this post was submitted on
334 points (88% like it)
385 up votes 51 down votes

Anarchism

unsubscribe29,992 readers

~45 users here now

Anarchism is a social movement that seeks to abolish oppressive systems. Anarchists advocate a self-managed, classless, stateless society where everyone takes collective responsibility for the health and prosperity of their community.

/r/Anarchism is for discussing topics relevant to anarchism, the moderation structure and policies aren't intended to be an example of an anarchist society. If you join the discussion here, we assume that you are an anarchist, an ally, or want to learn more about anarchism. Review the Anti-Oppression Policy to see how you can help make space for marginalized people.

  1. #redditanarchism on irc.freenode.net
  2. Confederation of Anarchist Reddits

Please post topics about moderation, subreddit policies, etc. to /r/metanarchism


Resources

An important note on security culture

Anarchy101's Canon of Anarchist Works

An Anarchist FAQ | r/Anarchism's FAQ

The Anarchist Library | Zine Library

Infoshop | Anarchist Black Cat

Indymedia | War on Society

Libcom.org | Anarcha.org

#redditanarchism on irc.freenode.net


Related Subreddits (Together)

Why does /r/Anarchism have moderators?

Guidelines for new moderator nominations

Moderator logs: /r/anarchism and /r/meta

Spam and deleted stuff and moderator chat

created by veganbikepunka community for

reddit is a source for what's new and popular online. vote on links that you like or dislike and help decide what's popular, or submit your own! learn more ›

all 77 comments

[–]hierarchyhitmann 16 points17 points ago

So far, the comments in this thread are pretty insightful and educational, but to call this "The Greatest Thread"?

You might be selling yourself a bit short there.

[–]b1azeichi 15 points16 points ago

He meant the "Greatest Threat." It is a typo, I believe.

[–]InjectThePoison 8 points9 points ago

He was joking. I believe they call it sarcasm.

[–]b1azeichi 3 points4 points ago

Sarcasm, eh. I'll try baking that later on. Know of any good sarcasm recipes?

[–]InjectThePoison 1 point2 points ago

The trick is to add some humor with just a tad bit of condescendence.

[–]b1azeichi 1 point2 points ago

Ah, okay. I'll be sure to add that to my recipe.

[–]haydensane[S] 2 points3 points ago

It was indeed a typo.

[–]b1azeichi 2 points3 points ago

See, I CAN read the OP's mind!

[–]Levy_Wilson 9 points10 points ago

So I'm assuming he knows how to make his own charcoal for that grill? I don't see much in the way of woods in the picture.

[–]Americium 13 points14 points ago

Pshh. Stop asking questions.

/s

[–]GrymFandango 9 points10 points ago

If he doesn't know, maybe his neighbour knows. This is not an issue. The issue is getting people to help each other for the good of the community and not just to get theirs.

[–]Greyletter 6 points7 points ago

He also has an ore mine to make his metal tools.

[–]dumnezero 2 points3 points ago

You need a forge to do that, not a mine.

[–]Greyletter 5 points6 points ago

You need a mine to get the material. But yes, you also need a forge.

[–]Cariocecus 0 points1 point ago

Solar grill?

[–]edselford 0 points1 point ago

Peat FTW

[–]ChuckFinale 4 points5 points ago

This sounds more like Jeffersonian Settlerism than socialism.

[–]jackolas 12 points13 points ago

Fuck anti-consumerism. It's a terrible critique and alienates people for little cause. Capitalism isn't going down because you didn't buy goods from xyz corp. It's the same logic as buying ethical fair trade crap, just slightly more coherent.

It is impossible to act ethically inside capitalism that's why we oppose it.

[–]CunningAllusionment 20 points21 points ago

Divesting from targeted supply chains and keeping capital local won't "crash the system" but it can improve conditions and communities to the point that anarchist relationships become more feasible.

[–]bl4ckb4dg3r5 0 points1 point ago

Yes, a mass movement or large institutions divesting could make a change but consumerism is all about the individual.

[–]LassieMcIntosh 35 points36 points ago

I think anticomsumerism has its place as one tool among many others. What's most important is that we aren't fooled into believing we're just consumers, and that the only thing we can do to help is to just consume differently.

[–]jackolas 9 points10 points ago

it's just super-privileged and something that we have to question critically constantly.

[–]LassieMcIntosh 6 points7 points ago

Yeah, it is super privileged. But when we can use our privilege for good, I think we're obligated to. I think.

[–]jackolas 6 points7 points ago

Absolutely. I just don't think that "fair trade" is the good we want.

Supporting coops? Fuck yes.

[–]pizzabox 4 points5 points ago

Fuck yes coops!!

[–]CultureofInsanity 0 points1 point ago

Fair trade isn't anti-consumerism. Burning down a billboard is anti-consumerism.

[–]jackolas 0 points1 point ago

It's the same strain of thought. Removing a billboard doesn't belittle and insult people for using the benefits of their productive capacity. It's complaining if only people stopped buying things or some crap. It's all based in a deluded fallacy that consumer choice is politically relevant.

[–]NelsonBig 12 points13 points ago

In an anarchistic society, everything should be questioned. To simply say "Fuck" this or that is very dismissive and counterproductive.

Rather, we should all have informed discussions on the possible benefits and/or drawbacks of any and all theories.

[–]kingr8 5 points6 points ago

In any society, for that matter.

[–]Turtley 2 points3 points ago

Yeah, it is super-privileged. Do you refuse to utilize that privilege to try and do some good?

[–]ChickenOfDoom 5 points6 points ago

What about simply avoiding spending in general? Reduced consumer spending has caused a lot of problems for the status quo in recent years.

Here's how I see it: you're right about it being impossible to act ethically within capitalism, because by spending money you are exerting coercive force on others. But the less we collectively spend, the weaker the power of that force; the man-hours commanded by capitalistic forces decrease. If you have no choice but to cause harm, it's better to cause less if you can.

[–]haydensane[S] 5 points6 points ago

The realization that you don't need to be a rabid consumer is the first step to the elimination of capitalism. No one is saying it's enough in itself, but without it, nothing further can come.

[–]GrymFandango 11 points12 points ago

Did you just say "fuck anti-consumerism... that's why we oppose capitalism" in the same post?

Ok I see that you're trying to make a point about extremes, I think, but consumerism is the foundation of capitalism. So unless you're an anarcho-capitalist, you would probably not be down with the type of consumerism going on in society today.

I'm sure we're on the same level here, you just have a very funny way of saying it.

You're right about constantly having to question everything critically though. Maybe that's where you're coming from on this comment. I totally agree with that, no question. ;)

[–]jackolas 11 points12 points ago

consumerism is the foundation of capitalism

Not really, capital accumulation is. Consumerism is a byproduct of today's capitalism. It may drive some capitalist company's profits... but it is not to be confused with capitalism. This is a serious problem when talking to people. Because they interact with our "free market" in a totally non-market way that isn't that dependent on the economic system as much as privilege and wealth.

[–]jf_ftw 0 points1 point ago

ehhh, there many people and smaller companies that act ethically in capitalism. So I disagree on that point. Capitalism just gives greedy people the best avenue to exploit others. It really doesn't help when the state makes it illegal for corporations to act ethically, as They are required by American law to maximize profit for the shareholders. That's really how we've fucked up the world in the last hundred years.

[–]ItAteEverybody 0 points1 point ago

Comparatively ethically

Which is admirable in its own way, but it's still kind of like being the person who clubs the least amount of seals on the Arctic expedition. Sure, you're more ethical that the person who insisted on wrapping his club in razor wire, but there's still something left to be desired.

[–]LassieMcIntosh 1 point2 points ago

Can you give an example?

[–]jf_ftw -1 points0 points ago

Are you serious? Yea all those mom and pop restaurants and b&b's are really acting unethically. Do you live in a capitalist country? If so, do you live ethically?

[–]LassieMcIntosh 1 point2 points ago

No need for ad hominems here.

But I think it's reasonable to say that a restaurant will not survive unless it (a) pays the farmer less than what his/her food is worth and/or (b) charges the customer more than what the food is worth. It also must pay its workers less than what the work is actually worth, of course, because otherwise the restaurant owners wouldn't be turning a profit. And I don't think it's a stretch to say that these practices are unethical. I don't blame the "mom and pop restaurants;" I blame capitalism. But ethics is ethics, and I calls 'em like I sees 'em.

[–]jf_ftw 0 points1 point ago

That's not an ad hominem.

I guess I just wanted if you really think if everyone is unethical. Sad worldview.

[–]LassieMcIntosh 1 point2 points ago

Capitalism is unethical. Given the amount of propaganda, counter-revolutionary activity, economic hardship, and sheer inertia people have to overcome in order not to participate in it, I'm not sure I could say that people who participate in capitalism are themselves unethical. But capitalism forces people to do unethical things.

[–]TheSelfGoverned 0 points1 point ago

The money trail:

You ---> xyz corporation ---> Rich shareholders, which had ZERO part in producing and supplying the product or service.

[–]LassieMcIntosh 0 points1 point ago

Oh, yes. I meant to ask for an example of a company that acts ethically within the confines of capitalism.

[–]jackolas 0 points1 point ago

I guess really what I mean is that the only ethical choice is to fight the system in differing ways. I'm probably framing this poorly. You can just ignore the second half, I'm trying to borrow from the soul of a man under socialism one of my favorite texts.

[–]weltpolitik 1 point2 points ago

Being anti-consumerist doesn't necessarily imply one is anti-consumer. We are all compromised.

[–]manwithnostomach 2 points3 points ago

the only kind of 'contentment' western society values is the contentment with being unhealthy, insecure, undesiring of professional mobility or real self improvement which comes internally. Rather they want you over-worked, depressed, sheepish, feeling like shit about yourself, unhealthy, so they can continue to cure all your ills, entertain you and "connect" you with your fellow man, help you "get the girl", and be cool. They want to give you something tasty, then help you lose weight.

They don't want any kind of communal connections formed organically, they don't want a peaceful contentment with life, they don't want any kind of self sustainability when it comes to food or any other service for that matter. They need...to be needed, to have control.

[–]mahpton 1 point2 points ago

Meh. What this guy is actually saying is:

  • I am happy wasting my time doing unnecessary manual labor that has long since been mechanized. Fuck buying things, I'm gonna loom my own clothes clothes and shovel dirt.

  • I hate industry. Technology just lets the man control you. To hell with actually fighting the man, I'm just going to opt-out and live off the land.

  • I am happy with my enormous plot of land. I don't care that this land could be put to better use because I'm too good to live in an urban area. All the animals who depend on land like this are out of luck because me living my nostalgic farm boy lifestyle is more important.

  • I don't actually care about bettering myself. I am happy letting my irrational sense of satisfaction drive my life to dormancy.

[–]TheSelfGoverned 13 points14 points ago

Or...it is a free country and he can choose to live how he sees fit?

I don't actually care about bettering myself. I am happy letting my irrational sense of satisfaction drive my life to dormancy.

Deprogram yourself.

[–]Very_Clevar 0 points1 point ago

Technology just lets the man control you.

This is entirely true, considering which groups direct the path of technology. Technology is empowering to anyone who can obtain access to it. In general that means people who are already empowered have the greatest access to technology, and this establishes a beautiful hierarchy.

[–]nillotampoco 1 point2 points ago

You can grow what you need for a family of four on less than 2 acres with modern techniques, organically, this isn't the stone age. And think if you used those techniques in a commune to feed yourselves and provide organic produce to your surrounding community? Beautiful.

[–]criticalnegation 0 points1 point ago

make him brown and you pretty much have the history of colonialism.

[–]MikeBoda[M] -1 points0 points ago

Removed. Anti-civilization means anti-anarchism.

[–]ItAteEverybody 2 points3 points ago

Seeing as this thread has a pretty high level of support, you may have to qualify that a little more.

[–]Victor_VVV 1 point2 points ago

It is still there.

[–]MikeBoda 0 points1 point ago

Reddit user ItAteEverybody re-approved it.

[–]CultureofInsanity 1 point2 points ago

You don't think green anarchism is a valid type of anarchism? It's not like the guy in the picture is a primitivist or anything.

[–]MikeBoda 1 point2 points ago

While primies tend to be anti-agraculture, an anti-civilization movement that supported agriculture would be just as brutal and anti-working class. Look at Pol-Pot's "year zero" policy in Cambodia where intellectuals were mass executed, city dwellers were forced to the country to do manual labor, and the overall standard of living massively declined.

All anarchists are for living in harmony with the earth: stopping habitat destruction, living sustainably, reducing harmful pollution, etc. However, we are not in favor of destroying civilization or advanced industry.

[–]CultureofInsanity -1 points0 points ago

Look, I'm not saying you have to agree with it but green anarchism is a large and respected group (even if not by you). To say they are "anti-anarchist" is just silly.

[–]MikeBoda 1 point2 points ago

I see anarchism as a historic class struggle movement: one that toppled states, carried out general strikes, defeated the church, etc.

I don't think most hippies, crusties, and college kid activists who call themselves "anarchists" today have anything to do with that movement.

[–]CultureofInsanity 0 points1 point ago

So you're just going to remove any posts that have to do with green activistm, ELF/ALF, tree sits, monkeywrenching, etc? I'm not saying you can't but this is something where you need to get community consensus to make sure that the rest of the community feels the same way.

[–]MikeBoda 1 point2 points ago

Directly opposing civilization is anti-anarchist. Anti-civ propaganda should be removed.

I never said I was opposed to green activism. While we may not have political agreement with every person who has carried out an ELF action, we should still explore the political implications of sabotage, monkey-wrenching, etc. An act carried out by someone who is anti-civ can be a topic of discussion here.

Direct agitation against civilization, however, means advocating a brutal ideology that has no connection with the historic anarchist movement, and that, in fact, directly opposes many of our aims: increased autonomy, federalism, worker control of industry, a rising standard of living, a scientific/materialist world-view, etc.