389
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 05 Mar 2026
389 points (99.7% liked)
Memes of Production
1265 readers
1439 users here now
Seize the Memes of Production
An international (English speaking) socialist Lemmy community free of the “ML” influence of instances like lemmy.ml and lemmygrad. This is a place for undogmatic shitposting and memes from a progressive, anti-capitalist and truly anti-imperialist perspective, regardless of specific ideology.
Rules:
Be a decent person.
No racism, sexism, ableism, homophobia, transphobia, zionism/nazism, and so on.
Other Great Communities:
founded 2 months ago
MODERATORS
How does the world currently prevent that? It doesn't, the largest states do as they wish to the smaller ones, and internally the states do what they wish to the citizens. Under anarchism you would defend your community and your communities would defend each other. You can see this in action in places like the Chiapas were communities defend themselves from the state and cartels.
Anarchism is not a world devoid of rules, in fact it's all about rules. Except these are rules mutually-agreed upon by members of the community rather than dictated by politicians with no interest in the well-being of the community.
How do you protect against rapists and murderers? How do you today, do you ring the cops and wait 30 minutes? Under anarchism the community would ensure its own defence, you and your neighbours and everyone else would be empowered to protect yourselves, and you would want to because its your community. At present you must wait for the bastards to show up and maybe do something to help, if not make the situation actively worse.
Why would you want to produce unsafe foods and medicines, there is no profit motive to cut-corners and you are only hurting yourselves.
The expectation is communities would produce resources for themselves, and co-operate with neighbouring communities to share what's needed.
How do you protect yourselves against the 1% today? You don't.
Under anarchism, you actively fight them.
So by that sentiment the world is as it should exist under anarchism. The strongest groups overpowered the lesser groups amd this is where it sits.
Thats the thing. We walked out of the forest under this "system" and kingships, gangs, fiefdoms, and religious conclaves was all we got out of it. What makes you think, particularly in the current climate, that humanity has changed at all enough to not do the exact same thing again.
No, that’s not anarchism, it’s kleptocracy, by definition.
Anarchism means more rules, more intimate regulation of public works, not less. For power to spread out, you have to work to prevent its concentration, or you are just catalyzing a transitional moment in history.
What makes me think we can overcome the sociopathy is that culture has progressed along with our knowledge of the mind, and that the spirit of liberty never dies. A minority are authoritarian, even if it’s a large minority. We do have to counteract the immense amount of propaganda and ideology, however.
Ok, so how do these "more rules" come into existence without some centralized body?
Who gets to decide that? It might seem romantic to say that "everybody does", but how would that go practically?
Like who, comes up with those? Who will explain those rules to others? And most importantly, who will make sure others follow them properly?
Because if everyone gets to decide that on their own if they want to follow a rule or not, then you might as well have no rules since everyone will just do whatever they want.
Rules are decided on at community-level. That could mean a village comes together to collectively decide on rules for their community, which the entire village can participate in. Once everyone is happy with the rules, and with the methods of enforcement chosen, the entire village will be familiar with them, and can then explain those rules to others. They may also federate with other villages and agree to follow a larger set of rules or standards.
You can see a form of this style of society in practice in Rojava (there's also this video for an even more in-depth look at how different aspects of Rojava function).
All youre doing is making government community level.
What even is a community, 5 people 10, 20 , 100. What is the maximum, couldnt you just say modern nation states are just "communities" of millions. Who decides when a 'community' is to big amd how it should be divided. What happens when a community gets so big they either have to implememt population controls or take neighboring community lands. What happens when 2 communities living next to each other develop radically different cultural paths that inately conflict with each other.
Weve already been through this. For thousands of years we lived like this and barely survived. The moment 2 or more communities decide to work together and impose their will on the lands around them its over for everyone else, whatever the motivation.
More people working together equals more power its that simple. And as soon as times get rough it becomes obvious to everyone, painfully for some and excitingly for others. Simply put, its not scalable and will collapse as soon as any community get larger and more hungry than the others.
Bear in mind Rojava, which operates at the commune level, has a population of 4.6 million people of different ethnic and religious backgrounds, with no known major internal conflicts.
Modern nation states have top-down governments, which allows for corruption which is very difficult to eliminate. The Federated Anarchist model has bottom-up systems of governance, where power is far more distributed and thus far more difficult for any corruption to be wide-reaching, and far easier to eliminate.
The community itself can decide that. If the constituents feel it's getting too big, they can form a separate community council that still confers and federates with the original community.
They don't need to implement population controls, they just create more councils that all federate with each other.
In a society of mutual aid, there is no real incentive to take other land. Any excess food or resources can be freely given to their neighbors who need it, as they can expect the same treatment in return. Mutual aid creates interdependent connections that reinforce good-will and cooperation.
None of those societies from thousands of years ago built inter-dependant federations of mutual aid to eliminate resource scarcity, they were top-down monarchies with kings who could arbitrarily declare war over any old thing like ego, resources, maintaining power, etc.
The times horizontally structured societies were tried in recent history, none of them were destroyed by internal conflict, they were always instead targeted and destroyed by external states with centralized exploitative power structures. Only Rojava and the Zapatistas survive, and just like before, Rojava is under extreme threat from Turkey and the new Syrian regime, both of which are centralized state governments who are imposing that force on others without public support from their populace, which is what top-down governments allow.
There would be very little incentive to do that, but if it did happen, the other communities around them who are under threat of this could band together with all of the other communities they federate with in self-defense, similar to how the northern states banded together against the southern slave owning states in the US Civil war.
This shows a fundamental lack of knowledge of how Anarchism functions and avoids those issues. You speak very authoritatively on this subject for someone who I can only suspect has done very little research on it.
And who is in those councils? Elected officials?
And when there are too many councils? Do they create a council for councils?
What you are describing is exactly the same as what we currently have. It isn't a top down government. We've had these councils much longer than we have had governments. But those governments have sprung up naturally because of those councils. And the same will happen if we try to go back.
The only difference between what we now have and what you describe is that you only account for a small percentage of the population that currently exists. Try doing the same for our current population.
No, just more citizens of that community. As an example, imagine instead of different districts of a city just electing some non-recallable representative to make decisions for them in a city council, that instead different neighborhoods got together for meetings to collectively debate on what their part of the city needs, and then once that's decided by consensus, they can then elect a recallable delegate (distinct from a representative) to bring exactly those needs to the wider city council of delegates, who then organize solutions to those problems.
There is a fundamental difference between our current systems of centralized representative democracies and bottom-up federated communities of delegates. The latter is far less effected by corruption, and prevents a top-down government that can dictate to the people without their explicit consent.
I think you’re giving Rojava way more credit as an “anarchist society” than it deserves.
First off, it’s not actually stateless. Rojava has an administration, courts, taxes, and a military. The Syrian Democratic Forces are literally the armed force that controls the territory. That’s basically a monopoly of violence, which is one of the defining traits of a state. It’s decentralized compared to most countries, sure, but it’s still governance.
Second, its survival hasn’t exactly been a pure test of anarchism. It survived largely because it was backed by the US coalition during the fight against Islamic State. Without that support it probably would’ve been crushed years ago by Turkey, ISIS, or the Syrian government. So it’s hard to claim it proves anarchism works when its security depended on external state militaries.
On the corruption point, decentralization doesn’t magically eliminate corruption. It just spreads it out. Instead of one big corrupt structure you get a bunch of smaller ones. Historically that often turns into local strongmen, militias, or patronage networks. Distributed power doesn’t automatically equal clean governance.
The bigger issue though is coordination. Splitting communities whenever they get big sounds nice, but modern societies require huge coordination systems: infrastructure, power grids, supply chains, water systems, environmental regulation, etc. At some point you need mechanisms to coordinate decisions across thousands of groups, and those mechanisms almost always turn hierarchical because hierarchy is efficient for large-scale organization.
And mutual aid doesn’t remove incentives for conflict either. Scarcity still exists. People still compete for water, land, energy, and strategic resources. Cooperation works great inside trusted groups, but once resources get tight the incentives change.
The part that actually reinforces my concern is the “external states destroy them” argument. If decentralized societies consistently lose to centralized ones, that suggests centralized coordination has real advantages in defense and large-scale organization. That’s basically the same evolutionary pressure that produced states in the first place.
At the end of the day I’m not saying decentralized governance can’t work at smaller scales. It clearly can. But once you start federating large numbers of communities together for defense, infrastructure, and dispute resolution, you end up recreating most of the same structures states evolved to solve those problems. You can call them councils or federations instead of ministries, but functionally they’re doing the same job.
You're right that Rojava is not Anarchist, but it was at least inspired by Anarchist theory (Murray Bookchin), and does act as a good example of at least the concept of federations of smaller communities working together, which is why I reference it.
The US did abandon it years ago, but it was able to successfully hold the land it had, and even spread further on its own despite constant attacks from Turkey. Only very recently due a renewed effort from the new Syrian government (which allied with Western powers) combined with much stronger attacks from Turkey have they lost land.
I never claimed it did. But it does make corruption far more difficult take hold, and far more limited in its area of influence. Instead of bribing a handful of the people who hold the keys to power, you'd then have to bribe an entire community to effectively corrupt them. Any individual delegate elected to some position who does become corrupt can be immediately recalled by the community if the corrupt delegate no longer adequately performs the duties assigned by that community.
This usually occurs due to an initial imbalance of power or control of limited resources that is able to be exploited. If every citizen was militarily capable (such as in Switzerland), and each community and person helped each other with mutual aid, resource scarcity would be so reduced that it would be difficult for a strongman to convince others to join him (what would he realistically be able to offer as reward compelling enough to start shooting their neighbors, when they already have their needs met?), especially if the local populace was not significantly weaker militarily than the strongman and their goons.
Right now under centralized democracies, there often already are unelected militias (police forces) which operate on behalf of strongmen (wealthy elites and their interests, under the supposed control of corrupted politicians who are in the pockets of the elites). The elites pay almost no taxes, while the middle class and poor take up all the slack, which effectively becomes an unfair patronage network.
Which was effectively done in Catalonia, with many committees of delegates from various groups, all of which worked together pretty damn well from all accounts. If you want to read how all of that was done and and how well it performed in practice, then I highly recommend reading Sam Dolgoff's The Anarchist Collectives Workers’ Self-Management in the Spanish Revolution, 1936–1939.
The entire point of building a society atop the principles of Mutual Aid and Anarcho-Communist principles is to effectively eliminate the artificial resource scarcity we currently live under. We currently have the technical capability to provide to virtually everyone on the planet enough food, water, and housing right now, even without a star trek replicator, we just don't mostly because of profit incentive, and because a subjugated populace is often more conducive to the interests of the elites.
Many centralized states also consistently lose to other centralized states. The Axis powers were all centralized, but lost to the allies. They didn't lose because they were centralized, they lost because they couldn't support the logistics required to win due to circumstances unrelated to their form of government. The same was true of the decentralized societies, they didn't lose due to some flaw in their choice of societal structure, they lost because literally every other state in the world saw them as a threat to their hold on power.
The tankies betrayed them and crushed them because they were ultimately seeking to become dictators, not liberators, and thus a genuine anarchist revolution is a threat to their hold on power.
The centralized capitalist countries are just as concerned of their hold on power, and the elites are especially concerned with perpetuating capitalism above all else, so they most certainly aren't going to assist a movement that is explicitly against the interests of the capitalist elite.
Had an Anarchist revolution occurred in the US due to the great depression (instead of FDR putting a cap on it with labor reforms), then the Anarchists in Spain could've had a powerful ally to supply them logistically, and they could've won, similar to how the USSR was able to logistically help tankie revolutions into succeeding.
A bottom-up federation of recallable delegates is fundamentally different in practice to a hierarchical centralized representative democracy.
I think we’re actually circling the same issue but drawing different conclusions from it.
You say Rojava is just an example of federated communities working together, which is fine, but the important part is that it only works because it has state-like structures. It has an administration, courts, and a military command structure. Once you have those, you’re already outside anarchism and into decentralized governance.
That’s kind of the point I’m making. Once enough communities federate together to handle things like defense, infrastructure, logistics, etc., you inevitably recreate the same coordination structures states evolved to solve those problems. They might be called councils instead of ministries, but they’re doing the same job.
The corruption argument also doesn’t really work the way you’re framing it. You say someone would have to bribe an entire community instead of a few officials, but that assumes communities behave as a unified rational actor. In reality local politics can be just as corruptible. Social pressure, patronage, intimidation, and local alliances still exist. Decentralization often just spreads power across many smaller political arenas instead of eliminating corruption entirely.
On the “everyone is armed like Switzerland” point, Switzerland actually works because it’s a highly organized state with centralized institutions and logistics. The militia exists inside a coordinated national structure. Without that coordination, widespread armament alone doesn’t produce stability.
The scarcity point also seems a bit optimistic. Even if we solved basic food and housing, scarcity doesn’t disappear. Water rights, strategic land, energy infrastructure, and transportation networks still create conflicts between groups. Mutual aid works great inside trusted networks, but it doesn’t automatically resolve competing priorities between communities.
And on the “they only lost because outside states crushed them” argument — that actually reinforces the structural issue. If decentralized societies consistently require centralized allies to survive against centralized opponents, that suggests centralized coordination has real advantages in defense and large-scale organization.
I’m not saying decentralized governance can’t work or that councils are a bad idea. Local governance often works better than distant centralized control. I’m just skeptical that a system made entirely of federated local councils can scale indefinitely without recreating the same coordination structures states developed.
So I guess the question I keep coming back to is this:
If two communities strongly disagree over something critical — say water access, land use, or infrastructure — and neither side is willing to back down, who ultimately enforces the final decision?
That's not what I meant.
They don't require centralized allies, nor do they necessarily require strategic allies at all depending on the circumstances.
The point I was making was if the US had undergone a Catalonia style anarchist revolution nationwide in the 1930's, It then would've been able to render aid to Catalonia, which had much less productive capacity pre-revolution, and thus could not out-logistic the 4-on-1 battle they faced. As an aside, an Anarchist US would not be dependent upon outside help to defend itself militarily from Mexico or Canada, had they wished to intervene. Nor would any other nation have been able to interfere due to the logistics of landing an invasion force and holding all that territory, or competing against the industrial capacity of the US.
I was also pointing out that in the specific scenarios where this style of organization was attempted but destroyed, they were destroyed due to their specific circumstances, not due to any aspects of it being decentralized. You appear unfamiliar with the details of both the Spanish Civil War and the Ukrainian Black Army which would make that apparent, otherwise you would not be making such blanket statements.
It would be like if I pointed to Germany losing in WWI or France quickly falling at the start of WWII purely due to both having a centralized governments. That would be an absurd statement because each lost for a multitude of reasons including logistics, war fatigue, tactics, the specific defense treaties they had signed before hand, etc.
What research are you referencing when making that statement? What is or is not a trusted network?
If there were large Anarchist territories, the places with abundance could transfer that excess to the places that need it, or people could easily move away from places with scarce resources to places with them, as they would not be land-locked to their particular area due to poverty. A large mutual aid network really does solve the problem of scarcity. If you want to see that depicted in a very realistic and sensible matter, I implore you to read The Dispossessed by Ursula LeGuin.
I don't mean this as an insult or to demean you in any way, but I think that without you personally wanting to do more research into this area to go beyond the surface level idea or theory, you will likely always remain skeptical of it regardless of its efficacy. This is a natural response, as you're already quite familiar with how our current systems operate, and they're quite old, so they seem quite viable just by their very nature of being the current default.
I've proved some research material in my previous comments, and I could provide more if you're interested, but ultimately I don't think any of my arguments will be terribly convincing without the real-world context to back it up, which is out there, but I realistically cannot provide all of that in a comment chain.
Before we keep going, I want to point out something that keeps happening in this thread.
Several times now when a structural problem gets raised, the response shifts away from the actual mechanism and toward theory, examples, or suggestions that I just need to read more. That’s not really answering the question.
For example earlier you argued that anarchist societies fail because centralized states destroy them:
But when I pointed out that repeated defeat by centralized systems suggests centralized coordination might provide advantages in logistics and defense, the response became:
That’s moving the goalposts. Those cases can’t simultaneously be evidence that anarchism works and irrelevant when someone analyzes why they failed.
The same thing happened with scarcity. Earlier the explanation was:
When I raised resource conflicts, the answer became:
But that isn’t actually addressing the issue. That is the logistics problem. Saying resources can be moved doesn’t explain how a system coordinates that movement across large territories without creating large coordination structures.
The Switzerland example also ends up reinforcing the same point. You said:
But Switzerland’s militia system works inside a highly organized federal state with centralized logistics, infrastructure planning, and national command structures. The armed population doesn’t replace those institutions — it operates alongside them.
And if the argument is that widespread armament prevents power concentration, the United States should be the clearest counterexample. It has one of the most heavily armed civilian populations in the world, yet power has still concentrated in many of the exact ways you claim militias would prevent — corporate capture of politics, entrenched political elites, expanding bureaucracies, and increasing economic centralization.
So the issue clearly isn’t just whether people are armed. It’s how large systems coordinate power.
At this point there’s also the repeated suggestion that I simply need to read more to understand the issue:
Disagreement isn’t evidence that someone hasn’t read enough. Looking at the same cases — Catalonia, Rojava, the Black Army — and drawing a different conclusion is not ignorance. It’s interpretation.
What I’ve consistently asked about, and what still hasn’t been directly addressed, is the operational mechanism when cooperation fails.
So I’ll ask it again directly:
If two communities strongly disagree about something critical — water rights, land use, energy infrastructure, whatever — and neither side is willing to back down, who actually enforces the resolution?
Because if nobody enforces it, then the stronger group simply imposes its will. And if a federation, council, or militia enforces it, then you’ve created a governing authority performing the same coordination and enforcement roles states historically evolved to perform.
That’s the piece I still haven’t seen a clear explanation for.
If there is a clear answer to that question that doesn’t eventually recreate some kind of durable authority structure performing those roles, I’m genuinely interested in hearing it.
But if the answer just circles back to “the councils,” “the federation,” or “mutual aid,” without explaining how conflicts are actually resolved when communities refuse the outcome, then we’re just going in circles. At that point there isn’t much left to debate here, because the core mechanism that the whole system depends on still hasn’t been explained.
It's just meeting after meeting, allow the way down. DIY governance is a lot of negotiation.
I don't think that's fair, though it is funny. Lumpen feels like a dedicated Anarchism propogandist to me.
(I don't attach any positive or negative connotation to "propogandist" here)
Well, you could say ‘advocate’ instead, as propagandist is pejorative in common usage, this is a forum not a private journal.
I suppose that's fair. Thanks.
I'm not sure anarchism could work as well on paper as it would in real life. I think close examples are when a country loses it's hierarchical structure and the void is typically filled with extremists or the most violent and well armed individuals who than instate a new hierarchy. The people have a chance to establish an anarchist society, but are never able to or incapable of doing so.
If you look at governing systems like these as organisms. Anarchism is too weak to defend against stronger power struggles and will always be consumed from within and without by a larger status quo, just because human nature is to establish systems and group together. Eventually that grows so much conflicts on ideals on how the opposing systems should operate arise, one sees the other as counter to their ways and conflict eventually ensues.
Even in Anarchism there are different ideals on how it should be achieved. With those nuance differences that would eventually come to some immovable beliefs that would cause larger systems to develop to overpower differences.
A lot of people don't want to govern themselves or be involved in the complexity of making community decisions. They'd rather have someone else do that and eventually that someone else becomes a leader and that path leads to a hierarchy.
I think the age of simplicity that Anarchism brings is left in the past of our evolutionary progress of organized systems. Great idea, but proven it will never hold because it's more of a transitional state that will eventually grow into complexity it's principles can't answer anymore.
The Zapatistas have been capable for 30 years.
The sudden collapse of a state is not the ideal case for successful anarchist revolution, true. Pre-revolutionary Anarchism is like a fetus or a botfly larva, developing new functions and larger cooperatives over time while living inside a host. Growing more resilient until it is strong enough to survive without the host. If the host dies, wolves come to eat the host and the fetus/larva gets eaten too, but if the anarchist community grows strong enough to burst forth under its own power then it can resist other threats.
At that point they can still get bodied by something stronger or more powerful, but the same goes for every organism. Unfortunately for the past century the US has been going around the world murdering leftist movements like a housecat in a park with native bird species. When US hegemony collapses, the resulting power struggle could serve as a distraction for anarchist movements to burst forth and have no rulers above them, hopefully allowing them to grow strong enough to face whatever the new global power balance becomes.
That takes us outside the realm of anarchist historical examples, though a good analogy would be the anticolonial movements in Africa and south Asia that massively grew in power during WW1 and WW2, resulting in European nations having to decolonize afterward. Still, we can imagine anarchist communities continuing to grow to fill the available space and using their anarchic structures to be more productive and prosperous than capitalism or state communism (there's a lot of research showing that happier, unalienated people doing what they choose to be doing are way more productive than people being ordered to do something until they are exhausted).
Through their prosperity and shared creed, anarchist communities across the world can be in solidarity to defend themselves against whatever passes for a hegemon in the post-US world, as the people of nation-states see their prosperity and pursue anarchic reform or revolution in their own countries. And so the entire world could become anarchist.
Anarchism grows when people agree to work together towards a common goal. When there is disagreement on how to move forward, people negotiate and hopefully find a way to join forces. Between communities with different methodologies, this is called a federation. If disagreement builds, communities can defederate from one another, and people can switch community if they want. Or disagreement can shrink and communities can intermingle to the point you don't even notice which is which. Lemmy is an anarchic federation of admins (though the admins are unfortunately still the monarch of their servers).
So, given we are here talking on Lemmy across instances, clearly differences of opinion aren't enough to blow up an anarchic federation. Association is voluntary but we all want to communicate despite our differences, and we all want to defeat reddit. An anarchic federation emerging in a multipolar post-US world would have threats aplenty to keep them unified in the short term, and in the long term their growing strength gives them the luxury of defederating over minutiae if they really want to without their societies collapsing.
I don't want to clean the toilet either, but I'm gonna. Governance is a chore, and you don't get to skip out on your chores because you don't like it. And yes, charismatic leader-types exist, and it's the duty of every anarchist to get those people away from power and to have structures that prevent them from gaining power.
First off, don't accept a single-point-of-contact. Communities should always send at least two people as representatives to be taken seriously. Second, if they keep sending the same person, ask them to switch it up. Redundancy is healthy. Third, check up on them, and if their community is hierarchical, try to help them with that and don't entrust their representatives with important tasks. Thus the hierarchy doesn't spread and can hopefully be dissolved in time.
Anarchism is more complex than hierarchy and more capable of handling complexity than hierarchy. The set of "simple rules" of anarchy are equivalent to hierarchy's one rule of "listen to the boss unless you can become the boss". Hierarchy is like trying to build an organism with only two kinds of base pairs, where anarchy has four. Anarchic structures are more complex, more flexible, more diverse, more capable of adapting to circumstances using the same volume of ideological payload.
Hierarchy has people out here living in western European-style housing in the tropics and impotently complaining about the heat. Hierarchy has people sleepwalking through life, permanently exhausted and unable to place or act on the staggering array of feelings they have because it doesn't serve the interests of those with power over them.
But in anarchy? Those feelings are used. Our social instincts aren't just reactivated, they are placed in a context where they do productive work. And like a human is more capable of throwing a rock at a target than doing the trajectory calculations for a thrown rock, so too are people more competent at local governance than at voting for a representative they've never met. People empathize with migrants face to face but can demonize what they see on TV.
Political issues that have plagued hierarchy for decades become solvable in hours when people are in the same room as those their decisions affect and left to make the choice for themselves. Little gets delegated to broader circles, so that by the time to former nation-state level governance, there is very little for representatives to do. People are just out there handling their own shit. Even globally relevant functions like the linux codebase or unit standardization can be staffed by the willing and adopted by the willing as they currently are, without intervention by a federal circle.
Anarchism is the next step in that path. Instead of rigid systems that are immutable, anarchism is a fluidic organisational system that can adapt and respond based on the needs at the time. It's biology vs circuity. One is etched into plastic forever unchanging, the other grows new branches and drops old as needed.
Simply by being here on the Fediverse you are showing a preference for this dynamic interconnected system over a rigid top-down controlled one.
If history proved one thing, it is that we as humanity had never a time when everyone would compromise with each other.
Communism on paper is fucking fire! In reality it is fucked up. And the main reason is us, humans. Doubt that Anarchy would be much different.
Yeah I think this is the core problem that most people discussing anarchism, for and against, miss.
Outsourcing governance to authority is less work, on the surface. Of course, that then creates endless other problems, but the connection of these issues to outsourcing governance is not obvious.