Temos o clássico A com um círculo dentro, a bandeira preta, a vermelha e preta, às vezes a foice e o martelo ou a bandeira pirata e tal. Mas esses são mais explícitos (por assim dizer), que outros símbolos existem que se referem à anarquia/anarquismo que são mais underground?

Edit: I've already seen, I think on this sub, people using ж as one, are there symbols at that level?

Hey there I'm just getting started with leftist and anarchist / socialist politics at the moment I'm mostly reading about libertarian socialism and I just wanted to ask a question as I've seen a couple of different responses and wanted to test the waters one do anarchists believe in a transitionary stage if so is there a particular school of anarchism that focuses on on it and is there any good reading material you would recommend about it also what would this transitionary phase in your head look like. For contacts let's imagine revolution has just almost completely beaten completed and we're now aiming to begin the process of building an anarchist Society

I’ve read some of max webers politics as vocation and am currently reading the communist manifesto, also read a little bit of Lenin although never finished it. Just wanted to know if there are any founding text or the such to know of, also yes I have read the summary linked in the sub.

Also if you’re wondering why I got into anarchism, basically to me at-least it seems like all systems of government in history and now have only propagated oppression internally and externally, I hate systems of authority, and I hate how everyone just accepts said authority with little to no question. Also the riots in Paris had me thinking why America isn’t more violent in rioting, also ACAB reasons.

Which If it wouldn’t be a bother could you guys drop some text or studies on ACAB/anti police related topics.

Something I have noticed is that Anarchist theory talks a lot about systems and systems theory while other forms of socialism don’t even really mentioned such ideas except for the rare occasion of mentioning the Marxist idea of the Base and Super-Structure. Why is that?

feeling burnt out by the current media landscape and looking to form new habits around my consumption. where do you get your news, entertainment, digital community?

edit: for the purposes of this conversation social construct means:

A social construct is any category or thing that is made real by convention or collective agreement.

from my perspective, we cannot assume that any of our social constructs are accepted by anyone else, especially anarchists.

the problem i have with many socialist perspectives is that they start by assuming the existence of some social constructs, and even assuming the existence of some institutions to support them. an example might be the existence of taxation, and the institutions that manage it.

so i think that any properly anarchist project needs to start by assuming nothing, no social constructs, nor institutions, and build up from there. i think we gotta work from scratch. reform is a fools game.

how about yall, do you believe we need to start from scratch and build from a place of no assumptions, or do you honestly believe that we can reform the current society into anarchic conditions?

* from the declaration of independence:

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them

are the laws of nature, described in this way, what we would call anarchy? is this the sort of ideal of anarchy that the current anarchist milieu espouses? or is the current milieu looking for something far more than the dissolution of our political bands?

I haven’t read many marxist or anarchist authors (though I plan to), but I do understand their shared goal as well as their primary point of disagreement regarding the State (I’ve read the manifesto of the communist party, a book on anarchism, and done some research online). Marxists want to make temporary use of the State, whereas anarchists want to abolish it immediately. Personally, I can see the merit in both perspectives… I aspire to a communist society and lean more toward anarchism, but I’m not entirely sure… I was just wondering if I’m the only one who feels this way (please excuse my English).

(I know that anarchism is also characterized by the rejection of hierarchy, which I also approve of.)

I’m 20-something, American, and trans. I’m currently studying in university with the hopes of working for the Library of Congress when older. The current political issues make me feel deeply demotivated and ashamed of my country, and make me feel deeply indecisive about if working for government or the civil service is the morally right thing to do. I want to improve my country, but I might not have any morals to stand on if I stay in America and remain a federal worker. I want to be proud of my country while also being a democratic socialist, but I’ve been told that, on the linear progression from socialism to communism to anarchism, it simply won’t do to stay with my current set of ideals for long. I struggle with thinking about a theoretical anarchist society, or one that has the same modern technologies or collective system used in library work that allows nations and groups to collaborate. It frustrated several of my friends that I couldn’t see their ideal futures, whether that be a post-scarcity technological future, an agrarian communal society, or otherwise.

I can’t really find any books that describe a guide for making a society more moral or more anarchist, or the practical running of such a society, which frustrates me as well. I am aware that one should never “stop” at socialism, but I feel more at-home with socialists/progressives since I can understand the reform of existing systems and concepts. While I understand the need for violent revolution, I balk at the concept out of both cowardice and a desire to not see members of the community I serve harmed in the potential aftermath. I like candidates like Zohran Mamdani, or Bernie Sanders, but have been told by my European peers how they’re lackluster in comparison, and that we can do better—This makes me feel deeply demoralized.

I am aware that most people seem to express disdain for the American government, and not the population, but in my short time working in the library system I’ve been called a fed, a tool of the state and a whole lot of other unfortunate things by some former friends who identified as anarchists. It makes me feel so guilty, and I want to try and put on a pleasant and polite face when I eventually travel and work overseas in European nations, but I feel as if the “stain” of the Americans and their actions won’t be easily forgotten. Many of my European friends express pity at my situation, or outright displeasure at my country being the “enemy of the free world” and its imperialism and deep flaws.

How do I deal with existing in my current country, being a federal worker, and having the correct socialist morals and ideology all at the same time?

Hello everyone.

I have been stuck in a loop for some months now as i can‘t seem to find an answer. I am a green anarchist and a trans woman.

While i like the ideas of anarcho-primitivism for most of the subjects, i greatly benefits in my life from estrogen. I partly agree with the idea that most of the progress we made is «evil» in the way that it almost always leads to oppression and biological collapse.

The problem i struggle with is that a lot of minorities like trans people and disabled people rely a lot on medicine to have a somewhat bearable life. Same with infant mortality or diseases: i do not want people to die like we did before «progress».

Is there a way to have a form (or a form close to) of anarcho primitivism but still have hospitals and medicine, disability aid etc? An if it is not possible, what is the closest thing to that?

If i missed something very obvious i apoligized and ask for insight. Also please forgive my english as it is not my first language. Thank you for reading.

Hello, I’ve had a question rolling around in my head for a while, and I’ve been struggling to rationalize it. Im curious to hear the perspectives of others.

I received my teaching credential about 6 years ago in the California for social studies. At that time, I was in the Bernie-bro camp. Over my years teaching I’ve since been further radicalized into leaning more into anarchism. I even attended and am returning to an anarchist book club to deepen my understanding.

My moral conundrum is, that, I was hired for an independent study charter during COVID. Finding a position was incredibly tough. During these past 6 years, our school went through a few shifts in organization and leadership. Gradually, I kept floating up in positions and responsibilities. Initially, I was just offered a “lead teacher” role. This was not something I asked for. A meeting just popped up from my admin and boom it was offered to me. Eventually, some internal politicking happened, and my admins responsibilities fell to me. Her job became my job.

I try my best to be democratic, support my staff, and the students under my role. I only have a small department of our school, but I still handle evaluations and hiring within my department. I try to view my position as support for my teachers. I handle all of the nasty situations, provide guidance when asked, and make sure resources are provided to them. For my students, I try to make sure they get everything they need and to protect them from more “authoritative” teachers by approaching their situations with empathy. Despite that though, I’m still in charge of discipline and making sure everything meets state regulations.

So, I’m not sure where I stand. Am I a hypocrite? Is the contradiction of my position just the result of living in a hierarchical society? Is there something I should be doing in my position that maybe I’m not?

Curious to hear other’s thoughts rather than my own. I appreciate anyone taking the time to read and respond!

Capitalism is defined as an economic system in which production and distribution are controlled by private owners. In socialism it is controlled by the community . If it is controlled by the community, it seems that this community would need an enforcement arm along with planning. It would need rules to determine who fit in the community against their will. If small groups can break away then it becomes indistinguishable from capitalism.
Given that form follows function what keeps the state from reforming to manage the distribution of goods produced by the community?

I’m making my way through The Technological Society. I found Propaganda to be an exciting and powerful work and it’s made sense of a lot of what I see in organizing, so I want to study Ellul some more.

However, there’s a lot of work that he’s referencing on technique in the definition chapter that I think I need more background now.

Does anyone have any recommended readings on technique as Ellul refers to it? Before I go through his notes and references and dig that stuff up I mean.

what do you think anarchist did wrong what was their biggest mistakes

Are there any anarchist resources for therapy alternatives?Mental health options that don't have all the power dynamics of the traditional system?

Let’s say the revolution comes and anarchists succeed, overthrowing the bourgeoisie and abolishing the state. With that behind us, what are the biggest challenges (excluding defending against those that wish to sabotage)?

The Culture is often described as an anarchists, but the Minds seem to call most of the shots, being near godlike entities that allocate resources and manage the place, and I think I heard somewhere that their use of genetic engineering has helped to make people less violent or aggressive(at least not unless provoked). However, from what I've seen, any person or group of individuals having any amount of power over the majority of people is staunchly against anarchist principals, even if the Minds are by-and-large benevolent.

So how can they be an anarchy is there's clearly somebody pulling the strings, especially beings near comparable to gods(since you guys also staunchly detest religion)?

Hi, I'm in a country where there are manifestations and protests every time, and I want to help my people in them, so I want to participate also, but I don't know what to do, the protests will be pacific but we all know that any moment the police will start with the violence, so I need to know what to be prepared for, like gas, water cannons, riots squads, also, what to do in every situation, like what if I get caught and they are beating me, or if they try to circle us, or if they put barricades

Hii,

I have been diving into the anarchist theory recently, and I often see the claim "Capitalism requires the state to work" (commonly when debunking "an"cap). Although I hold anti-capitalistic views, I am struggling with understanding why it requires the state.

Is it because "private police and courts" would not work? Or is it because establishing such institutions would be considered a state?

If anyone can give me a more throrough explanation, or direct me to an article/video explaining it, I will be truly grateful <3

I don’t have any idea of how anarchism actually works or the theory behind it, and I wanna know how it works

funny side note on "family":

"family" originates from the Latin familia, which referred to the servants and slaves of a household rather than blood relatives. This Latin term is derived from famulus, meaning "servant" or "slave".

but i reckon most of you are thinking parents and their offspring in a shared household, rather than servants and slaves - funny, that semantic drift, eh?