Hospitals do not need the state. In fact hospitals are probably one of institutions to collectivise, due to the level of competence needed to actively work in one. It’s similar with electricity, industry and infrastructure maintenance. None of these things need the state. They are being maintained every day by the workers, the only thing the state does is look over their shoulder and give them money so they could function inside a capitalist economy. As an anarchist I reject both governmental oversight and capitalist economies. That’s what this post is about. It’s calling for people to start building alternatives that can function without the state.

Here are some links for further reading and watching:

• AFAQ I.3 What could the economic structure of anarchy look like?: https://anarchistfaq.org/afaq/sectionI.html#seci3 (feel free to skim it’s quite long and dense)
• Andrewism - How anarchy works: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lrTzjaXskUU

I also just found an essay on the anarchist library that deals with a lot of the topics we’ve discussed, perhaps give it a read: https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/nishikant-sheorey-society-is-not-a-machine

An anarchist society isn’t a building. It’s a tree. A living, breathing, perpetually growing organism. You cannot say what a tree will look like before it’s grown. You can only plant a seed and hope for the best. As soon as you start planning and designing parts of this society you start ignoring other peoples contribution, stifling their liberty and self-determination. State socialists are the ones who are designing society according to their own vision and we’ve all seen where that leads.

If you want an actual movement and momentum check what the IWW is doing. They claim to be anarchist/syndicalists but I don’t know how much we are represented in the actual ranks. I’m sadly in a country that doesn’t have a branch.

Are you not of “the people?”

I am just one. I am limited by my skills and specialties. I cannot really contribute to the discussion of heavy industry or agriculture, unless it’s about using tech and computers to simplify or automate, but even then I would need to listen to the actual people in these industries to even begin designing something that works. I know IT, I know Computers, I know programming. I also think I’m relatively good at recourse management and coming up with solutions that others might not. Those are the areas I know I can contribute. I would love to start a tech-collective but I don’t have the contacts. That’s why I spend most of my time on here, it feels like the only place I can actually contribute. If a person actually has enough anarchists around them to actually do something they obviously should do something more than just spread propaganda, but I don’t.

they will always side with that which is more concrete

Which is part of the problem. Anarchy cannot be concrete. It’s chaos compared to centralized power structures, a free society cannot be anything else. The difference between anarchists and statists is that we embrace the chaos and believe something incredible can exist within it, that collectively we can withstand anything bad that chaos throws at us. Any concrete societal structure can only be maintained with control. This control will often result in inequality and exploitation.

I also saw your comment earlier in the thread that was on the same topic:

Knowing what something mustn’t be is not nearly enough - one must know what something must be in order to build it.

When talking about anarchy the only thing we can talk about is what it mustn’t be. Because “what it is” is something that only be answered during the process after all of the different voices come together to build something. Or to use a quote from that AFAQ paragraph: “revolution should not only be made for the people’s sake; it should also be made by the people.” [No Gods, No Masters, vol. 1, p. 141]

As anarchists we cannot build anything individually. Only after we have collectively come together and figured out how to work together can we look back and describe what we have made. When we say “organize” we don’t have anything specific in mind because that would go against the ethos of self-determination. No anarchist worthy of the name should have a concrete idea of what anarchy looks like. Sure you can have approximations and speculation but you cannot say with certainty what it is your building because that would require you to be able to read the minds of everyone contributing.

neither the youtubers nor us online anarchist can provide a solution to this problem. To solve this problem you need people with experience of heavy industry alongside environmental experts to coordinate using self-managed principles. A bunch of propagandists (which is what we are) do not have enough understanding to create and maintain these processes. Our job is to get people to collectivize and start thinking critically of authority so they would be empowered to create an environment where they can do everything they already do without someone constantly looking over their shoulders.

Essentially: Leave the job of figuring out how to do things to the people. Or as AFAQ put: Is there a blueprint for anarchist society? https://anarchistfaq.org/afaq/sectionI.html#seci2

This comment got me to look up if AFAQ had a section on this and it turns out it did:

• I.3.8 Do anarchists seek “small autonomous communities, devoted to small scale production”? https://anarchistfaq.org/afaq/sectionI.html#seci38

This is the topic of absolute or relative morality, here is my take.

In that groups moral reference frame they would be morally right, but it wouldn’t change how I’d react. I wouldn’t agree with them or share their morals but I also know I couldn’t change their morals. Instead I would do whatever I could to remove any POC from the grasp of the group and arm them for protection. They would consider that morally wrong. I consider it morally right, because I believe everyone has the right to live. After that I’d probably try and build a barrier around them to stop them from hurting others.

At the end of the day actions matter a lot more than beliefs. It doesn’t really matter what I believe, only what actions I take.

Or to but it differently I also believe those people are morally wrong. I also believe they think they’re morally right. And as I don’t place my own opinions over others I cannot say who is right. I can only act in the way I believe is right.

To reiterate: I believe those people are wrong. They are claiming another persons right to exist and that goes against my beliefs. I would to anything I could to stop them. But I also know that’s my moral position. It’s not theirs. But it doesn’t matter, I do what I believe is right.

But in the end it doesn’t matter. My actions would not change even if I believed they were morally wrong. I still act according to my moral position. So what difference does it make whether I believe it’s the only one or one of many?

Desperately trying to phrase this in a way that makes my point come across because this is a very delicate topic, and communicating in text isn’t my strong suit.

Morality is the cultural baseline of acceptability and culture isn’t dictated by the majority. If a culture diverges it is two separate cultures. Nighter could be considered the majority. This is the point I’m trying to make, instead of having a single group of people and trying to find compromises why not just have multiple groups living their lives and cooperating when needed? Why do you need this single entity to manage these wildly different people?

But my question stands: If the majority of people in your country voted to have you killed, would you let them kill you?

Fuck this. I’m out. Disengage(https://wiki.dbzer0.com/divisions-by-zero/the-disengage-rule). Hope someone else has the energy to explain this to you.

Representative democracy is beholden to the majority. if they majority voted to kill you, would you just accept it and let them?

Also who are the members? what chooses who is and isn’t a member of this body that has the right to your life? A made up line in the sand? Why do I have to rely on the opinion of someone who could be half a continent away? The only people I want to be held accountable to are the ones that I have to interact with, because others don’t know me, and they shouldn’t have any say on whether or not I get to live.

Anarchy is exactly what you say: being held accountable by other members of your society. It just doesn’t try and mash millions of people with different viewpoints together and shrug when they inevitably start killing each other. It allows for dynamic formation of groups that think alike and uses the overlaps to build a network of people.

but they are all very small scale made up of people who share the ideology, and WANT to be a part of that kind of society.

1. The reason they are small scale is because they all existed during times of conflict. All of these societies had to fight against much larger states and the fact that they managed to survive as long as they did is a testament to the viability of anarchism.
2. Federation of small groups of people who share an ideology and want to be part of a society is how societies should exist. All societies should be made up of people who want to be there.

You show those communities to certain types of people, and they see dollar signs and opportunities for exploitation.

Yeah and if they try and exploit them they’ll be told to fuck off. Any anarchic group capable of holding their own against external forces, will also be capable of resisting exploitation from internal ones.

That’s what humans are. You need to accept this.

If by this you mean some humans are inherently greedy and selfish: No! Never! I would rather die than accept that every person cannot be kind.

Everything a state guarantees they can take away. Do you want to give your life to the state?

Instead you could build a network of people, a community, to guarantee life and well-being of yourself and those around you. You don’t need a state to do that. In fact believing in the state will actively hamper you as you look towards it for solutions you could make yourself.

People aren’t selfish or greedy. People are ambitious and in the current society those people are raised to believe that to be the best you have to be selfish and greedy. They aren’t traits you are born with, they are learned.

But anarchy still is the best way to deal with greedy people as any kind of hierarchy will just allow the greedy people to get to the top. Hierarchies don’t punish the greedy, they elevate them to the highest positions in society as those that aren’t concerned with other peoples well being can always find a way to gain authority over them.

There needs to be something to try to prevent and/or punish that.

Anarchy has that something. You can counter abuse without being abusive yourself. We can build social structures that prevent greed without hierarchy. The solution isn’t to give some people a monopoly on violence because that position will always attract the most violent. It’s to build a social networks that sees problems before they happen and provides support. Punishment isn’t a productive method of preventing harm. It’s vengeance, not prevention.

What is currently destroying the US isn’t libertarianism, it’s bad education, mass media manipulation and a bunch of people following orders.

Learn some history

OK
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutionary_Catalonia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Commune
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Makhnovshchina

If you are actually curious here’s some links:

• Andrewism: https://www.youtube.com/@Andrewism/videos
• Anarchist FAQ: https://anarchistfaq.org/afaq/index.html (maybe take a look at J.5)

This is an anarchist comm. We aren’t masquerading anything. We fight against all injustice: state, class, gender, sexuality. You know. Liberty for everyone equally.

Your sentences inspired me to make my own.

If your quest for kindness leads you to violence, remember to use violence with kindness.

If your quest for kindness leads you to violence, remember to use violence with kindness.

The state is 100% something. It’s 100% useless and harmful. source: https://anarchistfaq.org/afaq/sectionB.html#secb2 and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-1PV02IzWpo

The reason I actually responded to you’re comment is because it was long and interesting so I thought I could get a nice discussion out of it. I’m glad to have been correct.

I didn’t come across as you trying to police AI. You were just being very critical of a tool that I think has a lot of uses. I was trying to bring an alternate point of view to the discussion.

I also don’t believe in artistic disability, my example wasn’t about being unable to make art, it was about making art being just difficult enough for someone that they don’t want to try. Perfection only exists in tightly defined systems, art most certainly cannot be perfect. But I do think some people have who are capable of art don’t wish to learn how do make it to the degree that they can express what they want. I’m not saying they don’t have ability. I’m saying they don’t have the desire.

And even then you can use GenAI do only to small parts of your piece. An artist I follow used GenAI to create videos for their music. The creator of this meme uses it to create small intro pictures for their blog. GenAI has uses in the hands of creative people as well.

I’m an anarchist. As soon as you talk about corporations and value I point to the meme this discussion is under.

Also I don’t use GenAI. I made a couple of pictures and did try to touch them up in order to actually be presentable but in the end it just didn’t work out. I do have a drawing tablet and use it to make drawings. I’ve posted them in my community lemm.ee/c/anaval. I also know the basics of playing a bass guitar. I’m not defending GenAI out of my own need, but because I see potential in it for others.

and like I said previously It’s made some stuff that I really love.

Your technique is so cool (/sincere), but a lot of people do not have the time, persistence or passion do develop skills like these. If they get a good idea for something I want them to be able to express it, to enrich the world with the chaos of their mind, and sometimes GenAI is the only tool they have for that.

Everyone has the potential to create something cool, and I don’t want to take away what might be their only tool.

The core of my opinion on the topic isn’t based on anti capitalist rhetoric, it’s a lot simpler than that. I like the things GenAI makes so I like GenAI. If you don’t consider that art I’m fine with that. I still like it and think it has value.