Note that the site is in archived, read-only mode. You can browse and read, but posting is disabled.
Welcome to Anarchy101 Q&A, where you can ask questions and receive answers about anarchism, from anarchists.

Note that the site is in archived, read-only mode. You can browse and read, but posting is disabled.


+2 votes
For the first and second question: what are the short term and long term goals of Anarchists, and how can one work to help achieve those goals, also would they include doing illegal activities?

For the third question in more depth, how would a society function as an anarchy? How would distribution of resources work among people, and who would lead or give instructions?

My last question is would protecting and preserving the natural environment be more of a concern and would people take more action to support animal rights?
by (160 points)

4 Answers

+2 votes
anarchy doesn't have a goal. anarchy is, perhaps among other things, a way of being in the world. the goal of anarchists, or anarchism, is to get to anarchy, and/or to practice anarchy in our day to day lives. (some anarchists think that anarchy is unrealizable right now, because of the constraints and authorities surrounding us all the time, and some people think that anarchy exists in our lives in moments, whenever we ignore or effectively move around those constraints and authorities). one thing that i think i can say for all anarchists is that we think laws are part of the problem. they are created by the power structure we consider invalid, to support invalid agendas. so yes, we don't care about (or in some cases actively support) breaking laws. short term goals of some anarchists are reformist, to make people's lives better here and now (and what they mean by that will vary based on what kind of anarchist they are). other anarchists don't have any hope that anything they do will bring about a different world, and act to make their own lives and the lives of their friends better (and again, what they mean by that will depend).

there are various ways that anarchists think that anarchy could be more prevalent. some anarchists think that civilization has to go, because the things that civilization requires (centralization, etc) preclude the kinds of social relations that foster anarchy. other anarchists think that we can have a world roughly like the one we have now, but without politicians or bosses, with people making all the decisions about their lives in meetings with each other, so that no one gets too much power, and no one doesn't have a say in decision making.

obviously, then, based on that, different anarchists have different ideas about what an anarchist society would look like. from small-ish self-sustaining groups (for example as hunter/gatherer groups used to be) to cities but very differently organized. other anarchists aren't that interested in envisioning a future anarchist society (or societies), just knowing that they will be very different, in ways we can't imagine because of our limitations from having grown up in the current situation.

i will answer your final question differently from how i responded to the first parts: as far as i'm concerned, part of the problem of how we are in the world today is by thinking that "the natural world" is distinct from us-as-humans. we are part of a whole, and my goals are that we remember/learn that. but there are anarchists who are transhumanists, and i don't know how they would answer that question. i think they want off the planet? unclear.
by (53.1k points)
my answer includes a lot of "it depends." for more specificity, perhaps you have particular anarchist tendencies that you're interested in.

this thread might be helpful:
comments at the end of this thread,

indicate one tendency of this site, which is to see anarchy as an absence of things, rather than as a presence of things. i think that clarifies my take on this question.
+2 votes
akin to something dot said, i see anarchy as - more than anything - a way of relating with the world around me.

my anarchy has one rather simple goal: a life with NO RULERS.

whether any activities i engage in are illegal or not is irrelevant to me, other than avoiding the self-declared rulers that define "legal" and "illegal", and possess the will and force to imprison me. legality... morality... these are concepts that serve no meaningful purpose in my life. that is not to say that i will just do anything without regard for consequences. the freedom and well-being of myself and those i care about will always be considerations for me. as will the potential for a given activity to do damage to the rulers' ability to rule.
by (13.4k points)
0 votes
There is no end goal. If there was an end goal then that's an immediate contradiction in of itself of anarchism. There can't be an end goal. What I or you do is illegal is irrelevant. Do what you feel is best for yourself is all I have to say.

It would not function like today. "Work" among people would become irrelevant. I lack any desire to "work." There would be no "work" in my ideal world, no one mining for this or that, or maintaining the fields for this or that...etc. Your 3rd question contradicts your final question as your 3rd question asks about resources and what not, while your last questions is about "protecting and preserving the natural environment."  How can one maintain the environment while openly destroying it?Animals don't have "rights" just like humans don't have "rights." There is no such thing as rights.
by (4.7k points)
+2 votes
Actually a little known fact is that anarchists will have won if we get a manned space flight to the moon and successfully remove the flag they put there in 1969.
by (8.0k points)