Recent comments in /f/Anarchism

Pop wrote

I like this one the least of them all so far

I think anarcho-communism is half-assed, but putting it in the same sentence with "anarcho-"capitalism just doesn't work for me



Reply to Anarchist forum by ziq

Pop wrote

Top 10 anarchist forums:

  1. The anarchist forum Raddle:

  2. The anarchist forum

  3. The anarchist forum of anarchy, raddle:

  4. The anarchic forum of anarchists, raddle

  5. The anarchist forum for anarchists,

  6. The forum of anarchism, or the anarchist forum

  7. This anarchist forum

  8. The great anarchist forum,

  9. A forum of anarchy, an anarchist forum

  10. The archist forum daily aynarchist - what is freedom if I'm not free to exploit people?


alex wrote (edited )

except where instead of marxists eventually the platformists take power.

this gives me definite pause to any synthesis (as defined on the page). but to your more important points

But with green anarchist critique, it destroys the possibility that the red systems are compatible with the green ones.

i agree. i think we cannot include a green tendency without other tendencies feeling a negative way about it, which is probably what frustrates me most about anarchists considering the planet is being killed. the inability of some anarchists to consider new or other ideas, which are usually green or critical of civilization, is anti-anarchistic. personally i'd love to see a good synthesis of green and red tendencies, though i imagine they'd end up being more green in the end.

this seems to imply that, for example, we can't be fluid actors who respond anarchically to whatever is happening to us. Most individualists still have to work, and can still join a damn union. And a syndicalist can still rob a bank when they're not at work.

i think this is what people miss when talking about politics usually. i had a job for a while where i'd call people to do political surveys with me. it was horrible but what i learned was no one is 100% what they say the are politically.

within almost all of the tendencies listed on the right i can probably find something i like. the main reason i identify simply as an "anarchist" is because i like lots of ideas, and my thoughts change as i read and learn. to use any adjectives feels limiting.

so while i think these federations are probably fine, i think there's more power in the affinity association (though there's no reason you couldn't do both of course). there's power in organizing and organization but we shouldn't let ourselves get lost in it otherwise we recreate the same bureaucratic nightmare that exists.

(edited for clarity)


ziq wrote

and tasked with carrying out policies passed down to them by a democratic body.

I should stress, this is in theory. In practice, both elected and unelected bureaucrats and governors aren't only going to act when "the people" tell them to. They act whenever they judge it necessary to act, and we all live in fear of them abusing their authority to benefit themselves and their group and fuck over everyone else.

Once you appoint someone into a position of authority, they're not just going to abide by whatever anarcho-constitution is in place for them to follow. That's not how the world works.


insurrectobot wrote (edited )

Hi there, I am one of the people who do the blog Anarchists Worldwide, we do extensive coverage of West Papua and will continue to do so - we recently spent some time in Surabaya, Indonesia and met representatives from the West Papua student movement at their dorm a few months prior to the repression by the police, civil militias and the military that went down there which in turn sparked the most recent uprising in West Papua...

in the part of the world we are located in (asia-pacific region / oceania or whatever you want to call it) West Papua solidarity is an actual thing among anarchists and has been for some time. even in Indonesia a lot of leftists and anarchists are speaking out about West Papua, participating in protests etc...

going back a few years, this group were quite active in the UK - no longer active but they have left their website up as an archive / resource:


ziq wrote

And how people fulfill their need if there was no industry?

This warrants a separate response.

What you define as your 'needs' are anything but needs. If they were needs, humans would have never been able to survive before the industrial age. But we did survive, and in fact we thrived for millennia before we began this increasingly destructive drive to accumulate industrial consumer goods at the expense of literally all life on the planet.

What we 'need' is a planet that can continue to sustain plant and animal life. In just 100 years, industry and agriculture have rapidly destroyed everything we rely on for our most basic survival. Climate change has forever altered the trajectory of life on this planet and driven billions of species to extinction because 100 years ago humans decided they 'need' to extract, refine, ship, manufacture, truck, consume and then dispose of (truck) our natural resources on a massive global scale.

So to answer your question, we fulfil our 'needs' by living off the land the way we did for millennia instead of acting like we're above it or that we have any right to destroy everything we inherited from our ancestors to satisfy our immediate pleasures and to hell with future generations that won't have fresh water to drink or air to breathe.


Reply to comment by Pop in Anarchist forum by ziq

Pop wrote

Yeah currently my google locates me in Ukraine and I only get that meta_ post about anarchist forums, and only on the second page


ziq wrote

The Soviet factories had a high measure of democracy on the ground level, the same as the factories in Catalonia. The only real difference to my mind is the Catalonians didn't call their state a state and there was more democracy at the higher level.

Anarcho-syndicalism (what Catalonia used) is a variation of the Marxist "worker state". Under syndicalism, the One Big Union functions as a more democratic version of the Marxist transitional state.

In anarcho-syndicalist Catalonia there were still officials governing the population - delegates, union bigwigs, ministers, even community leaders / mayors were all officiated and tasked with carrying out policies passed down to them by a democratic body. That's a state as far as I'm concerned. Not much different than an average liberal nation's representative democracy.

who said i want democracy?

That's what anarcho-syndicalism is. Democratic control of the workplace via union action.


Reply to comment by ziq in Anarchist forum by ziq

ziq OP wrote

just checked google and this thread actually does show up on the first page. Maybe it's just your local version of google?


Reply to comment by Pop in Anarchist forum by ziq

Pop wrote (edited )

I guess so? It's weird that they care at all about this anarchist forum.


ziq wrote

How the hell do you know that there was little difference?

From reading about both historical systems.

I don't want to give the worker 'slightly' more democracy, i want to give them full control of their work!

Democracy doesn't do that. Its purpose is to reach compromise between multiple parties, not give you full control.

no practical way to solve

Shut down industry and avoid human extinction.