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.


0 votes
Okay, let me start off by saying I understand the basic premise. Anarchy is to be indifferent to governmental control, and to deem the government, in all aspects, to be unnecessary. I'm seeking a much deeper definition to Anarchism, it can't be just that black and white. I'm looking for someone who can explain in, detail, what Anarchy is, and how I should see it as a viable alternative to how our countries are run today.

I'm not new to these kinds of ideals, I believe in much of the Punk- Skinhead ideology, and I like to consider myself one. I also agree with much of Communist ideology, But with that being said I agree with the limited knowledge I have for Anarchy

Furthermore could anyone explain to me these different types, Such as Anarcho-communism (the one I'm most interested in but I don't mind reading any info to be given on different types)?

that previous question aside, this whole site is about what anarchy is on a deeper level, so i'm not sure what you're asking for here...
The Greeks coined the definition of Anarchy as "No Ruler" which can be equated to No Government.  It's that simple.

and to Ingrate; Since any version of Collectivism can exist only by decree of some GOVERNment and/or it's Rulers, anarcho-communism is pure oxymoron.
ancapistan: where there's nothing more voluntary than others fencing *you* in with *their* private property. no freedom like landlocked freedom. fuck the buzzer, i hear the sound of flatulence.
Dot the ruler in your direct democracy is the majority, unless I am free to not be forced into their decision.

Can 20 men vote the panties off one unwilling woman?
"Can 20 men vote the panties off one unwilling woman?"

fba, not sure what you are responding to regarding direct democracy, but that is kind of a great question in the context of an abstract discussion on democracy.

striker: "no ruler" does *not* equate to "no government". government is but one of numerous rulers that my anarchy seeks to destroy, including religion, economic systems, (big "s") Science, media, etc. nice try, though.

2 Answers

+1 vote
dot's comment and link are a good start and provocation. I would explore this site more thoroughly to find particular questions whose answers get at some of the practical questions you have. I'll include a couple links after this for more specifically anarcho-communist info, as many answers here do not come from that perspective, but I'd encourage you to read the rest of this answer first and consider it in relation to those links.

Anarchy is less an indifference to law than it is a state of being in which law either doesn't exist or is extemporaneous. Although not all anarchists would agree on this point, there is also a piece of anarchy which I value that emphasizes attack. I don't quite know how to word what I want to say here, but perhaps that as opposed to a stance of "meh, the state" it is more "smash the state," or maybe " at least get in a good sucker punch against the state before you escape."

The significance of this idea of attack is that it isn't just ignoring the existence of the state & law ("we are living in the margins") or in spite of it (anarchy is every time we do things of our own free will - without the force of laws or bosses), but that it is seeking to engage in conflict with the forces of authority and domination. Also these conflicts aren't always spectacular (cop-fighting, window smashing, etc.). Conflict and violence are not synonymous.

Anarchisms are ideologies based on a desire to create a permanent state of anarchy. I use the plural because there are many anarchisms. dot's link covers many of the various tendencies, and I won't belabor that here, but it is helpful to be familiar with the basic premises of them for inquiries like yours.

Some of them will claim they are the only true Anarchism, or the most pure Anarchism, or the Anarchism which is maintaining the orthodoxy of the lineage as set out by the Very Important White Guys. Some of them will claim they are not an -ism at all. Most anarchists I know have an anarchism. Those I respect the most recognize that their anarchism is little more than their own version of religious beliefs, and seek to identify, challenge and kill it where it might rear it's head.

As to the practicality of replacing our current state of affairs (industrial capitalist civilization - right there I'm showing some of my anarchisms), anarchy is both the most practical and impractical of options. Impractical because total victory is quite possibly impossible. The forces of destruction and domination have all the force and backing of the current state of affairs on their side, they have both technological and hierarchical advantages (at least in the short term). If you come to anarchism from the perspective of having the plan and program to eliminate all that, this is where your anarchism becomes an Anarchism.

It is the most practical of options because in the long view the current state of affairs is not only untenable but unsustainable. We (even we anarchists are participants, like it or not) are destroying everything we need to live, and law, the state, god, capitalism, etc. are all abstractions. They are ideas, and if we don't kill them they will die with us.

Oh, so here's the links for anarcho-communist stuff:

An anarchist FAQ attempts to answer all the things systematically. It covers far more that anarcho-communism, but it is very obviously written from an anarcho-communist perspective. I find it boring and, when dealing with tendencies I feel drawn to (green & post-left anarchy, among others) dishonest.

Colin Ward was a pretty prolific anarchist author of the post-war (sic) era  that tended towards anarcho-communism. While I diverge from his analysis by football fields, I actually appreciate his work. Here is a link to some of his writing:

Petr Kropotkin was probably the Very Important White Guy most responsible for the development of anarcho-communism as a tendency. Like Ward, I disagree with him, but I can't bring myself to hate him.
by (22.1k points)
edited by
–2 votes
Anarchy is the end of rule by force.

It is the non-aggression model of managing society.

Any claim to anarchism that forces compliance is not anarchy.
by (320 points)