No gods. No masters.
Categorizing anarchists is one of the most ironic things I’ve seen today.
The core of anarchism is the rejection of imposed structures and rigid definitions. By categorizing anarchists into boxes, you are replicating the very authoritarian logic that anarchism seeks to dismantle. Oh the irony.
I don’t know, I haven’t been to Anarchist Hogwarts.
I am an anarchist without adjectives.
Internally I feel closest to “nihilism”.
But socially I usually roll with “anarchism” because it’s easier, better understood. and slightly less crazy sounding. I’m sympathetic to any “legit” branch of anarchism.
Anarcho-monarchist, I want to praise the emperor, but I don’t want to pay taxes. /s
Anarcho-communism, but as a guiding principle rather than a rigid blueprint. I.e. as long as it’s freely associated, horizontal, internationalist, and anti-state, I’m down. We don’t have to agree on the internal details.
The beauty of decentralized, free association.
So long as we agree on a few basics, we will associate with you and share as freely as we wish. When you decide to turn off the street lamps is up to your community and I got no business telling you otherwise. You start throwing weight around or we find you’re keeping slaves then someone is biting a curb.
Seeing all these sub labels just overwhelms me. What I want is simple. People being able to live in a way that works with nature rather than against nature such as exploitation or domination.
While I appreciate the values of what anarchism has to offer, I don’t want to wear the label of anarchist. I’m too complex to be contained to a single idea.
Fair enough.
They are mostly mandatory anarchy ingredients, apart primitivism and individualism which are reactionary theories.
I agree with you on primitivism, but calling individualists reactionary is delusional
I’d love to know what’s really different between -communism, -collectivism, -syndicalism and -mutualism because they all sit well with me (I’m assuming “communism” refers to the end state of society and not the bolshevik autoritarism)
Anarcho beanist
Go on…
Imagine beans. Uninhibited by sauce. I think the rest is pretty clear.
Although if I had to pick a sauce it would be smokey BBQ.
Anarcho-syndicalism, with a healthy dose of pacifism. I hold no illusions though, the final general strike that will liberate us from capitalism will be violent, and we’ll need to fight back. I’ll find a role in the strike that doesn’t directly require violence.
Will be violent against whom, exactly? I’m afraid the violence you refer to will inevitably be between members of the same (oppressed) class. Those on top will do all thay can to protect their privilege, but they won’t do it themselves. They will push others to do it. I’m not making a counterargument, just pointing out an observation that troubles me
The violence will primarily come from the ruling class against the strikers. Further violence will ensue by the strikers in retaliation. I cannot predict what the dynamics of this will look like, but I imagine that it would primarily class traitors fighting on behalf of the ruling class. Infighting with the strikers will have to be suppressed through education in the prelude to the strike
Individualist Anarchism seems like a contradiction.
It was more popular in the pre-Marx era
Atleast in Europe it was more popular post Marx, while also being quite different from indoviualist anarchism that was popular 50 years earlier in the US. Pretty well known example would be the Bonnot gang.
I would consider myself a green anarchist. Capitalism has stepped into A LOT of progess traps.
Anarchosyndicalism to achieve anarchocommunism eventually
“We take it in turns, to act as a sort of executive officer for the week.”
![[Discussion] What is your school of tought?](https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/pictrs/image/7d668d8f-5df2-444b-8649-1799091e0043.webp){kind=link}