Anarchism In Ireland Puns

I'm just curious what it's like to be an anarchist in this moment of possible socialist ascendancy (or at least intensification of socialist discourse). Posting here because I imagine there are some diverging views. Is the Gen X/Gen Z rapid embrace of democratic socialism a potential threat to a broader anarchism, is it an incremental step toward anarchism, or something else entirely? How are anarchism and socialism being held together/against/next to each other right now?

Could there ever be an anarachist "movement" comparable to the current DSA movement (and that claim, that what's happening with the election is a movement, is debatable in and of itself)?

I'm intentionally not asking "what y'all think of bernie sanders" because 1) I assume someone's already asked that, and 2) I think this is bigger and more complicated than one person or campaign.

Thanks for any thoughts!

And if so, how would they be executed according to your personal ideal?

Edit: Ignore the poor word choice in "ban". I think the more proper words would be "rules" or "communal regulations"

So it seems like critisisms of anarchsim boil down to a few points. I wrote a long defence of this using sources, another comrade heres statement and libcom.org.

Most critisisms of anarchism (from marxism) tend to stem from a few things:

1. Engels: On Authority
2. The idea that anarchism is a utopianist ideology
3. The idea that anarchists believe the state should be dissolved 'overnight'

However i find these to be extremely inadequate for these reasons

1. In 'On Authority', Engels brings up the point that in order for a society to function, force must be used.

> Let us take another example — the railway. Here too the co-operation of an infinite number of individuals is absolutely necessary, and this co-operation must be practised during precisely fixed hours so that no accidents may happen. Here, too, the first condition of the job is a dominant will that settles all subordinate questions, whether this will is represented by a single delegate or a committee charged with the execution of the resolutions of the majority of persona interested. In either case there is a very pronounced authority.

The problem here is that Engels has a fundemental misunderstanding of what anarchists mean when by authority. Anarchists are not against organisation or rules or making decisions and then sticking to them. Anarchists oppose the authority of one man over another. Of a man being able to impose his will over another. If a decision is made by a group of train workers to work at specific hours, then they would be expected to conform to those hours. This form of 'authority' is not what anarchists oppose however this is what Engels is referring to which presents a fundemental misunderstanding. Bakunin explains this better than I ever could.

> Does it follow that I reject all authority? Far from me such a thought. In the matter of boots, I refer to the authority of the bootmaker; concerning houses, canals, or railroads, I consult that of the architect or the engineer. For such or such special knowledge I apply to such or such a savant. But I allow neither the bootmaker nor the architect nor savant to impose his authority upon me. I listen to them freely and with all the respect merited by their intelligence, their character, their knowledge, reserving always my incontestable right of criticism and censure. I do not content myself with consulting a single authority in any special branch; I consult several; I compare their opinions, and choose that which seems to

So this is more of me gauging opinions and hearing viewpoints than me trying to debate, so keep that in mind. Nearly all anarchists I've met are against Israel, which is in my eyes, reasonable. However my issue has always been with Israel as a state, and not with the fundamental idea of a Jewish homeland. So the question is, is Zionism inherently imperialist, or is it reconcilable with anarchist ideals?

Is this true?

So, why am I asking you that? Well lately I've fallen into a bit of a pattern of thought that I don't think is really healthy, were I seek confirmation for what I already believe (libertarian socialism, not to get too much into the details). I'm searching for thoughtful critiques of anarchism that could make me rethink my positions and potentially, once that is done, come to a stronger position. So, do you have good cases against anarchism? And if you do, how did you respond to them when they were presented to you?

I'm also interested in readings on the subject, if you think of some.

Thanks

Red vs. Black, basically. (or in between.)

Since becoming somewhat more involved in the rabm community, I've gotten the general feeling (no real statistics or anything to back this up) that people here identify more with the somewhat anarchistic or libertarian socialist ideologies. (or even just broadly anti-fascist with no specific leftist ideology, which is valid too). Maybe this comes from the strong punk influence with some of the community/music.

I'm wondering if others agree that this is true? or if it's just from my POV.

What ideology does everyone here identify with? Any Orthodox Marxists? Marxist-Leninists? Maoists?...Anarcho-Capitalists? (god - that last one is a joke, i hope not)

(out of interest I'd call myself an Anarcho-Communist, so maybe this taints my view)

"We want to end ALL hierarchies" is the phrase associated with vegan anarchism. The premise of course being that animals are also included in the concept of hierarchies, and therefor must be treated with a similar dignity.

So far the concept is making sense, but that of course opens up the idea of animals having responsibilities as well as rights. It is often said that only humans can create a hierarchy. This argument has no actual justification as far as I can tell. Certainly there are animals that have what look exactly like human hiearchies, Ants that engage in slavery for one thing. I am yet to hear an explanation of why that isn't a hierarchy.

Of course you could also point out the hierarchy between foxes and rabbits. I hear arguments that arbitrarily judging one group "food" and the other "Eaters of food" somehow is not a hierarchy. I have a strong feeling that if it was humans doing the same thing you would not feel the same way. Would anarchism just not give a fuck about Congolese people who eat Pygmies because they think it gives them superpowers? Because That seems like a pretty direct human equivalent to the hierarchy between rabbits and foxes.

Moreover, we can easily get into ideas like equal protection before the law. Would an anarchist commune have a basic right to stop a fox from eating a human infant? If so, would it not have a similar right to stop a fox from eating a rabbit of any age? Why would you just stand by while "sentient beings" are being abused by the ravages of the natural world?

What about food for a motherless infant? Why would that human baby have any more right to formula than the maggots would? What is it about human babies that gives them a fundamental right to food that fly babies somehow lack?

Of course, saying that animals cannot engage in hierarchical structures leads to a ton of exploitative loopholes whereby a given human could completely subvert anarchist ideals by having an animals do something. and I am not just talking about legally making your pet canary the legal owner of your nuclear power plant.

Meat would just be a resource exclusive to those who were very good at training animals, for one thing. Its somewhat difficult to make a hunting dog kill and retrieve animals for you, but you can definitely do it if you have a basic idea of what you are doing, doesn't really require any "abuse" of the animal either. Hawks are often seen enga

I'm interested in how an anarchist society can deal with dissent, for example lets imagine a hypothetical case:

Theres a community, it is driven by democratic proceedures and all, but that community has an established popular believe on subject, and that this believe is moraly questionable (for example, racism, xenophobia, sexism, etc). Then, an individual (or buch of individuals) in this community emerges questioning this believe. Now, the question is this:

How can an anarchist society heal itself from this morally wrong believes, and protect those who express dissent (especially those who have legitimate criticism over a subjetc) from the potential violence or injustices from a popular majority, if there no cohercive body to protect them?...

I’m a Marxist, and a baby leftist. My biggest question for anarchists is why did you choose anarchism for your preferred political ideology?

There was a thread in /r/anarchy101 recently that I don't think received any good answers, and it made me realize that I don't think anarchism has any good answer for how to prevent particularly desirable areas from getting over populated. In fact, I'm arguing that the commitment against exploitation and authoritarianism means anarchism inherently doesn't have a solution to the issue of overpopulation in particularly desirable areas.

Capitalism and authoritarianism have means to curb over population in desirable areas. In capitalism, the predatory real estate market and higher prices on commodities in desirable areas creates a price barrier for those areas that pushes poor people out of them and creates a barrier preventing most people from living in those areas. And in authoritarianism, the state will often just use dictate to restrict cities to authorized individuals, typically based on their connection to the ruling party (China for instance did this with their so called "Sent-down Youth", who were exiled out of the cities; or the internal exile of peoples and individuals in the USSR).

But, in anarchism, without the exploitative and predatory practices of capitalism, and without the by dictate population controls of authoritarianism, the barriers that keep people out of desirable areas (like cities, or particularly beautiful and temperate areas) aren't there. So, the barriers currently preventing overpopulation in these areas simply don't exist in anarchism.

One might argue that other areas can provide resources to sustain such dense population, but without the exploitative extractive practices of capitalism and authoritarianism, and without the wasteful transportation networks, the flow of goods that currently maintains dense populations dependent on other areas really won't be able to be maintained like they are now.

To me, it looks like the only solution is the natural scarcity that would result from such over-population -- and then it becomes a game of scarcity chicken, with the people most willing to deal with the shortages being the ones who get to stay. Now, that may seem like a pretty stark and nihilistic (non) solution -- but, personally, I'm comfortable with that.

However, does anyone here think they have an anarchistic solution to the issue that would avoid either overpopulation or the resulting scarcity?

What do y'all consider ''introductory'' for anarchism ?

Edit: Really didn't expect so many replies. Now I wish my title didn't have a typo. Thank you all !

At the same time I think radical feminism theory gives way to authoritarianism, seen a lot in the internet in the form of “TERF”s. Similar to Marxism and tankies. But in theory I think they want to dismantle hierarchy as much as anarchism does.

Questions with examples to clarify what I don't understand:

If we have market then what would stop worker-owned enterprises from abusing their power of they happen to produce/hold something very important? couldn't they just rack up prices? What's to stop them from creating some sort of monopoly? There wouldn't be billionaire CEOs like today and market might be actually free, but I still see potential for exploitation, potential for something that goes against socialsit values.

How is anything distributed if there are no markets? We're not living in a post-scarcity world and we probably never will, there will always be something scarce even if everything fullfiling basic needs (shelter, most foods, water, heat etc.) is just free for all. AFAIK in markets it'll be subject to price going up and down depending on supply & demand. A marxist state could issue stamps or whatever, but what could anarchist commune or federation do while staying true to anarchist ideals?

And last but not least: MArkets are tools used to exchange stuff. How can stuff be exchanged without creating market by definition?

Dublin

Is anarchism popular in Ukraine?

How about left-wing politics in general?

Are there any communes around more unstable regions like Crimea or Donbass?

Aside from the obvious 'act kind, polite and not crazy while still being anarchist'.

First off, I should mention I’m not an anarchist so I’m not biased here. But I think if any kind of socialism becomes popular in America(Questionable if that will even happen) I think it would be Anarchism. I think it fits best with the American mentality. “Individualism, liberty, don’t tread on me, corrupt government.” I think anarchists could really take advantage of this mentality one day. As long as you just call yourself “Anarchist” and not “Anarcho-Communist” because I think the second label would be a deal breaker. You could describe what your anarchism would look like and a lot of Americans would agree, since they think communism is a scary word but don’t know what it means. What do you guys think?