Here’s another analysis for you: Anarchism is about creating social structures and improve the lives of those in these structures. There is no end goal or concrete structure to these structures. They change and adapt as the people within them change, leave or enter.
Anarchy is not about resources or class or opposing archists. But about creating spaces and communities in which people can safely exist as themselves. About creating social structures that are based on mutual aid and human connection instead of ability or need. Anarchy isn’t about making a single system that everyone follows. It’s about creating many overlapping systems doing many overlapping things. Different cells are not some distinct group of people with their own flags and names where you need to apply to join. It’s just a name for a group of people that have something in common. The same person will belong to different cells as every cell represents some part of society. They cannot form states because a state needs to have polity and anarchists should reject polity wherever possible.
But that’s just how I see it. other anarchists will disagree and that is the most anarchist thing ever.
First of all, I want to say that I appreciate your viewpoint, it’s far more constructive than the other user essentially saying “Marxism bad.”
The issue I take with your descriptor is that eventually production and distribution do become necessary. States arise due to class relations, and class relations arise due to modes of production. In cooperative-based production and distribution, ie cells producing largely for themselves but also exchanging through mutual aid, eventually class distinctions do rise historically, even if people resist that. We cannot just return to hunter/gatherer lifestyles.
I agree that mutual aid is a great tool, especially in times of struggle and in systems like capitalism where the wealthiest plunder the wealth created by the working classes, but this ultimately is derived from production, which necessitates analysis of the mode of production.
Communism is less about an end goal, and more about a continuous process to create a society that meets the needs of everyone. It isn’t about sacrificing until some day a better society can be achieved, it’s about building that better society outright and being aware of the social transformations it goes through as production and distribution are collectivized and the state and class wither away.
Oh I absolutely could spend a lot of mental effort trying to explain “marxism bad” (It would actually be Vanguardism bad, marxism ancient) but I just don’t care enough. I have no interest in being antagonistic (except maybe for a couple of quips), cause it’s not going to change anything.
Production and distribution (henceforth economy) is necessary there isn’t a magical grace period where people stop needing food. For any anarchist system to work they need to have an economy. The anarchist systems that exist right now solve this by relying on donations and members having jobs. As more and more anarchist systems start popping up (although this is probably never going to happen) this would transform to a more independent/self-sustaining system. But what that system looks like doesn’t really matter, because whatever it is will be determined by the ones who make it.
This is the ultimate difference between anarchism and everything else, and the reason why I think so many people bounce off it. Anarchism requires belief in people. That whatever system they come up with will work and compliment others who will be able to build their own systems: Economic, social or political.
Anarchy is a process of creating social structures that defy oppression, control and manipulation, and believing that these structures will be able to solve the problems they face. It’s not just about economy but about the connections people form. When I look at communists I see only economic analysis: Class, Production, Ownership. Concepts which are secondary to the thing that actually matters: eliminating oppression and exploitation, not just economic, but also social and political.
Here’s another analysis for you: Anarchism is about creating social structures and improve the lives of those in these structures. There is no end goal or concrete structure to these structures. They change and adapt as the people within them change, leave or enter.
Anarchy is not about resources or class or opposing archists. But about creating spaces and communities in which people can safely exist as themselves. About creating social structures that are based on mutual aid and human connection instead of ability or need. Anarchy isn’t about making a single system that everyone follows. It’s about creating many overlapping systems doing many overlapping things. Different cells are not some distinct group of people with their own flags and names where you need to apply to join. It’s just a name for a group of people that have something in common. The same person will belong to different cells as every cell represents some part of society. They cannot form states because a state needs to have polity and anarchists should reject polity wherever possible.
But that’s just how I see it. other anarchists will disagree and that is the most anarchist thing ever.
First of all, I want to say that I appreciate your viewpoint, it’s far more constructive than the other user essentially saying “Marxism bad.”
The issue I take with your descriptor is that eventually production and distribution do become necessary. States arise due to class relations, and class relations arise due to modes of production. In cooperative-based production and distribution, ie cells producing largely for themselves but also exchanging through mutual aid, eventually class distinctions do rise historically, even if people resist that. We cannot just return to hunter/gatherer lifestyles.
I agree that mutual aid is a great tool, especially in times of struggle and in systems like capitalism where the wealthiest plunder the wealth created by the working classes, but this ultimately is derived from production, which necessitates analysis of the mode of production.
Communism is less about an end goal, and more about a continuous process to create a society that meets the needs of everyone. It isn’t about sacrificing until some day a better society can be achieved, it’s about building that better society outright and being aware of the social transformations it goes through as production and distribution are collectivized and the state and class wither away.
Oh I absolutely could spend a lot of mental effort trying to explain “marxism bad” (It would actually be Vanguardism bad, marxism ancient) but I just don’t care enough. I have no interest in being antagonistic (except maybe for a couple of quips), cause it’s not going to change anything.
Production and distribution (henceforth economy) is necessary there isn’t a magical grace period where people stop needing food. For any anarchist system to work they need to have an economy. The anarchist systems that exist right now solve this by relying on donations and members having jobs. As more and more anarchist systems start popping up (although this is probably never going to happen) this would transform to a more independent/self-sustaining system. But what that system looks like doesn’t really matter, because whatever it is will be determined by the ones who make it.
This is the ultimate difference between anarchism and everything else, and the reason why I think so many people bounce off it. Anarchism requires belief in people. That whatever system they come up with will work and compliment others who will be able to build their own systems: Economic, social or political.
Anarchy is a process of creating social structures that defy oppression, control and manipulation, and believing that these structures will be able to solve the problems they face. It’s not just about economy but about the connections people form. When I look at communists I see only economic analysis: Class, Production, Ownership. Concepts which are secondary to the thing that actually matters: eliminating oppression and exploitation, not just economic, but also social and political.