They didn’t shape “my” belief system. (At least, I’m pretty sure a “burn it all down and eat the rich” anarchist wasn’t the belief system they were trying to shape me into.)
Are you kidding? They love that belief system, because it’s just a bunch of edgelord nonsense. The rich aren’t afraid of anarchists because they have zero chance of affecting them in any real, tangible way, aside from perhaps a random assassin like (allegedly) Luigi. Socialists and similar leftists, on the other hand, are fucking terrifying, because they can unite the workers and force the rich to pay higher taxes.
i can agree with criticisms of blunt insuractionism, as op might be arguing for, but insuratctionary anarchism is only one strand out of many.
many anarchists are building horizontal organisations, and mutual aide and governance networks, to re-empower lower classes and build the better society in the here and now.
of course these anarchists can also be considered socialist, but i think in contrast to other socialist, they do not centralize and do not build hierarchies, making it less likely for their achievenments to regress into systems of domination or be coopted (into for example embracing the electoral system)
i think it’s a mistake to dismiss anarchism in its entirety
hm, do you mean as concrete examples or as models?
this video series talks spotlights some horizontal projects.
as models this can be done through small bottom up unions, affinity groups, councils, cooperatives, and other forms of free association in the areas of peoples lifes and interests, which can then federate together, through agaun free association and delegation. (i can describe these ideas more in detail, if you like)
this can take the form of neighbourhood unions, trade unions, worker cooperatives, citizen militias, and mutual aide networks for sharing and distributing of resources, services, and knowledge.
i think what’s really important, is the focus on the grass root, and that decisions are not made over peoples heads, but together in shared deliberation or as delegated tasks, whichs results can be revoked or disassociated from, from the ground up.
as an example from my own life, i am member of an anarchist trade union. we work local first but also federate together on a national level. the union is not big in my city, so here we focus mainly on legal support and education, but afaik in other cities there are unionized work places that are part of the federation. the decisions there are also made bottom up, by the actual unionized workers, and not by union reps for them.
They shaped “our” belief system.
They didn’t shape “my” belief system. (At least, I’m pretty sure a “burn it all down and eat the rich” anarchist wasn’t the belief system they were trying to shape me into.)
Kind of reverse shaped it maybe? Same, anyway. Now I distrust all hierarchy.
Are you kidding? They love that belief system, because it’s just a bunch of edgelord nonsense. The rich aren’t afraid of anarchists because they have zero chance of affecting them in any real, tangible way, aside from perhaps a random assassin like (allegedly) Luigi. Socialists and similar leftists, on the other hand, are fucking terrifying, because they can unite the workers and force the rich to pay higher taxes.
Sure, buddy, sure.
But I’m posting comments! I’m doing my part!
i can agree with criticisms of blunt insuractionism, as op might be arguing for, but insuratctionary anarchism is only one strand out of many.
many anarchists are building horizontal organisations, and mutual aide and governance networks, to re-empower lower classes and build the better society in the here and now.
of course these anarchists can also be considered socialist, but i think in contrast to other socialist, they do not centralize and do not build hierarchies, making it less likely for their achievenments to regress into systems of domination or be coopted (into for example embracing the electoral system)
i think it’s a mistake to dismiss anarchism in its entirety
Could you give some examples of these decentralized, non-hierarchical organizations?
hm, do you mean as concrete examples or as models?
this video series talks spotlights some horizontal projects.
as models this can be done through small bottom up unions, affinity groups, councils, cooperatives, and other forms of free association in the areas of peoples lifes and interests, which can then federate together, through agaun free association and delegation. (i can describe these ideas more in detail, if you like)
this can take the form of neighbourhood unions, trade unions, worker cooperatives, citizen militias, and mutual aide networks for sharing and distributing of resources, services, and knowledge.
i think what’s really important, is the focus on the grass root, and that decisions are not made over peoples heads, but together in shared deliberation or as delegated tasks, whichs results can be revoked or disassociated from, from the ground up.
Not theoretical stuff. Organizations that are actually running right now.
that’s the video series :)
as an example from my own life, i am member of an anarchist trade union. we work local first but also federate together on a national level. the union is not big in my city, so here we focus mainly on legal support and education, but afaik in other cities there are unionized work places that are part of the federation. the decisions there are also made bottom up, by the actual unionized workers, and not by union reps for them.
They paid famous anarchist author Noam Chomsky, and this is in connection to what others have said.
I’ve never read Chomsky.
Checkmate, billionaires.
You should watch Matrix Reloaded
Ehhh they kinda do need an enemy to point at…
No shortage of those.
They can always point at minorities, LGBT+ people, homeless people, etc…