Most people do not distinguish words by capitalization. I agree with what you’re saying but most people don’t care about the difference and so I don’t really either. The only word we(anarchists) should be fighting for is anarchy, and it’s forms. We don’t need any others. Democracy, socialism, communism, even if we manage to get people to understand our definitions, in an anarchic society they won’t matter so we should let go of them. Anarchy encompasses communism, as class and wealth are both archic structures. There is no need for more terms, and the effort to clean them is too costly.

Also even though restructuring the text got rid of it at one point I had the word communism as the first word in a sentence leading me to capitalize it. Another reason why distinguishing between words by capitalization is a bad practice.

Lets ditch base10 entirely and use 0(freezing)-216(boiling). that means 0-1000 in base6.

Wube (creators of Factorio) have the best customer policy in game development.

• Don’t go on sale so you will always pay the cheapest price.
• if you have the game on steam you can download a DRM-free version directly from their website. (alongside all old versions)
• Encourage the community to create mods, host your own mod portal accessible inside the game.
• Make a good game.
• Be open about game development through monthly blog posts.

The only way I would like it more is if the game was open source but since that’s impossible to sell I will take this.

saksa comes from saxony, which was historically a major power in the region. (My knowledge comes from CK2)

Anti-statism. Anarchism is against all hierarchy. Including class.

Ideology. every cent a capitalist doesn’t make because of me is a small victory.

“Hi! You’re on a rock floating in space.”

All murders happen because of emotional (killing someone in anger), economical (Theft gone wrong) or psychological (Doesn’t realize it’s wrong) reasons. none of these is prevented by sticking the murderer in a box after the murder.

All of these are prevented by building strong social network to manage any harmful impulses before something happens, which is something any reasonable anarchist would agree with.

Also If you think the list is incomplete then feel free to give another example.

Oh yeah also political assassinations and wars. But your comment already addresses those.

I think a better wording is that anarchy is naive. And I’d rather be naive than accept that this is the best we can come up with, because that’s depressing.

Interestingly you can believe that hierarchy is natural and still be a leftist, because coercive hierarchies (such as capitalist or the state) that the left is against prevent these natural hierarchies from emerging. The problem with the right is that they have a model of society in their mind and think that any divergence isn’t natural and must be fixed (by either capitalism or the state). While the left understands that there is no reason some people can’t be in power and so want’s to equalize the playing field.

Human beings aren’t made equally and there will always be some hierarchy in human society. Leftists just want to give everyone the opportunity to rise up the ranks instead of just the “right” people. That is why everyone must be treated equally you don’t know where they exist in the hierarchy.

Technically there isn’t a single social hierarchy. But multiple overlapping ones. Some people are better in some things and other are better in other things. Saying that everyone is equal is too simplified. Society is more complex than that.

But as a generalization (especially when compared to the right) it is correct.

That’s why I think there’s significant cultural/educational changes needed before such a society (or something similar) could be attained.

That is exactly what I am saying. That is the anarchist revolution. Changing society to be non-hierarchical. It isn’t replacing one government with another. It is transforming people to organize in non-hierarchical ways. The revolution is long and takes time and has been going on since the first anarchists thought their theory. It isn’t fought with swords and guns but with thoughts and ideas. That is the revolution

(or to put it in another way)

The revolution I’m talking about isn’t a coup. It isn’t using weapons to destroy the government. It is teaching people that there is nothing inherently hierarchical about human society and we can live without it. If any government falls because of anarchism it will be because non-hierarchical associations have replaced the government or the government tried to stop anarchists from organizing and the anarchists fought back.

I hope that by clearing up what I mean about revolution. The other questions also get solved.

tribalism seems baked into the human existence

That’s right, it seems baked into human existence because that’s how most humans are raised. I believe humans are capable of moving past that.

I think it works great on a local level in small communities, but we have a globalized world, for better or worse

I don’t see how the ideas fall apart when scaled up. When applying the way you interact with others to interacting with other communities the same rules apply. instead of organizing society between individuals you organize society between collectives. Same basic structures apply.

I apologize you couldn’t find the answer to your question from my comment, and thus thought I was dodging it. I tried to explain it in the way that I see it. In my eyes I answered your question clearly, but I will try to be even clearer on my second try.
(hopefully this doesn’t come off as patronizing)

I would also like to know what were the pedantics that you identified in my comment. If it was the final statement then that was my attempt to bring humor into the argument and wasn’t in any way meant seriously. Perhaps I should have used /j

To get to your question (and hopefully answer it more clearly). An anarchist society forms when anarchists come together to create a society. If someone with guns came to destroy that society the anarchists would defend themselves. If one of the anarchists turns their gun against their comrades the others would respond in kind. If they don’t the person takes power and the system stops being anarchistic.

Or to put it even more simply: In an anarchist society everyone is policing and protecting everyone else.

I think it is best to clarify my terms. Anarchy to me is a structured society built entirely out of free associations. It isn’t lawless. Anarchy has rules. A lawless society will naturally take the shape of the people in that society. If all the people are anarchists, they will create an anarchist society, if they are statists, they will create a state. Society is a collection of people living together there is no reason it has to be hierarchical. The people are the ones who make it like that.

What stops our current society from devolving into that if anarchic revolution were to occur?

An anarchist revolution is the complete transformation of society to use non-hierarchical power structures. If after the revolution the society falls back into hierarchy then that means the people were not willing to let go their addiction to authority.

The link is for an FAQ, technically not a book, since most books are shorter than 3077 pages. However it does contain every question one might have about anarchy and answers it pretty neatly.

I most certainly do not mean men with guns taking whatever they want. That is authoritarian. The revolution is an ongoing process to redefine society as a non-hierarchical. I see it as non-violent: only defending against violence, never inciting it.

Between writing that comment I read through the anarchist FAQ on revolution.
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/the-anarchist-faq-editorial-collective-an-anarchist-faq-full#text-amuse-label-secj7
And I agree with it wholeheartedly.

We as a species are far enough for anarchism to work, people just have to stop believing in authority, and we have to help them.

I also do not think anarchism is a utopia. There is nothing about it that couldn’t work. Non-hierarchical societies have existed, and their dissolution just means people aren’t ready yet.

More specifically, yes. It is collective anarchism, but in this context I think it is obvious enough that I don’t need to clarify it further.

Also I think that any type of anarchism allows for collective anarchism, and by extension could be used to mean collective anarchism.

What’s annoying is that we probably would be a whole lot closer to actual communism and anarchism if the bolsheviks never took power and destroy all the communism that was happening during the Russian revolution.

so as I was trying to answer this I came across this little part. Here is a list of a couple of anarchist (and therefor communist) societies.

None of these lasted for very long because they were quickly either subverted or destroyed by statists. This, for me, is not a flaw of anarchism (or communism) as a concept and instead happened because the movement did not reach critical mass. Not enough people believed in the system for it to work.

Also note under the Russian revolution chapter the “”“communists”“” were the enemy, as they were the ones that destroyed the systems that were actually communists in order to create their state capitalist state,

https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/the-anarchist-faq-editorial-collective-an-anarchist-faq-full#text-amuse-label-seca5 A.5 What are some examples of “Anarchy in Action”?
A.5.1 The Paris Commune
A.5.2 The Haymarket Martyrs
A.5.3 Building the Syndicalist Unions
A.5.4 Anarchists in the Russian Revolution
A.5.5 Anarchists in the Italian Factory Occupations
A.5.6 Anarchism and the Spanish Revolution
A.5.7 The May-June Revolt in France, 1968

But I still insist that even if these examples weren’t there it proves nothing about the potential of the system. Progress is making things that do not exist. The statement that something doesn’t exist is not proof that it can’t.

Also if you look at my post history I have done a lot of reflecting on why I believe in anarchism and nothing has made me doubt that it is possible. The only thing stopping it is the greed of people, and as we are seeing what that causes I am hoping that too gets fixed.

Also I absolutely support any form of government you want to create as long as you allow me to live in my commune. In that sense I am a federalist. I believe that on a macro scale humanity works best if different societies can all coexist together, so everyone can find their place. I actually see it as macro-anarchism, the same fundamental beliefs that govern an anarchist society implemented on all of humanity.

Communism is by definition a stateless, moneyless, classless society. If any of these exist it is not communism. There is no “almost good enough”. You can’t have almost classless. If you have classes you aren’t classless, and in a single party system the party members are a class.

I put it to you that capitalism doesn’t work. It is an inherently corrupt system that will inevitably end in the destruction of everything. Capitalism is unsustainable. Built on the myth of perpetual growth and willing to kill everything on this planet to achieve that. Given a long enough time-frame all wealth and decision making capabilities under a capitalism will be consolidated in the hands of a couple of rich companies that will only care about economic growth. Damn the consequences.

/sidenote. I am not actually a communist but an Anarchist. I oppose all unjust hierarchies. Money, state and class just happen to all fit under this definition and because of that I also support communism.

Humanity has progressed a lot in even the last 20 years. Using historical facts to prove something doesn’t work is not effective under these circumstances.

Also communism (in the classical sense) doesn’t really have a practical history, as no country on the planet has purposefully reached it.

The soviet union or china were never communist. They were both horrific state capitalist dictatorships.

And capitalism is also crap. For example look at the impending climate catastrophe.

Because human progress is about making things that do not exist. Saying that something doesn’t exist currently does not mean it cannot exist.

Before the french revolution there were no democratic countries. back then you could say “Name one democratic country. Oh you can’t? Guess democracy doesn’t work.” and it would be just as valid as your claim now.

I said before the French revolution.

Also I doubt they are going to be “the best” after climate change (which is caused by those countries) causes them to collapse.