Submitted by bittertransslut in AskRaddle

What anarchist ideas or means are necessary for an organization/action to be anarchist in your eyes?

Need it be named as such?

If eliminating hierarchy is unrealistic how much hierarchy can be accepted before it is no longer anarchist? Is hierarchy in the means or the end more important in this?

Is means or ends more important for determination?

perhaps a taco/sandwich question or one that has been answered but one that itches my mind often.

6

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

An_Old_Big_Tree wrote (edited )

I don't care what people call themselves, and I think the importance of calling yourself an anarchist is entirely based on context.

Anarchism is a direct action ethic against authority. We do not allow for mediation of our lives by things outside of ourselves and our context. This implies maximal decentralisation of power. We want the people most affected by any decision to be making the decisions.

Historically this implies that we are at minimum anti-state and anti-capitalism. States are hierarchical structures imposed from the outside, in the form of 'representation'. Capitalism hierarchises society by tending to concentrate wealth in the hands of few, and because capitalists in some sense monetarily benefit from creating identity-based underclasses who may be exploited more. Being against stratified society extends to all divisions of identity, common examples including race, gender, sexuality and ability. Furthermore, stratified societies existed before capitalism, and we reject those too; we reject civilisation and whatever else concentrates power and breeds authority.

Anarchism is a tension. None of us can live fully anarchist lives if we assume that it requires dogmatic disobedience to all external structures. There's rarely much use in getting killed or imprisoned just because we won't stop when a cop wants to pull us over, for example.

Anarchist organisations would likely have flat structures, some might have space for specific forms of bottom-up organisation, and operation through federation of noncentralised parts. They would not participate in elections or any non-fluid, non-adhoc representative forms of organisation, and would always seek to undermine those who do.

Critiques/comments welcome.

6

An_Old_Big_Tree wrote (edited )

People need to figure out for themselves what practice they should be doing.

I generally am doing all that I can at any one time. None of the people I work with intensively call themselves anarchists but they are anarchic, and they also do all that they can always. That's why I work with them. Many people call themselves anarchists but are not anarchic and do very little considering their relatively easy lives. It is hard to be understanding. But I don't believe in laziness or other such things; so either they are (consciously or not) embracing their position as oppressors, or they are being incapacitated in some way, or both. So my interest is to help grow our sense of possibility to the point that we can all do more.

3

BrowseDuringClass1917 wrote

Anarchists can participate in elections. Voting for the party that is the easiest to organize under is what anarchists should do. It’s not like once you vote you’re suddenly legitimizing the state.

0

[deleted] wrote

2

BrowseDuringClass1917 wrote

Because like it or not, the state exists. Voting for whoever makes it easier to organize to destroy the state is just practical.

Practical in the real sense of the word, not the ‘practical’ of liberals and class traitors.

0

[deleted] wrote

2

rot wrote

counterpoint; the authority will still justify itself if we don't vote. Vote or not we need to organize and if voting seems to make that easier go for it, it cant hurt us.

5

rot wrote

Action means everything. labels don't tell me if you're a comrade or an enemy Actions do.

4

6c_6f_76_65 wrote

I can only speak for myself. I go with by practice. I read when and where I can to learn more but I need to be out doing. I need to connect with people and build real relationships. I want to build bonds so that people know they can depend on me. Once I have that relationship I have the emotional trust that I can talk about being anti-capital and most everyone is inclined to listen.

If I were just out trying to talk to people I would maybe get the attention of one person in one hundred.

I don't know a whole lot about 'true anarchy' and I would not call myself an anarchist. I consider myself a helper of people. I share the tools I have, I will feed anyone, and I drive people out of state to make choices about their body. The emotional high is all the freedom I need for right now.

3

MHC wrote

In politics, nothing is believable. Take a label, and turn it on its head!

2

IanHuman wrote

I think what is most important is philosophy.

Some people are shackled to inaction because of their environment or disability, how we think, I believe, is what is most important.

1