I second your message.

My only comment is the glib observation that in my experince Marxists are less interesting than anarchists. — Tom Storm

Oh, for sure. At least my experience says the same of the modern tendencies, though I've been out of the game so I couldn't say what things are like now now.

But, on the other hand, Marxists did build longer lasting institutions, or at least more of them that had an impact in national affairs. From the anarchist's standpoint that may be a demerit, depending on how idealistic the anarchist is.

I am not someone who believes in utopias or the perfectibility of human beings and I usually find people who see the world as a rigid expression of theory to be dull monomaniacs. But in the current world of plutocracy, I hear my Marxist voices calling.

For myself I just see capitalism as a problem which Marx describes well -- I don't think that politics will end if we manage to create a new socioeconomic way of life, but perhaps the problems of capitalism will wane if done correctly. Similarly so with anarchy -- if we manage to find a way to organize ourselves sans hierarchy I'm certain that politics will continue, that we will continue to have to decide things together and confront challenges and that people will continue to be people for all that. But we may still be better off if we overcome the challenges of hierarchy.

I tend to think of these as central problems that cause a lot of suffering rather than fixalls that bring about a utopia.

Where I think utopian thinking makes sense is in imagining a world we might want to live in. But I don't think it makes sense to base a political philosophy entirely on that world, which is why I like Marxism -- it has a more practical edge to it which allows one to enact the political mechanisms that exist today rather than inventing them wholesale as a counter to the hierarchical systems. The latter are far more like what I'd prefer to live in, but the former tend to fair better against hierarchically organized states since they have no qualms in utilizing hierarchy, which is good at orchestrating people towards winning, if not towards making them happy.

So I feel an attraction to both, and often try to think of blending the two into a coherent political philosophy.

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

Yup -- that'd be the utopian version of both, but in terms of differentiating them and trying to wrap your mind around it that's a good simplification.

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

Yup -- that'd be the utopian version of both, but in terms of differentiating them and trying to wrap your mind around it that's a good simplification. — Moliere

Literally no Marxist or anarchist would ever say either of these idiocies.

How exactly would you go about changing economic conditions without changing the social structure (aka. political power)? How would you go about changing the social structure without being concerned with the economic implications or the economic means required to the change in the first place?

And what is "the rest" that "sorts itself out"?

Socialists, such as Marxists, are primarily concerned with the ownership of the means of production, that's pretty much their tagline, which is a social structure change leaving the economic system otherwise largely intact.

It would be far more anarchists that have issue with industrialism full stop, and would want to get rid of it.

Nevertheless, anarchists, as expressed both by myself and @Martijn, view both social structure and economic structure as mostly a consequence of what regular people believe. For example, no Anarchist likes to see people licking boot, but 99.9 % of bootlicking episodes is entirely voluntary. People by and large choose to lick boot and very much like licking boot, and changing the feet in those boots may change the beneficiaries of the boot licking but hardly anything else.

For the vast majority of anarchists, all you can do in the face of such rabid and rapacious bootlicking is simply not lick boot yourself, and go do something else; hope for people to emancipate themselves from the bootlicking.

Point being, there's no taking control of history with our superior intellect and directing the state to create a new and better citizen worthy of our ideology.

Contemporary anarchists use the word "co-creation" a lot (like really a lot) to describe this framework of simply being one among many in a process of creating the future together with few guarantees of what's actually going to happen.

At the same time, seeing the burning flesh and screams of children scrolling through my social media feeds, the Marxists do have a point or two concerning the current system worthy of serious consideration.

Literally no Marxist or anarchist would ever say either of these idiocies. — boethius

There's a thing called "simplification" that we do to get the gist of an idea across. If someone doesn't know what a representative democracy is we don't rush into make sure that someone understands the nuances between a federal or a confederate or a singular state, whether one utilizes a first-past-the-post or other electoral mechanism, etc. You start with Locke, the state of nature, and so forth, and attempt to simplify the complex so that people can branch out on their own.

Indeed. Aka the map is not the territory.

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.

Yeah. Especially not my map, which isn't meant to go into details. If it needs to be said, yes, you'll find a lot of differences along the way -- including once backed by material struggle.

"Takes care of itself" would be a kind of doe-eyed utopianism, which I can see wanting to reject, but the gist of what they care about in your summation is a good starting point, IMO. One focuses on economic exploitation and overcoming that, the other focuses on hierarchical exploitation and overcoming that, and sometimes their endgoals look really similar and you wonder why it is we're fighting, but then that's the nature of politics. And as it turns out the differences are substantive, i.e. difference between building a union vs. building a party, or what-have-you.

There's a thing called "simplification" that we do to get the gist of an idea across. — Moliere

Sure, but the simplification shouldn't be the opposite of a true statement.

In this case, it's socialists by and large and in particular Marxists who don't seek to change the actual economic system.

Marx is super clear that he views capitalism as a good and essentially inevitable development of the productive powers of humanity. Industrialism is not a problem as such, and if you're not trying to change industrialism as such then you aren't really seeking to change the economic system.

For socialists, and particularly Marxists, the question is who owns this productive equipment, who benefits from the profits.

Anarchists, by and large, reject entirely industrialism as well as any top down social structure or economic change as likely to result in much good. Anarchists criticize socialists (especially the kind that makes things like the Soviet Union) for having the delusion of capturing the state and wielding it for good to "make people better" (USSR style socialists are Denethor II, Steward of Gondor, would use the one ring to fight the enemy that created it; Anarchists are Gandalf, knowing it cannot be used for good even by the wise, and so seeking to destroy the one ring by guiding a fellowship of misfits, and also hanging out with Radagast the Brown, exemplifying the harmony of humanity with nature).

Any good and long lasting change, economic or social (to the extent these are separate), is a bottom up development in most anarchist frameworks.

For example, most anarchists would agree that they want to see a world where a large majority of people are gardening in their own personal gardens as well as communal.

Well, what's stopping that from happening right now? Not much, not even the state is standing in the way for most people on the planet.

So, what to make of this situation? Should we create a state program to force people to garden? The anarchist answer is no, zero need: they will learn to garden when they're starving.

OK, this demonstrates a good theoretical difference -- something for philosophy.

I'm gathering that you're speaking from the anarchists perspective in this. In which case "the economic system" does not mean the same as it does in Marx -- whose goals are also clear in a desire to change the means of production in order to change society.

Yes to who owns what -- but the idea really is that the state would wither away once classes were abolished. And so we'll get later adaptations of Marxism which are more nationalist in character, which justify hierarchies, and so forth, on the basis that it's overthrowing the capitalist mode of production, the real Big Bad.

So, yes, there will be differences along the way. And they will be important at times.

One of them here being even an understanding of what constitutes "the economy", since it seems you're in favor of some kind of anarcho-primitivism, given your comment that hunger will teach people to garden

****
But just for a moment try to crystalize what you understand of both philosophies into a single sentence. What would you say rather than what I've said? Try to simplify it, rather than cover every nuance through several paragraphs.

What would you say the difference is, when you keep it simple?

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.

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.

If you look at the dispute between Marx and Bakunin, both of whom admired the Paris Commune, the schism was about the trust in and usefulness of authority. Marx foresaw a dictatorship, a transitional state, while Bakunin wanted no such thing. Historically speaking and in practice, the communist parties have a deep desire for authority.

↪boethius OK, this demonstrates a good theoretical difference -- something for philosophy. — Moliere

We are on the same team, wanting to know more about things.

I'm gathering that you're speaking from the anarchists perspective in this. In which case "the economic system" does not mean the same as it does in Marx -- whose goals are also clear in a desire to change the means of production in order to change society. — Moliere

Marx aims to change the ownership of the means of production.

For Marx the development of the means of production (the technological know-how) is essentially linear, happening all the time and in some sense in the background. Which for much of human history is certainly true.

Marx is very much pro-capitalist in assuming capitalism was necessary in creating the immensely powerful technologies already of the 19th century. In seeing the poverty and misery that the Industrial Revolution and continued Imperialism creates, Marx's proposed solution is that the workers should own the means of production.

This is the central objective of Marx and I think safe to say Marxism in general.

In Marx's framework, who owns what is a superstructural symbolic change (words on a paper) and not the material reality of production. Keeping in mind revolution happens when the superstructural symbolic world (who's a priest, who's a king, who owns what, who can do what) becomes disjointed and incompatible with the new reality of how things are actually being produced.

For capitalism to develop further it becomes necessary to destroy the feudal system of Lords, rents and estates, and so various revolutions transform feudal institutions into ones suited for the capitalist mode of production; aka. liberal representative democracy with "independent" institutions of justice (aka. that part of the feudal system of property and contract resolution capitalism is built on-top of).

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.

However, the biggest difference is anarchists usually reject the framework of "social design" at the beginning. Society will be better when people are better, and that may take a long time.

I can think of nitpicks, but I can't see how what I said is at odds with this.

Also, is that the shortest version you got? :D

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?

One of them here being even an understanding of what constitutes "the economy", since it seems you're in favor of some kind of anarcho-primitivism, given your comment that hunger will teach people to garden — Moliere

If the system is unsustainable, as our most erudite scientists tell us, then the system will fail at some point in the future.

If the sustainable alternative is the vast majority of food coming from local gardening, then that will definitely for sure happen if the current agricultural system, that we are assured is unsustainable by a long list of experts, crashes or then more likely discombobulates in some longer more drawn out process of collapse.

Of course, the third option (the first mentioned) is people starting to garden now. That's the preferred anarchist option of course. If that doesn't happen, then the remaining options are make the state force people to garden or then people gardening by necessity, if indeed it is so essential to the future of humanity.

However, although I have much sympathy for my genuinely primitivist anarchist comrades, I do not view that as practical. There's simply too many people to return to any previous economic system.

We consume today vastly more exosomatic energy than any previous time and there's simply no possible feasible way to go backwards in technical organization without culling the large majority of humanity, which I view as unethical and also simply impractical anyways. It can be entertained a democratic and ethical system of population reduction, but a necessary condition for that is that there really is no alternative and some agreed to process is preferable to war to sort it out (not that some consensus is likely, but presumably worthwhile to discuss before the wars start on the off-chance agreement is reached about it).

Long story short, there is a technically viable sustainable alternative to culling humanity and returning to a primitive organization voluntarily, which is solar thermal energy. It's easy to see why in that most energy required for production (which even in a decentralized system we'll still need things like hammers and nails) is thermal energy, and trees and biomass are incredibly inefficient at providing thermal energy (why deforestation has been a problem ever since we discovered mining and metal working), on the order of 0.1% to 1% efficient at transforming the original solar energy into usable heat energy. Solar thermal energy devices are up to 50% efficient and additionally their use does not send local nutrients into the air far away.

Upon such a decentralized and sustainable system, the sophisticated technologies we take for granted today could still be produced, either in local laboratories at a smaller scale, or then in some central locations somewhere on the planet. In technical terms, maybe a decentralized system could not sustain 5 nanometer processing architecture but could work out 32 or 90 nanometer architecture. So where there would be a difference in technological access, the question becomes do we really need 5 nanometer architecture if the destruction of the entire planet is necessary to achieve that?

So perhaps a few things would be downgraded, that's possible, but keep in mind also that there would be no planned obsolescence in such a sustainable system, so over time such a technical advantage (of building things to last) may accumulate far more technical sophistication than what is presently available.

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? — unimportant

For anarchists (of my school, say Kropotkin school for short, under consideration here) the key question is effective power.

For example, we do not have issue with a ship needing a captain to weather hard seas, keep things in order and navigate effectively to wherever the ship is going.

If it was efficient for ships to have no captain and everything decided by spontaneous vote then that certainly would have been discovered by now.

The issue anarchists have is if the ship's captain is some sort of god, morally or judicially. If people on the ship want to elect a new captain because the current captain has lost the trust of the people of the ship to advance the ship community's interest as a whole, then they should have no qualms in doing so.

If everyone can at anytime participate equally in selecting, deselecting, instructing, reselecting, any managerial agent required to perform some task or another, then there is no effective authority figure. The authority remains equally among the community electing the manager for the performance of the task under consideration.

A system of equal authority we obviously do not have in our liberal Western democracies. We cannot recall police officers, prosecutors, judges, colonels and generals, bureaucrats and politicians, and for the most part they are not elected at all. The state is comprised of thousands of bureaucrats and agents of various kinds, and the smallest possible set is elected (with minimal, if at all, possibility of recall) in order to pacify the population under the dogma of "consent of the governed".

Anarchists of my ilk want rather to see the governing of the governed, that we each participate with equal authority to formulating what actually happens.

As for institutions of the kind you are talking about, they are imbedded in a centralized state that anarchists take issue with. There's no "anarchist way" of managing a highly centralized state. The anarchist thing to do under such political conditions is build-up grassroots and decentralized alternative modes of living and working and being. If the super centralized state was sustainable then that would be a real intellectual dilemma for anarchists, but the super centralized state is not sustainable so it, and the institutions you refer to, will eventually collapse anyways.

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.

As for the retort that what if people are foolish and enact policies of self-harm, the answer is that they will need then to learn from their mistakes just as humanity as a whole is learning from our mistake of having created the state in the first place.

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? — unimportant

They don't. They want to undo thousands of years of human social progress simply because their lives didn't turn out as they desired them to be, in spite of the clear and blatant reality that their lives are actually much, much better than they would be without and infinitely better than they deserve.

They want blood in the streets, people who are born larger to control and enslave those born smaller (the so-called weak in their eyes, despite it clearly being them who are the weak ones morally and intellectually, the only things that matter and differentiate men from animal). They'll see woman taken advantage of as property to be raped and abused and killed on a whim, children abused and enslaved wholesale if not killed off entirely because "my group is bigger than yours so your resources belong to us."

They want to remove the single thing that every single great civilization and society, through unfathomable amounts of suffering and constant vigilance and toil, has been able to exclusively offer its citizenry that mankind has never been able to achieve since the beginning of time. Would you like to know what that thing is? Consistency. Stability. Predictability of what to expect from one day to the next. The very culmination of every single earnest and noble human effort, every single good man who died for a better future of not just his own but for all of humanity since the beginning of time. Gone. Why? For no other reason than "because."

They want to (or at the very least, will, if not stopped) take us back to a dark time of entire families and ethnic groups, men, women, and children slaughtered en masse. Entire villages and towns. A time where the darkest desires of humanity run rampant, unrestricted, and unabated with nowhere for good men who desire peace to lay their head. They have no understanding of human nature and what it inevitably results in absent of structure. Or at the very least, they don't care. Many, and you can ask them — they'll tell you flat out and point blank — if it's not tattooed on their flesh already, want to, and I quote: "Watch the world burn." That's not a political or lifestyle alignment or choice. It's clinical psychopathy and nothing more. These people are a danger to children and should not be allowed around them or be allowed to have them in any capacity.

These people are very, very dangerous and while they live, breath, and die in a state of constant hypocrisy without ever realizing it, or perhaps ignoring it as that is what shameless hypocrites do, taking everything from those who believe in order and law (modern society, infrastructure, technology, education, convenience, etc.) they nevertheless belong somewhere far, far away where their psychotic ideals will never reach another eye or ear drum forevermore. For the good of humanity. There is literally no discernible difference from a so-called anarchist and a foreign agent sent to topple and destroy a nation as quickly and efficiently as possible so an invading army can usurp it, perhaps even by willing vote of the people themselves. None whatsoever. And governments have known this for a long, long time.

Edit: Don't confuse true, actual anarchists with simple "regime changists." Some even confuse or convince themselves as such when fed the right intellectual kitsch (ie. lipstick on a pig).

This demonstrates the difference I was alluding to, and you've already pinpointed as a difference -- the way anarchists speak about nature differs dramatically from the way Marxists speak about nature. I'm not speaking here in terms of which is better than what, but only trying to lay out conceptual distinctions to differentiate, and do so in a manner that's user-friendly, though accurate.

For Marx "the economy" is very much in the human realm of things, to the point that our very being is defined by the process of production.

But anarchists tend to see it in a wider sense, as embedded within an ecology, and tend to have more respect for nature than Marxists do, who are certainly part of the industrial revolution. This is because of their universal stance against hierarchies, be they socially constructed or imposed on other living creatures.

Nature is something to be exploited for human ends, in a Marxist philosophy. It's part of the Enlightenment inheritance. Further, hierarchy is a useful means to an end which the Marxist will not shun.

Yup. That's Marx/Proudhon(EDIT:Bakunin) are also a great place for getting an understanding of the distinction.

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? — unimportant

Different ways, depending on the particular anarchist you're talking to. Some general themes that emerge are an emphasis on horizontal decision making and a minimization of hierarchies in our day-to-day decisions. The basic unit of society for an anarchist is the collective, in terms of the day-to-day(individuals are just as important in this notion of collective -- there's a unity between the two such that the individual is respected within the collective). One joins a collective and shares the benefits of cooperation with its members while negotaiting with other collectives. Some collectives proposed are industrial-wide unions ran on syndicalist lines, some collectives are worker or housing coops, some are political working groups, some are bikeshares, some are childcare shares....

A major difference between how our world operates and that world operates is that there's not really a person in charge which takes on the responsibility for a task. It's the collective's responsibility, which includes every individual within the collective. Horizontal decision-making usually involves consensus-building among the group until agreement is reached by the collective, and its this willing agreement which is meant to keep things running smoothly -- since everyone genuinely agreed to such-and-such they act in concert together for the benefits of collective activity.

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.

↪boethius This demonstrates the difference I was alluding to, and you've already pinpointed as a difference -- the way anarchists speak about nature differs dramatically from the way Marxists speak about nature. I'm not speaking here in terms of which is better than what, but only trying to lay out conceptual distinctions to differentiate, and do so in a manner that's user-friendly, though accurate. — Moliere

Definitely we agree here.

If we've moved past simplification to a single sentence, relationship to nature is probably the biggest cultural, motivational and effective policy difference between socialist / Marxists and anarchists.

There is quite obviously a respect, if not outright fetish, for both industrialism and industrial workers in socialism / Marxism, that is mostly absent in anarchism.

For Marx "the economy" is very much in the human realm of things, to the point that our very being is defined by the process of production. — Moliere

I'm definitely not saying anything different, but if we're contrasting economy and social structure, then for me the economy is the material conditions of production (including humans) and ownership in the realm of symbols and social structure.

But anarchists tend to see it in a wider sense, as embedded within an ecology, and tend to have more respect for nature than Marxists do, who are certainly part of the industrial revolution. This is because of their universal stance against hierarchies, be they socially constructed or imposed on other living creatures.

Nature is something to be exploited for human ends, in a Marxist philosophy. It's part of the Enlightenment inheritance. Further, hierarchy is a useful means to an end which the Marxist will not shun. — Moliere

We are in complete agreement here.

That’s another distinction between the statist and the anarchist: they’re assumptions of human nature. Hobbes’ bellum omnium contra omnes rings true or false depending on one’s degree of statism.

That’s why I fear the statist more, because they believe humans require authority and absolutism to keep their wildest impulses in check. Presumably, this includes themselves as well. So if authority and absolutism were to collapse, we know who to look out for.

Heh, yeah we don't need to simplify to that point. I think we basically agree -- I was just peeved you'd say that no one would ever say such and such, and so asked you to provide something similar that might be better. But it's no worries now, and it doesn't really matter.

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.

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?

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

Of course not! Because they've all been burned and their purveyors executed, by sheer public outcry and will of the people, mind you.

I'm not saying the descriptions I've laid out are what people interested in the purported mainstream texts desire, I'm saying that's what always, always, inevitably happens and how it works out.

If you think I'm wrong and full of it, that's fine. Sorry to interject and disrupt your discussion. I'll say this. You know what's on paper, and I know what happens when those words on paper become reality and rubber meets the road, per se, given time. If you disagree, that's fine, and we'll leave it there. Welcome to the forum. Great topic BTW. :smile:

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. :)

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. — unimportant

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.

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 :)

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?

You don't. The premise is that everyone has not just the opportunity to grow, but everyone is fundamentally equal in a political manner.

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

Isn't this the case in our present day democracies?

What keeps them in check there is that there are representatives which do the voting for them, and there's a decision-making process in place that is democratic.

The anarchist wouldn't want to deprive the idiot of their rights -- generally speaking anarchists have a generally optimistic view of human nature, and given time the idiot will either prove the collective wrong or will come around to seeing that it was right or will move onto another collective.