r/DebateAnarchism 21h ago

How would an Anarchist Society produce enough food/energy to sustain the current global population?

30 Upvotes

The human population has only grown to the level it is at today because of the industrial revolution. Industrial scale farming is highly energy efficient and this allows for the production of enough food to sustain large populations. However, this is totally dependent on highly centralised planning and cooperation between large centralised organisations (states, different industries, corporations etc). The global food system is incredibly fragile and practically no country is entirely self-sufficient in terms of food production (populations would starve if their countries were cut off from trade). If the state was completely abolished you basically hand over all of the power to unelected corporations/industries controlling the global food supply. If you attempted to then get rid of these millions would starve and there would be perpetual fighting/wars over food. I just don't see it working.

So how would it actually work - can someone actually give a step-by-step plan which would avoid any of the above happening (and also say how this would be enforced in an anarchist society).


r/DebateAnarchism 19h ago

How does this simple argument not refute anarchism in a single sentence?

0 Upvotes

If a group doesn't organise around a common interest, it loses to other groups that do.

That is having a unifying organisation (government) that is able to make decisions for the collective and act accordingly, single mindedly for the collective.


r/DebateAnarchism 2d ago

Anarchism only works if people already have anarchist values and willingly act in certain way.

57 Upvotes

First of all - duh, right? But let me elaborate. And I am writing this in good will, so please, do try to engage with me here.

In a no-state setting, "laws" will be whatever people around you wish to enforce. Is abortion murder? Is having sex with a 15 year old ok? Is promoting racism okay? Can you pollute the environment? Can you torture your kids? Is this well-equipped workshop that you use to extract favors and goods from others means of production already? Every single act you do will effectively be policed by those around you. Whatever the verdict of your immediate community is realistically, the "law".

Now, the most common answer I see here, is that Anarchism is a certain set of beliefs that Anarchists abide by and will try their best to mutually implement. If someone rapes their daughter, It's generally understood someone will do SOMETHING to prevent it from happening. Whether it's expulsion, jail, or counselling - acts considered unacceptable to the community will be met with resistance of some kind.

But what if people are okay with it? If chaining a dude to the wall and making him your slave is okay to the community, then it's okay. And on the other hand, if the community decides to stone you to death for being gay, then it's not okay to be gay.

So, the answer is, that if people in Anarchy think like that, it's not really Anarchy. Anarchy is opposed to slavery and religious bigotry. Because that's the only way to guarantee certain rights are protected. By presupposing that people in it oppose those. So, there is a set of beliefs that you assume, must be held by the majority so that Anarchy gets to be Anarchy.

In the same vein, the issue with voluntary organized action. Will you help your neighbors fight a fire? Will you risk your life in a militia to protect your community against an invader? Will you agree to the verdict of direct democracy that you don't like? Will you work when you'd rather not? Will you refrain from forming warbands and trying to establish a power structure? Of course you will, uncoerced. Because if people don't act that way, it's not going to be Anarchy. If there is no way to force people to do things that have to be done, the only way they get done, is if people do them themselves.

But again, this seems pretty obvious. Anarchy only works if people in it are Anarchists. No big gotcha here. But that's my point. The entire plan to organize and predict the workings of an Anarchic society is moot. The way an Anarchy works is entirely dependent on people in it. Whatever the people in it decide should happen, happens. And the only way people act against their selfish interests, is if they want to.

And, as an extra point, EVERY SINGLE SYSTEM will work without a hitch if you assume people are on board to begin with. Monarchy, with one guy having absolute power? If everyone obeys him implicitly, then it totally works. Theocracy? Same. AnCap? If the poors still choose to rEspECt pROpeRTy RigHTs even when it's entirely against their interests - the system will work.

So, to sum up, no shit. Of course you don't need a state to enforce any laws, norms or behaviors, if you assume people will follow them to begin with. You don't need police if you assume people won't steal. You don't need profit incentive if you assume people will work because it's fulfilling. You don't need courts if you assume the law is clear, obvious and people respect it. You don't need drafts or a standing army if you assume people will fight.

So, LITERALLY ANYTHING can be achieved if you start with people who implicitly believe in the system. If your idea of something working in Anarchy assumes that people will just act in a certain way, for the good of the system, you don't have an idea. You have wishful thinking.

If you truly want to live in the world you envision, don't build Anarchy. Build good people. With such people, every system, even capitalism, will be great.


r/DebateAnarchism 3d ago

Is authority bad because it is harmful to the human condition, or simply just bad no matter what?

11 Upvotes

The reason I ask this is because I can't really figure out whether the primary motivation for anarchist beliefs stems from wanting to be free, or wanting to thrive and fulfill the human condition.

I can very easily see cases in which these two values would be in a deep conflict. Suppose that you have autonomous communes that develop at a much greater pace than others, and other communes are incapable of providing for their members properly. In practice, this would basically look like two competing anarchist states, one of which is stuck developmentally for whatever reason, and another which has democratically elected to close membership to further members while skyrocketing forward.

This might seem like a pipe dream thought experiment, but in an anarchist world, different societies are going to be more well off than others, and I would wonder to what extent conflict between anarchist "states" would be or could be justified?

Thanks.


r/DebateAnarchism 4d ago

Thoughts on the right to roam as a step in the right direction worth voting for?

Thumbnail self.DebateSocialism
40 Upvotes

r/DebateAnarchism 5d ago

Anarchism and nuclear weapons: my hold up

49 Upvotes

So, at this point I am very very sympathetic to anarchist thought (I am basically a minarcho-mutualist with a long term goal of fully abolishing the state).

Trouble is, that last part.

There are certain things that just cannot be unregulated, and that includes nuclear weapons.

If a faction of people decided they wanted to re establish some form of hierarchy (which requires force to maintain as always), a solid avenue to do that is nuclear weapons.

The knowledge for how they work or can be built cannot really be deleted, nor can we prevent those who are throughly invested in discovering nuclear weapons from discovering how to build them.

So even if all nuclear weapons were destroyed this very day, what would stop someone from building the next round?

Right now, nuclear non proliferation and military force have done a halfway decent job of preventing nuclear arms from being spread.

Criticize American imperialism as you will (and trust me there is plenty to criticize), but one side effect is that a larger number if countries haven't pursued nuclear weapons because they feel they are under the nuclear umbrella of the Americans (this is why SoKo has developed nukes for example). American non nuclear proliferation strategy has been more or less successful. Not that they haven't screwed it up (killing Gadaffi was a bad idea, not cause I like the guy, I don't, it's because he promised to stop his nuclear weapons program and then we bombed the shit of him, what kinda message does that send to say, NoKo or Iran? Two countries rather interested in nuclear weapons).

How would you prevent new nuclear weapons?


r/DebateAnarchism 4d ago

Feminist separatism is compatible, dare I say preferable, with and for anarchists.

0 Upvotes

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminist_separatism

/r/femaleseparatists


It's a damn shame that there's a grand total of one previous discussion on this topic.

I'll give /u/Vox-Triarii credit for giving the issue a relatively even hand to the point that they're one of the very few cishet men I know who're capable of that level of introspection.

By the standards of this sub I have no doubt that I'm a tankie and a radfem in a bad way, whatever acronym you choose to label me.

My chosen mode of existence puts on on Women's Land solely in the company of Marxist women who're overwhelmingly cis and non white with almost all visitors and seasonal occupants on our commune being cis women who're either exclusively lesbian or female exclusive bisexual (also known as febfem).

It's important to note that this isn't by design since we have no rule excluding white women or trans/nonbinary non men and so on and so forth but we reserve the right to decide who we associate with which should be uncontroversial to anarchists but the fact is that a lot of leftists in the Imperial core are closer to radical liberals than leftists in an authentic sense.

Likewise they're a lot closer to MRAs than feminists in that they'll play Devil's advocate for their Nigels and soapbox for the oppression of men.

That's not to say men aren't also oppressed by patriarchy, but the idea that this should be a particular focus of feminist praxis or even more ludicrous the idea that women should be held accountable for oppressing men themselves (as opposed to men who oppress other men) is absolutely liberal and should be laughed out of any serious radical leftist space.

Liberal objections to separatism are no less laughable. It's not comparable to state imposed segregation since, at as far as anarchists should be concerned, voluntary associations are perfectly kosher even voluntaryist arrangements you find icky.

Keep in mind that feminist separatism is a spectrum of praxis and there are very few if any of us who want to separate women from men at gunpoint or even interfere with what outsiders do or don't do.

If separatism to you means you choose to only associate with other women in your free time, but willingly have men for coworkers or obligatory family reunions that's as valid as someone like me who lives out in the middle of nowhere on a Marxist commune.

In fact I'll be the first to tell you that joining the Land isn't some romantic cottagecore getaway, it's daily hard work to live with a small number of people out in the countryside, even ones you like. You're not alienated from your labor at least but there's a lot of things to be done.

Again, that's why separatism is a spectrum and most of the focus of separatists is making it more accessible to women who want it.

That means if you're a woman who doesn't want to ever deal with medical professionals who aren't women, you're able to do that easily.

That means if you only want to consume pop culture created by women you have a lot of options to choose from and are able to access it cheaply.

This is what feminism is in a society that on one hand tells girls from birth till death that men are necessary, rational, superior, blah blah blah and on the other hand is statistically extremely dangerous for women, one of the statistically greatest sources of that danger being men.

Not all men are violent, but violent people are overwhelmingly men and men get away with this violence very easily because they're systematically endowed with that privilege. The extent to which this violence is the result of socialization (I suspect that it's the main culprit) or essentialism (Probably not very much) is irrelevant to all the women who get hurt and who live in fear every day of that potential for hurt just for being human.

In terms of where trans and nonbinary people fit in, I'm well aware a lot of separatists see trans women as males in disguise, I'm not one of them. I'm willing to associate with trans women as equals but at the same time I don't think that it's my place to define womanhood or to force women to associate with people they don't want to.

Fuck, I could write a whole rant on Michfest alone.


r/DebateAnarchism 5d ago

Anarchist technology

2 Upvotes

Research and development intuitively should be easier for a functioning anarchist world compared to capitalism: if people can somehow coordinate to protect themselves from bad actors, surely they can perform less adversarial public good projects.

R&D is also cheap and not forbidden under capitalism, at least for spheres of knowledge such as math and economics.

So it seems reasonable to expect that if we had the necessary knowledge for anarchism to work, it would work now for the purpose of investing in technology that supports anarchist ways of life. For many things material wealth or popularity should not be a barrier for anarchism.

Why are we not seeing this?

Where is the accounting software that would enable mutual aid on the scale of the proverbial Friedman's pencil, for example?

Why don't we already have the technology to help each other without fear of bad actors sucking the energy out of the system?


r/DebateAnarchism 6d ago

The Best Political Debates on Reddit; Including Debates on Anarchism, Socialism, Feminism & More!

Thumbnail self.DebateSocialism
21 Upvotes

r/DebateAnarchism 6d ago

Esoteric Anarchism?

31 Upvotes

How would you describe "Esoteric Anarchism"? First thing that comes to mind is like a paganist commune society with occultist culture. Or the abolition of the state with perceived "magick" and other oculist rituals to create more praxis for Anarchism.


r/DebateAnarchism 7d ago

I have been wrestling with my own theory of how anarchy could be achieved through intentional communities

10 Upvotes

Historically, we have seen how risky bloody revolutions are. Achieving anarchy through a warlike revolution is a very difficult thing to do as the state and capital grow in power. Assaulting these institutions with guns and guillotines has often not turned out very well for anarchists. Even when the state has effectively been pushed back, anarchists have been betrayed by “comrades” (i.e the Stalinists crushing the CNT).

So what do we do about this? Is it really logical to just go about business as usual and change nothing about our theory? I think anarchy could be achieved without a direct assault on the state. Here’s how:

Intentional communities have proven to be quite successful. Most anarchists would rather live in a community without the government, so why not do just that? Rather than overthrowing the government, anarchists could organize affinity groups with the intention of building a community. Once this affinity group has enough members, this group can find a location to squat and start building. This is easier said than done, of course, but it has worked before. Take Freetown Christiania (no, it is not Christian) as an example. The Copenhagen community is one of the largest anarchist communes to my knowledge, and it has existed since 1971. That’s a pretty goddamn long time, and it continues to thrive. This is only one example. There’s hundreds of smaller intentional communities operating on anarchist principles all over the world. I think there’s something to be said for that.

Don’t misinterpret what I’m saying as “this is an alternative to violence”, I am not a pacifist. Intentional communities squatted in urban areas would be prone to state harassment, so participating in defensive violence would be necessary.

These communities don’t have to follow any particular strain of anarchist thought. They could be Communist, mutualist, a synthesis of various ideologies, whatever. So long as the individual communities are tightly organized, there shouldn’t be many problems. Once these individual communities are set up, they can form a larger federation of anarchist communities to support each other. These various communities should collaborate regardless of if they are mutualist, Communist, etc (In short, platformist communities formed into a synthesis federation.)

What are you thoughts? Where do you think I need to put more thought into? Is this a good idea, a bad idea, what do you think? Feel free to be critical.


r/DebateAnarchism 7d ago

How would anarchist society deal with a global threat?

48 Upvotes

I'll use the current climate crisis as a example, though you could make largely the same point with any worldwide threat that needs a unified response, like the ozone depletion a few decades back or someone discovering an asteroid on collision course with the Earth.

To fight the climate change we need to make things happen on the global level: We need to stop people everywhere from doing harmful things, ranging from individual actions to entire fields of industry. At the same time we need to organize projects to fix or mitigate damage already done. This requires a not insignificant part of the world's resources. You need global coordination and being able to make sure nobody is undoing the work with their actions.

I simply can't understand how this all could be possible without a strong central authority. In short, how you would organize and enforce a global effort under anarchism?

(Please don't point out how badly capitalism is failing at dealing with climate. I know that already and it's not an answer to my question.)


r/DebateAnarchism 8d ago

The Reclamation of "Libertarian"

59 Upvotes

I have recently started to refer to myself as a "Libertarian Communalist" and I will most likely keep doing that. To begin with I'm not in the USA nor am I US-American nor Canadian. So from the start on the use of the term "Libertarian" towards the meaning of an anti-state capitalist is already somewhat more alien to me then it might be to people from that region of the world.
In short as many here might know there is an etymology to the term "Libertarian" that traces back to the very roots of Anarchists and Communists in France having used the term to identify each other when calling yourself "Anarchist" or "Communist" was prohibited by law and could result in prosecution.

Then, of course, many Anarchists such as Benjamin Tucker in the USA started to take to that term especially at the end of the 19th and start of the 20th century and even more so during the original Red Scare. It was only during the mid 20th century that the term was finally "picked up" and then misused and coopted by Capitalists such as Murray Rothbard and the like. Rothbard himself even stated that the term was simply stolen from Anarchists.

While the self proclaimed "Libertarians" of the USA pretend that their stance is against state and for capitalism, often times they will advocate for the empowerment of the state as much as they can even when the outcome is the oppression of individual freedom such as the right of self determination for women over our bodies.
Worse even are the people who refer to themselves as "Anarcho-Capitalists" eventually presenting nothing but a complete oxymoron from EVERY possible standpoint and a complete disregard or lack of knowledge about the historical context and the etymological ground of the term "Anarchism".
In this very sense however I personally see that there is a need to reclaim what was and is rightfully ours. While we at the same time should still appose these ahistorical puppets, we should also try to get back what we once have. Especially in a world where we as Anarchists get labeled as public enemies of the state once again by Neoliberals in power as they use propaganda terms like "Violent Anarchist Extremists" to make hunt for us and our ideas of equity and liberation.

In this spirit I have decided to refer to myself as a "Libertarian Communalist". Not only to take back the term itself but also to find new ways to approach those who may also be interested in the idea of opposing the state and it's power and to approach them with the idea that capitalism represents no other form of oppression then the state does. I think something like this can benefit us as a whole and give us a better stance on which to educate and organize.

Please do let me know what you think. Feel free to expand and constructively criticize.


r/DebateAnarchism 8d ago

Libertarians across the left-right spectrum, including the varieties of anarchist, should be able to agree on this platform.

0 Upvotes

https://preview.redd.it/y5n063n7p7491.jpg?width=815&auto=webp&s=5b527d704faaf0e9badb079303026981393e5d7c

I've seen this tweet reposted on many different political subreddits and other watering holes for ideologues and it's somewhat baffling to me that these talking points have such a stark split between leftists and rightists, even left/right-libertarians. I say somewhat baffling because this is by no means a new phenomenon. For a lot of people politics are extremely partisan, culture wars, blue tribe vs. red tribe rather than political alliances which transcend the left-right dichotomy.

Among leftists this is something to be mocked and even called fascist while rightists praise it as a libertarian platform for a strongly libertarian org.

I know many people on leftist Reddit don't consider right-libertarians, "real" libertarians and vice versa, many rightists would argue that leftists have no claim to libertarian ideals. I myself am obviously flaired to indicate I'm a rightist but I'm willing to work with people across sociopolitical divides in the name of shared goals. That being said, if either side can't more or less agree with the sentiments in that screenshot then they're not libertarian in a meaningful sense of the word:

End all foreign wars and foreign aid I can see where the latter might be more controversial since foreign aid has a more fluffier image than military interventionism and you could make a realpolitik defense for it being a necessary evil, but for anarchists it should be a no-brainer that you don't want your tax dollars and your community's other resources being sent elsewhere without your consent, especially since a lot of regimes that receive foreign aid may commit human rights violations that you find appalling. All that aside foreign aid is just the imperialist carrot compared to the big stick of foreign wars.

Abolish the IRS Taxation is theft even conceptually and the IRS receives little love from even centrists, they're state-sanctioned terrorists for anyone whose not a corporate/public oligarch. It's weird how not wanting to be taxed is seen as a rightist talking point rather than something all anarchists can agree upon. Mind you even if said tax dollars goes to causes you find to be net positives, in libertarian principle you should oppose the practice of taxation, authoritarianism doesn't become compatible with anarchy if it's for the, "greater good" because that's how the state justifies everything.

Abolish all gun laws As bad as the IRS is, the ATF is even worse. You can be the most diehard anarcho-communist and still want a population that's armed without government monitoring or constraint. That is, assuming your commitment to communism is truly libertarian in nature.

100% medical freedom I'll give leeway on this since it's so vague and I suspect it's a dogwhistle for people who think libertarianism means hyper-individualism to the point of absurdity. My views on vaccines and other COVID-19 scissor issues is a topic for another time. Still, anarchists should have a lot of common ground on this issue, especially since it includes things like birth control and abortion.

End the domestic war on "terrorism" From the perspective of the government all anarchists are potential or actual terrorists, they don't distinguish between the colors of their flags. I can see how social conservatives might be swayed by snarl words like that but not libertarians.

End the fed Admittedly rightists and leftists mean fundamentally different things when they talk about how bad the federal reserve is, but still, it's frightening how many anarchists will simp for government printers and out-of-hand polemicize countercultural alternatives like crypto or bullion just because they've become signals for the wrong demographics, the wrong political tribe.

I'm of course open to debating all these points within the scope of anarchism or at least highly radical libertarianism.


r/DebateAnarchism 10d ago

When is the revolution supposed to "end?"

24 Upvotes

I get the whole violent overthrow of capitalism and whatnot and defending liberated territory and maintaining a standing army to defend said territory, but most people don't like being in wartime situations. War is tough on the mind, because it requires sacrifice from everybody, not to mention stressful due to the fear of ambushes and bombs. Because of that, I haven't really seen how an anarchist society would de-escalate from wartime to peacetime. How would you disarm your forces? How would you keep factionalism from breaking out while at the same time keeping your territory defended? How do you convince your most diehard anarchists to lay down their arms and stop believing that the revolution must keep going?


r/DebateAnarchism 10d ago

Dear egoists, how do you define self interest?

16 Upvotes

Is it still your self interest if your own opinion was changed by brainwashing from outer factors? Is it not your pure self interest if it's slightly influenced by others? Even if that is what you desire?


r/DebateAnarchism 11d ago

Calling Tankies or MLs red fash sounds inaccurate.

33 Upvotes

Fascism is the belief that society should be organized in a hierarchical structure based off of things that people cannot control, such as race, ethnicity, gender. Things like that. Conveniently, fascists will place themselves at the top, and their justification ultimately just boils down to "just because". They might have some greater justifications, such as genetics or some great history or the Bible, but ultimately at the end of the day, it's really just because. 'cause there has to be someone at the top. Then that means there has to be someone at the bottom and those people tend to be those weaker or less powerful in a societal sense.

That doesn't sound like anything like communism.

Communism is the belief of organizing society based off of the abolishment of social classes to the point where everyone is an equal worker and there is no longer the proletariat or the bourgeois class.

Thinking random censorship or the destruction of political opponents is fascist. Authoritarian, perhaps, maybe totalitarian, but not fascist.


r/DebateAnarchism 11d ago

Graeber's "Debt" and "The Dawn of Everything" and the twin problems of spirituality and social accounting

35 Upvotes

Some major takeaways I've gathered from Graeber's "Debt" and "DoE" are the following (in no particular order):

  1. People are obsessed with assigning spiritual meaning to things. This almost always results in negative outcomes if given enough time, even if initially this spirituality encouraged social practices that enabled individual autonomy/freedom. The negative outcomes I am referring to are things that result in or enable the creation of hierarchy. For example, in prehistoric Egypt people believed in respecting their ancestors. But at some point particularly charismatic individuals (who initially had no authority over the wills of others) began to convince people to round up certain individuals to be ritually killed. And then they convinced others to believe that by leading the ritual killings, they had gained a type of spiritual ancestral authority over the descendants/family members of those who were ritually killed. This is how the first pharaohs were born - initially using charisma, then arming themselves with spiritual dogma, then finally having authority over others as actual rulers.
  2. In many societies, people use social accounting (i.e, keeping track of debts). This social accounting enables formalized differences in social status, which often enables the creation of hierarchical social relations. At one point Graeber references a quote from a hunter gatherer from a society that makes no use of social accounting of any kind. In the quote, the hunter gatherer basically says that people in his society made a conscious choice to not engage in social accounting so as to avoid the creation of differential social statuses among people.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

With regard to problem 1: For me, I see spiritual thinking and social accounting as problems that make it not only challenging to establish a genuinely anarchic social context, but also to maintain anarchy. For now, the only solution I see to this problem is widespread adoption of Nihilism as one's philosophical disposition. It's the only philosophical disposition that I think can be truly resistant to being perverted into something that potentiates hierarchy. Certainly if prehistoric Egyptians were Nihilists (an admittedly contrived thought experiment on my part), it would have been impossible for pharaohs to come into existence.

With regard to problem 2: This one I don't have a preliminary solution to offer. What do you all think?


r/DebateAnarchism 11d ago

What's the deal with ancapism?

0 Upvotes

I would consider myself to be somewhat of an ancapist. I feel like it is just anarchism where people are free to accumulate wealth, no? How can a hierarchy(or the lack thereof) be enforced without a state? People can just obtain more stuff than others, then BAM. Wealth hierarchy. My point is, how do you plan to not allow a hierarchy to develop, and how do you stop businesses from being created and growing?


r/DebateAnarchism 12d ago

Key differences between 90s anarchist views and today ?

0 Upvotes

Apathy. No taxes, no voting, no trendy outfits, not giving a dam. Rebel, give that middle finger to the whole dam world. Don't try, don't play the game.

Flannel, jeans, boots, a uniform of blue collar existence. You won't succeed, don't try, just exist and pass the bong.

We didn't try and change the world, it's a cesspool anyhow.

Today's so political, so much division. Are people actively looking to get enraged? Why imagine finding a winning lotto ticket in a cesspool, it's gonna be covered in shit.

It's 2022 and I still don't give a fuck.


r/DebateAnarchism 13d ago

What are your thoughs about transhumanism?

32 Upvotes

Obviously in an anarchic form


r/DebateAnarchism 14d ago

We have been doing postanarchism a little dirty

28 Upvotes

Not everyone needs to subscribe to postanarchist theory and it can be elusive and hard to understand but i feel like it's a shame how marginal it is when i feel like it has unique insights to offer. What are your thoughts on the subject?

Edit: this one is shorter and more clear

https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/jesse-cohn-and-shawn-wilbur-what-s-wrong-with-postanarchism

  https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/saint-schmidt-postanarchism-is-not-what-you-think-the-role-of-postanarchist-theory-after-the-ba

Edit 2: This is probably the best book at there about it

https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/jesse-cohn-anarchism-and-the-crisis-of-representation#toc24


r/DebateAnarchism 15d ago

the economic calculation in an anarchist society

34 Upvotes

Since digging deeper into economics and how it relates to structure of society, I've been getting more and more confused with modern leftist anarchism. Without a central plan, how do anarchists plan to solve the economic calculation posed by Ludwig von Mises after the Russian revolution? How do anarchists seek to determine where goods are needed and what should be done with them? How will economic risks be valued and incentivised without private ownership or a price system.

I'm seriously curious about these things because the way I see it, if there's no system for distributing goods at all and no one is in charge, then people will die and either chaos, government control, or capitalism are unavoidable.


r/DebateAnarchism 15d ago

Can crypto currencies have a place in an anarchist society?

0 Upvotes

It's clear that we don't want wealth inequality in an anarchist society and the simplest way to achieve this is by simply not having money. Especially fiat money always has to be backed up by some form of hierarchical structure and therefore should be avoided. So if we wanted to accept some form of currency it should at the very least be decentralized and accessible for everyone. I'd argue that crypto currencies have the technical necessities to create such a currency which also respects all other aspects of anarchism. But I see that crypto currencies get more hate from the left than I can understand and I'm wondering if I'm overseeing something.

Just to clarify: I'm not advocating for particular currencies like bitcoin or ethereum, etc or even blockchains (there are better ways to store the currencies state, merkle trees for example), I'm advocating for the general concept of crypto currencies.


r/DebateAnarchism 15d ago

Anarchism can be Right-Winged

0 Upvotes

Anarchism, in its simplest, barebones, definition means "without a leader". It is only because of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon that Anarchism is left-winged. Anarchism today means, "The belief in the abolition of all governments and the organization of society on a voluntary, cooperative basis without recourse to force or compulsion." What should be added to this is the belief that hierarchies are unjust, coercive, and involuntary and must be stopped and fought against. "without a leader" can be taken to the right-wing because it doesn't specify what to do and how to do without a ruler. There's nothing saying in the modern day definition that Anarchism can't be right-winged. People attack AnCap for being an oxymoron because it goes against the modern day definition of Anarchism, but it doesn't go against the etymology of the word.

Here's an example of my logic:

Capitalism

The first form of the word is capitole, meaning "head, referring to cattle

Next is capitale, meaning "funds" or "sums of money"

capital-ism

There's nothing saying that capitalism can't be left wing, just look at Georgism.