I'm going to get some sleep, if anyone else is curious about anarchism the AFAQ often has answers for many of your common questions.
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/the-anarchist-faq-editorial-collective-an-anarchist-faq-full
this post was submitted on 05 Mar 2026
278 points (99.6% liked)
Memes of Production
1236 readers
1212 users here now
Seize the Memes of Production
An international (English speaking) socialist Lemmy community free of the “ML” influence of instances like lemmy.ml and lemmygrad. This is a place for undogmatic shitposting and memes from a progressive, anti-capitalist and truly anti-imperialist perspective, regardless of specific ideology.
Rules:
Be a decent person.
No racism, sexism, ableism, homophobia, transphobia, zionism/nazism, and so on.
Other Great Communities:
founded 1 month ago
MODERATORS
The first thing I learned is that anarchists don't know what an FAQ is.
The part where we all die, because a foreign army invades us, and no one is doom guy.
Saying this as an green anarcho transhumanist.
How do you expect there to be a "we all" to invade without "us all" being able to take on nation-states?
Daily reminder that the Taliban managed to send the US military packing by fighting from a cave with a bunch of scraps. Guerilla is incredibly effective at turning empires into dust if you start the guerilla prepared, which any newly independent anarchist commune would automatically be by virtue of being newly independent.
I'm not sure if I consider "Afghanistan during the Taliban guerilla war" a good example of ideal anarchist living. Nor what came after that for that matter.
The part where I am watching The walking dead. Which does not mean I am ok with everything going on (I am so very not ok with all this shit)
The part where you either assume people don't have misaligned interests or that they do but they can resolve it in a rational way.
As a basic level everyone has the same interests.
Food, community, shelter, utilities (in the modern era)
But does everyone know they have the same interests? Is this supposed to be a plan for humans, because they tend to come up with their own opinions of what their interests are.
For me it's that anarchists are moral purists which often dont align with a leftist slightly less radical or outside of their worldview, in a society that will likely never accept anarchism.
I believe in leftism now, as opposed to "not voting because voting means you believe in people ruling over you." Which is the summary of many anarchists have told me.
Other than that I dont mind anarchists, but if we want change, participating in current society by voting and organizing now is the only way.
Gonna be honest, you sound more like a liberal, not a leftist. Liberals are not left, no matter how much they like to think they are.
Even communists aren’t electoralists who believe voting will bring about the revolution. And as any leftist would tell you, voting and especially campaigning is a waste of time and energy that could be better spent elsewhere.
If you want to spend 20 minutes in line to “harm minimise” or whatever fantasy you think it achieves go for it, no one is going to care. If you want to promote voting as a solution, that’s where leftists have an issue.
And as any leftist would tell you, voting and especially campaigning is a waste of time
You've taken a tiny delusional fraction of the left and mistaken them for the entire left.
No sane leftist thinks electoralism is the solution to everything, but most leftists, realize that nothing gets done without it.
Do you think Democrats are the left?
Ngl, the bit about making decisions for myself is a part of anarchism I really struggle with. But that is precisely why I'm an anarchist — I understand that I struggle with this because I have been systemically deprived of the opportunity to develop my capacity to make decisions for myself, and I see the continuous practice of anarchism as something that can help me to improve that (as well as supporting others to do the same).
Freedom is haaaaaaaaard. It's probably worth it though. I'll let you know when I'm free.
I wonder how old you are. Gen X was raised, rather uniquely, to make our own decisions. Schools allowed even kindergartners to make simple decisions, and we had to deal with it if we fucked up. Same for being latchkey kids. We were alone after school, had to decide what to do for ourselves and live with the consequences.
Had a stepson in elementary 20 years ago; my own kids are now 11 and 13. Schools are a fucking horror show. Kids don't even get a locker! We had to be responsible for getting books and whatever else was needed between classes. In 2nd grade, once that final bell rang, we were on our own. We could play in the creek, walk, skate or bike home, whatever. Now you're not leaving without a parent the teacher recognizes or on a bus. In high school we could leave campus at lunch, but you better be back on time, no excuses for poor decisions. You could light up with your teacher in the smoke hole. (An example of allowing bad decisions! Lord.)
Kids are no longer taught to think and solve problems. They are taught to pass standardized tests. Teachers are culled if they don't toe the party line, so the best are mostly gone. Neither the kids nor the teachers get to make decisions any longer. It's like the meat grinder from The Wall.
No rose colored glasses here! Teachers could beat the shit out of us. The number of pedophile teachers in my middle school was horrifying once we hit college and looked back. Hell, pedophiles were tolerated as mere weirdos!
But at least we were trained, perhaps inadvertently, to make decisions.
load more comments
(1 replies)
The part where I don't get to make decisions for others.
Not really looking forward to the clash that happens when the 2/3s consensus system of Johnsonville upriver comes into conflict with the majority consensus system of Tablesville downriver over the matter of what level of water treatment is necessary before dumping.
Do you presume that an anarchist leaning society couldnt have any structures in place to protect the whole? (Such as an environmental protections agency.) Its all a sliding scale, and you dont need to embrace total anarchy in order to avoid the problems associated with authoritarianism.
No, no, not at all, I'm generally quite positive towards libertarian socialism. I love Anarchist Catalonia, the Makhnovists in Ukraine, Rojava. But I do also think it's important to keep a realistic view of what such a society looks like and entails, and such societies inevitably include... well, making decisions for other people. My argument is against a utopian view of anarchy which will be dismissed by most people, even unprejudiced, and result in disillusionment when experiments fail to run as planned.
I mean, fuck, this the classic 'group project' or 'local government' issue dialed up to life-or-death. Getting people on the same page is not always easy, especially when strong personalities - with social connections - are involved.
You could say I'm taking a meme too seriously, and perhaps I am, but there are arguments laid out in this comment section which more clearly and distinctly express the exact sentiment in the meme I'm objecting to.
Nah, you're not taking a meme too seriously when the op is rampaging about the thread, telling people they're not leftist enough.
Why would Johnsonville as a group wish to continue poisoning Tablesville's water supply if the Tablesville community makes it clear to them that they are being harmed by Johnsonville's lack of adequate treatment? Johnsonville would likely be receiving mutual aid from Tablesville due to their close proximity, so it'd be really weird of them to willfully screw over their downstream neighbors whom they often exchange help or supplies with?
It would make sense why Johnsonville would want to skimp on water treatment under a capitalist society, as perhaps there are some corporations that don't want to deal with treating their waste water, so they lobby the local government to allow it. Profit motive can often overcome cooperative goodwill and empathy for others.
But in an anarchist society where there is no profit motive? Not saying it'd be impossible (perhaps Johnsonville is weirdly anti-science for some reason and won't listen to reason?), but it'd be a damn sight less likely than the same scenario under Capitalism.
Why would Johnsonville as a group wish to continue poisoning Tablesville’s water supply if the Tablesville community makes it clear to them that they are being harmed by Johnsonville’s lack of adequate treatment?
Easy. They don't believe it. They think Tablesville is exaggerating. They think Tablesville is confusing what is causing the polluted water. They think that pollution isn't that bad. They think that their need to spend more time with their kids in their very short and mortal lives is worth more than Tablesville's need to reside on a very specific piece of land that Johnsonville can't even see the point in inhabiting. They don't care about Tablesville. Take your pick.
Johnsonville would likely be receiving mutual aid from Tablesville due to their close proximity, so it’d be really weird of them to willfully screw over their downstream neighbors whom they often exchange help or supplies with?
That presumes that the level of mutual aid is substantial and bidirectional. If Johnsonville is in a good position and largely helps, rather than is helped, while Tablesville is a barren little scrap of swamp, what need does Johnsonville have of Tablesville's good will?
It would make sense why Johnsonville would want to skimp on water treatment under a capitalist society, as perhaps there are some corporations that don’t want to deal with treating their waste water, so they lobby the local government to allow it. Profit motive can often overcome cooperative goodwill and empathy for others.
Bruh, people will put other lives at risk to end a job - not a capitalist job, but everything from volunteer work to self-improvement - a fucking hour early.
You don't need capitalism to provide a motive for overcoming goodwill and empathy.
But in an anarchist society where there is no profit motive? Not saying it’d be impossible (perhaps Johnsonville is weirdly anti-science for some reason and won’t listen to reason?), but it’d be a damn sight less likely than the same scenario under Capitalism.
You could make that argument, but that presumes that this is a binary choice between anarchism (in this distinctly non-enforcement sense rather than libertarian socialist sense) and anarcho-capitalism, and that's not the case.
A democratic socialist state has the obligation to enforce the laws made by common agreement upon all members of the polity, even those that disagree. Even a libertarian socialist polity has that same obligation, it just has more layers of decentralization which prolongs how long a problem must linger at low-level resolution before the central polity comes in.
load more comments
(11 replies)
view more: next ›