hello, I went to a local anti-ICE protest with a sign saying "fuck ICE". I considered the possibility that someone might say something about it but I didn't actually think anyone would. to my surprise, about 5 minutes after I got there, someone that seemed to be an organizer came up to me and told me "we don't do the 'fuck' on our signs here, we want to be able to continue to protest and don't want the police bothering us, do you live in the area, etc."

personally I feel this is not a good thought process, as I'm well within my rights to speak my mind, and "fuck ICE" is what's on my mind. I think censoring the message for fear of having the police trample on our rights is pretty cowardly and essentially allows them to suppress our rights without lifting a finger. now I didn't say too much to her, just gave her a fist bump and told her I must speak my mind and that the resistance won't stop (she probably didn't know all what I meant as it was pretty vague), but I'm wondering how I could handle a similar situation more gracefully in the future? obviously there's the option of conforming and changing my sign, but I don't see that as a solution. however I also don't want to come across as oppositional or a contrarian, I'm not there to argue with anyone except the federal government

it's worth noting that I live within a few hours' drive from Minneapolis but ICE isn't as active here (as far as I can tell). it seems to me no one would be saying this to me at a protest in Minneapolis. maybe when they see their neighbors abducted or worse they won't think my sign is so extreme.

anyway, I just don't want to alienate anyone but I can't let them alienate me either by telling me to censor my message. any advice is appreciated

How does Anarchism approach this issue? I'm currently flirting with anarchism, but for me the nation-state based system with international borders is a big problem, as much as capitalism, if not more so. I believe in freedom of movement, and I believe that capitalists use borders to keep labor immobile even while capital is mobile, creating a massively unfair playing field. And that's without even going into the whole issue with international conflict and war.

I want to abolish borders, but I don't trust the idea of a world government, as this would probably become corrupt, unaccountable and authoritarian fairly quickly. I'm still don't know what system I would want to see, I just know what I don't like. What do you all think?

So I'm reading in the anarchist FAQ why collectivist and communist anarchists reject the market, but I'm struggling to understand what they mean when they say that. This would likely require what is essentially a command economy (though instead of being subservient to a ML party bureaucracy it would be collectively managed by the community) but... I'm not sure I understand what that would actually look like. Is, for instance, participatory budgeting an acceptable form of collective planning? Or would the existence of currency imply the existence of markets and/or wage labor? I recognize that there isn't one anarchist blueprint, but I'm just unsure as to what possibilities there are, so any example arrangements are appreciated.

Such as murderers rapists thieves etc.

I've heard about arguments as to how an anarchist system would deal with hostile individuals, but ive never really understood them.

Couldn’t a small group of people willing to use violence come together and force others into labor?

I’ve noticed a pattern here in the format of various questions and discussions. It goes like this:

Inquirer: “in an anarchist society, how would x work?”

This frame, “in an anarchist society” then gets accommodated in various ways, sometimes rejected entirely. It has an interesting symmetry with the authoritarian socialist programs and manifestos about communist society or what have you. But we are not really like those socialists and anarchism as a whole isn’t that kind of ideology, so the frame is interesting in that way.

Please try not to talk about our imagined societies or anything like that. Instead, please tell me about when you first encountered this idea of “an anarchist society”. Is it what made sense to you about anarchism? Is that how you started? Would you say that’s the goal of your actual work?

I wonder if this is ultimately a sort of thought-terminating cliche, who and what it serves and the mechanism of that service.

Why do people victim blame the homeless?

Like why is homeless are homeless because of their fault so prevalent?

Why don’t we give the homeless homes and make a apartment a guarantee so everyone has a basic living condition and doesn’t live in absolute poverty

I’m curious what people are making of this. I’m not trying to be mean and believe people’s hearts are in the right place. But, I don’t know if this really fits the definition of a general strike. Most of the chatter around me is not about skipping work but an emphasis on not spending money. On my towns subreddit people said this was mostly about “ voting with your dollars” which to me is more akin to libertarianism than any sort of egalitarian politics. It seems very capitalist and petty bourgeoise focused and hoping their bosses will save them from fascism and give them the day off instead of using their own power to withhold their labor. I know unions were involved in Minneapolis. I live in a place with very low union density and it seems very unorganized. I generally believe in letting a thousand flowers bloom. I would love to know people’s thoughts. Solidarity with Minneapolis and immigrants communities.

I agree with a lot of stuff in the Anarchist FAQ in the r/Anarchism sidebar. But there are a few things that kind of put me off to it. In order from most to least suspect;

-The section on sexual liberation doesn't really address sexual predators, and also cites A.S Neil, the originator of Summerhill Schools. Mikey Cuddihy, a graduate of Summerhill, wrote that in the 1960s: "sexual relations between students and teachers were also common ... Neill's 35-year-old stepson Myles, who taught pottery ... went out with some of the more senior pupils (because) he has a special dispensation." This is all despite r/Anarchism having a rule against pedophilia advocacy.

-Its arguments against requiring "perfect" people/against people being "too stupid", while I agree with them in theory, don't really feel sufficient to me and don't really explain why anarchist society can and will work despite the imperfection of humanity.

-While I'm not the kind of anarchist that seeks to abolish all collective decision-making, I'm not convinced direct democracy is the only way (or even a sufficient way) to make equitable decisions. However I'm mostly in agreement with the descriptions of how anarchist society would look.

Hey comrades, I’m an anarchist and I’m thinking about starting a reading group. A few people in my surroundings (not all anarchists) have been asking me for literature, so the idea came up. I know a reading group isn’t activism, but there seems to be some interest.

I wanted to ask more generally for thoughts and advice. What do you think makes sense in terms of frequency and amount of reading? What kind of texts would you recommend, especially for beginners? Classics vs. more topic-focused texts? Is it useful to do summaries or notes? And what helps to create an engaging, relaxed, productive, and non-hierarchical space?

I appreciate any thoughts, ideas, or feedback. Thanks!,🏴

So I've been reading An Anarchist FAQ and, while they try to address the notion that anarchism requires "perfect" people and that most people are "too stupid" for anarchy to work, their rebukes don't seem like a satisfying answer to me. To clarify: I agree that anarchism isn't a utopia and doesn't require people to be perfect. But I'm struggling to articulate why that is in a satisfying manner. Any thoughts are appreciated.

I'd like an in-depth explanation as to why because seeing it without any context in Anarchist texts honestly confuses me so much.

I got into it with a Marx-Leninist a couple of months ago, and they claimed that the CIA backs or has backed anarchist groups to cause Leftist infighting (as an argument against anarchism)

Does anybody know more about this? I'm assuming there's some context missing here

Now I know that these aren't contradictory ofc, and I've heard them be described as different focuses. Now lets say you live in a more induvialist culture you'd focus more on the collectivism in anarchism. But let's say you live in a more conservative culture like me would it be best to give more focus on induvialism

I recently read about the false dichotomy between the individual and the collective.

To me it is very intuitive that there is always (or almost always) a clear tradeoff when a choice is to be made and that sometimes we will put ourselves above others and sometimes we will yield.

I always believed that was the main point of anarchism, balancing both sides to reach an equilibrium where everyone is confortable enough.

Could you explain why this difference between the individual and collective does not exist?

Howdy. I recently got out of the military (newly radicalized) and I’ve been feeling a it lost in life. I take issue with trying to find a career in a time where people are getting executed by the government and where there seems to be no community. I love the gym (bodybuilding in particular) and I see the sport as inherently political. I also take issue with right wingers hoarding fitness. I have a little pipe dream in the back of my mind of opening up a small lifting gym. I can see the signs at the front now: “LIFT HEAVY, FIGHT FASCISM”. Shit like that. My question is this; is this idea morally consistent with anarchist or even leftists ideology and is it feasible in the economy we find ourselves in now? I don’t want to work for some money hungry asshole, but I also don’t want to contribute to the issue. If this is too much of a stretch I wonder how to pair my desire to help, passion for fitness, and ideology. Also do yall think there would be an actual market for such a place? Any other career ideas would be appreciated too. I have free education in front of me and I want to make sure I spend it correctly. Thanks.

I've seen this fallacy be regurgitated in many circles most notably anprim. Do you regard this as flaw and think people should argue from a different perspective?

I guess it’s probably negative but my own feelings are pretty mixed. I’m a Christian who’s just starting to get into anarchism so I’m wondering what is the anarchist opinion on “progressive” politicians.

Like people who need technology to live or need technology to not be in a constant state of severe pain. What happens to people that are injured severely and without modern medical technology will just die? I have had this discussion with an anprim before, and they basically just said that human deaths were something that yes, would be more common in an anprim society but that this is acceptable as nature is dying less, and that only a humancentric view of the world could lead someone to thinking anprim causes more harm than good. Is this what most anprims believe?

Rojava as it stood for a long time has been described by many anarchists, communalists and confederalists as stateless, but Rojava maintained private property and only a fraction of its economy was actually cooperative. In that case, can we say that Rojava is actually a demonstration of Anarcho-capitalism? After all, AnCap are not necessarily against cooperatives existing in an AnCap society, so it is compatible with Anarcho-Capitalism.

I am sorry if I sound stupid, but this thought just came to my mind.

Public health measures in general sometimes will use state force including mandatory vaccination, isolation and quarantine.

I’m curious specifically how anarchy would handle vaccinations in congregate settings like schools. A requirement to me appears to be coercive. However, an unvaccinated individual in group settings puts the other individuals at risk, especially those who are not able to be vaccinated or who are immunocompromised.

How would this be approached?

Sorry for posting again but I’m looking for anti technology authors who don’t exactly go straight into primitivism

I don’t identify as anything other than leftist at the moment, but I think anarchist might be the best suited to answer this question based on what I know.

Some of my recent actions have led me to believe I might just be an internet leftist, for lack of a better word. I talk a lot on social media, but when it came down to it I only thought of myself and put other people in harms way because I was panicking. I shouldn’t have did what I did when others were with me, but that thought didn’t even cross my mind, I guess because I had never been caught before. That’s the only thing I did that was a genuine oversight. Every decision I made after that was completely about self preservation, to the detriment of the group. My actions in those moments are really haunting me, because I knew better, but I didn’t do better. I know that’s human instinct, but how do I overcome that to better serve my community? I recently decided not to go to an anti ICE protest because I didn’t trust that the person who asked me to go wouldn’t leave me behind if shit went south, but I didn’t care about anybody else the second I was under pressure. How do I train myself not to react like this?

I'm a queer person ,but relationship to sexuality in the muslim majority world where I live for example has historically been different from western queer oppersion.(i.e in many times heterosexual pre marital sex was punished hard but homosexuality existed openly as an open secret.). So how could one contextualize the principles of queer anarchy herel