one I click is full of trans and queer activism stuff. Certainly nothing, apart from having anachist in the name, would indicate it had anything to do with the kinds of topics which have been discussing in this thread.

Identity politics appears to have polluted all these so called far left movements.

Is it not a product of capitalist thinking? I am reminded of the old term of spiritual materialism for religious epithets. This could be called identity materialism and a by product of the rot of capitalism.

The far left member on the contrary should not have an identity and subvert themselves and their energies to the greater cause of the Party. Maybe I am swinging back to communist. :)

Good :)

I was able to digest a lot more of that.

Btw it reminded me of another thought I had been having. How did anarchy get related to the destroy everything rebellion for rebellion's sake punk style that most of society thinks of when they think of anarchy?

It has become synonymous with rioting and ransacking and general disorder as a way of life.

I see perhaps, maybe, that is a part of it to get rid of the current state, but marxism talks about revolution of that kind equally/even more doesn't it so why has that not become the 'poster boy' for destruction but anarchy has? It seems that anarchy has as much post-state toppling discourse on how to manage society thereafter as marxism.

Anarchy is generally thought of like mad max. Also the word itself is used for general wild behavior if someone says "It was anarchy!"

Sure it is just an example for illustration but most of those issues are because they are still operating in a capitalist system. Not saying that grocery co-ops want to be full anarchist but I think a lot of those who live in housing co-ops would be happy to do so. :)

↪unimportant
Trade unions organize the workers at a place not owned by the workers, whereas a workers collective owns the place and runs it in accord with whatever decision-making process they set up. — Moliere

Like housing co-operatives then that are quite popular among the hippy folks? I knew some people in one and sounds just like how they explained it; if not outright owning the house, holding shares in it.

Or, if you'd like, think of it as a team at your workplace -- but rather than having a boss all the workers set the rules for the workplace. This would be a workers collective. — Moliere

What is the difference between this and the trade unions that have been popular for a hundred years or so?

But, really, I'd emphasize doing some of the readings rather than listening to me. You'll get ideas of your own that way and the theorists explain themselves in better detail than these little maps I'm trying to make :) — Moliere

I am doing both. Reading source material and discussing in tandem.

Aha! The proof is in the pudding...

I just read in The Conquest of Bread some of what has been discussed here where it states that rather than collectivist systems of State Socialists the writer rather espouses small territories but with federation between them.

I am not saying you are full of it...yet, :) but if you are going to make such claims I think they should be backed up by real examples rather than to just say 'oh all the evidence is burned' but it is definitely right and if you don't believe me that's your problem.

PS Thanks for the welcome. :)

The basic unit of society for an anarchist is the collective, in terms of the day-to-day. One joins a collective and shares the benefits of cooperation with its members while negotaiting with other collectives. — Moliere

I would be terrified if the lowest common denominator were making decisions. Look at the Trump situation.

Then again maybe if it was on a smaller scale it would not be like that? For example like decision making in small towns rather than the lumbering hive mind you might see on a place like reddit.

Maybe in an anarchist state you would not longer have such idiots which is just a product of the diseased capitalist system. Not that I am proposing an old boy's club either but how does one ward against the least qualified person having as much say as the most qualified?

Example an anti-science climate change denier having as much say on policy as a career climate scientist?

This sounds like the stereotyped view of anarchy that capitalists would say who have done no reading on it and just taking the cliche pop culture idea of anarchy = destroy stuff. Like how communism = automatically bad and the biggest evil of earth according to the US government.

Not read anything like what you say there in the readings I have done on anarchy so far.

Of course, in a decentralized anarchist community power based system, there would be analogues to accomplish all the same tasks you mention, but mostly on the smaller scale, whether the label institution is retained or not, the answer to who has the authority is always people in genuine equality and deliberation. For example, hopefully we can still afford to have medical doctors in such a decentralized world and communities see to ensure that happens in one way or another and make the resources available to maintain the health of the community. And similarly for anything of genuine utility. — boethius

Ok, I am on board with this. I despise the mega corporations where you not able to get in touch with a human and only get automated responses.

What you write pretty much is what I had hoped anarchism would be. I am ready to sign up.

I am also a big advocate of open source technology which seems along the same lines of decentralization and power to the people.

Grass roots projects that work a million times better than the 'too big to fail' bloat of most capitalist garbage.

Anarchists, by and large, appreciate this analysis but tend to reject industrialism wholesale. If anarchists had our way (i.e. everyone woke up suddenly with a penchant for anarchism) the entire industrial system would be dismantled and production localized and power decentralized as much as possible. — boethius

Can you answer the question I posed earlier: how do anarchists propose to manage things like law enforcement, healthcare and the like if there is no government or is there government just only local government so it would be just all grass roots, cottage industry type of companies locally for all human public services?

EDIT: Also there has been talk of anarchy being about decentralization. I recently learned, when I asking whether cryptocurrency could be thought of as communist at its roots, that crypto is squarely in the realm of Libertarianism. So with that in mind, how does Libertarianism and Anarchism differ bearing in mind both want decentralization and general agreement for small government?

We have a good debate going now and I am learning a lot and it is good to have different minds chiming in on the subject.

Now these bitesize chunks are more manageable for my puny brain to compute.

On gardens, I was having a discussion at one time about that with someone I used to volunteer with, on a garden.

I think we were discussing communes and the positives of alternative communities and I suggested they would be pleased at someone buying a piece of land and working on it but then he said on the contrary they would not like it as they rather want communal living centralized to save on resources and that a self-sufficient person would be deemed as wasteful compared to collectivism.

Ok I have started intoThe Conquest of Bread and right from the preface it is chock full of historical references, so far of socialism and communism and much talk of the French Revolution and adjacent episodes, so it is easy to get a better idea of its placement in the grand scheme.

It does root it a lot better now right out the gate and can now have a better foothold of which avenues to further my research.

Indeed. Aka the map is not the territory.

Ok so I will add The Conquest of Bread and Utopia to the reading list.

With all the talk of the differences where then where does this mixing of anarchist communism come from? Maybe it will naturally reveal itself as I read more about the roots of these movements but perhaps a preface?

EDIT: Oh I see that anarchism seems to be labelled by default as anarchist communism is that right? in that vanilla anarchism is interchangeable with anarchist communism? as I have just downloaded The Conquest of Bread and it is labelled as anarchist communism.

EDIT2: Oh no, it seems by chance this book just happens to be about anarchist communism, with other flavours also existing. From the wikipedia:

The publication of the text was a watershed moment in anarchist history, being the first time that a completed and in-depth theoretical work of anarchist communism was available to the public.[2] The publication of the text shifted the focus of anarchism from individualist, mutualist and collectivist strains to social and communist tendencies.[2] This shift would prove to be one of the most enduring changes in the history of anarchism as anarchism developed throughout the 20th century with Kropotkin and The Conquest of Bread as firm reference points.

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

A beginner won’t have the time to get through Marx if they feel obliged to read your rambling mega-posts. — Jamal

:smile:

I realize it's popular today to perceive oneself to be an intellectual without having read anything concerning the topics at hand, but that's really not how it works. — boethius

Ok, seems you did take umbrage with that passive aggressive quip at the end.

I said in my OP I was eager to know what to read and never implied to be an intellectual. I bore my soul that I know nothing and want to learn more about the topics.

You may have a vast knowledge in the subject matter but perhaps not the best skill to impart it. That was all I meant by the comments.

Of course you can just say 'gtfo, do your own research and come back to me' if you want. No one is paying anyone for professional services. Those are just my comments.

But a rough-and-ready differentiation I could provide would be -- both are radical political philosophies. By "radical" I mean that they posit some underlying mechanism that is the result of many problems within current society. For Marx that radical center to society is the mode of production of a given society, which in turn is defined by ownership relationships to wealth production through labor-time, and so changing this mode of production is its goal for a classless society. For anarchy the radical center to society are hierarchical social relationships, so in order to develop an anarchist society we change our social relations such that we no longer hold hierarchical positions towards others. — Moliere

Ok reading this on a new day I see this looks to be a good summation and what Boethius also echoed.

So marxism the revolution is economic and the rest sorts itself out and anarchism is social structure and the rest sorts itself out?

It is interesting to question which is 'right', perhaps there are more than one way to skin a cat? I have often thought much of the ills of society are the product of rapacious greed and self centeredness, only think of number one, which I feel is a product of the underlying model capitalism.

Capitalism is only really discussed as an economic model yet clearly has effects on social structure. Most people are only interested in helping out those who can do something for them or otherwise in their small network of allies.

If thinking of the remedy, from your description above, I could imagine either could ameliorate it. Perhaps the question on which is better is which would bring least ills of their own once enacted.

The general goal of most anarchists, such as myself, is genuinely accountable and decentralized governance. — boethius

Indeed, this is what led me to an interest in anarchy over communism, where the thought of communism being centralized control, albeit by the proletariat, seemed less than ideal.

How are things like law enforcement or everyday services like roads and healthcare handled under this system?

I appreciate the effort but respectfully there is too much here in one, or several, mind dump/s to be able to work with and is not accessible for me.

Looking up and unpacking all the points would take days which stymies an active back and forth debate.

We were taught in essay writing to make one point and hammer it home well. Not trying to tell you how to write, and hope it does not sound preachy, just that it is my experience that that is easier to digest.

Again not trying to be ungrateful as it is clearly a well written reply but I am just saying that it is a wall of information and would take me a long time to climb it!

Hopefully it does not come off as disrespectful, I was just saying it was very challenging and puts the brakes on active debate, which was my intent of the thread.

I treat anarchism as left libertarianism unless it's otherwise qualified. Even though the word 'anarchy' literally just means without a leader or without government, the historical actuality is that anarchism as a political tradition is left-wing. — Jamal

Thanks for the welcome and other replies so far. I will give more fulsome comments to the others in due course but this naturally leads me to another question I have posed around this same subject:

What are the differences between libertarianism and anarchism as prima facie they seem to be aiming at a similar target of 'do not interfere with me!' but I think upon inspection they would quickly part ways? similar to how far left and far right extremes of the spectrum might both have a hatred of government but that may be where the similarities end.

From the little I have read, especially some of the snips I have read where is does seem much more than the childish (punk) rebellion for rebellion's sake it is make out to be in pop culture, it does seem to 'vibe' well on the far Left, even though anarchists might say they are nothing to do with that common axis. Again, I cannot qualify that statement properly, yet. :)

Anyway late in the evening now so don't feel I have the capacity to do things justice at this time. Will come back afresh to this thread on the morrow. A good start though! Cheers.