Val

Lets ditch base10 entirely and use 0(freezing)-216(boiling). that means 0-1000 in base6.

you control the lesser power (individual) with a bigger power (the "ourselves").

to quote: https://anarchistfaq.org/afaq/sectionA.html#seca213

anarchists recognise that individuals are the basic unit of society and that only individuals have interests and feelings. This means they oppose "collectivism" and the glorification of the group. In anarchist theory the group exists only to aid and develop the individuals involved in them.

While groups cannot think, individuals cannot live or discuss by themselves. Groups and associations are an essential aspect of individual life

Anarchism rejects the abstract individualism of capitalism, with its ideas of "absolute" freedom of the individual which is constrained by others. This theory ignores the social context in which freedom exists and grows.

In practice, both individualism and collectivism lead to a denial of both individual liberty and group autonomy and dynamics.

The link goes into more detail.

It's not like humans didn't arise from more anarchist structures.

A Definition for a term I'm about to use:
Archy - Hierarchy, Rule, structure of command and subordination, opposite of anarchy.

How did humans "rise" from anarchist structures? I wouldn't call whats going on right now any better than the pre-archic societies. Those societies were destroyed because they didn't have the structures to protect themselves against archy anarchy isn't just no archy, it's conscious opposition to archy. Now that we understand archic structures and their influence we can start opposing it. Pre-archic societies couldn't

having spontaneous mobs forming to upholds the customs

Why would you need mobs? often times a single other person would be enough to stop/deter anti-social behavior.

as long as they are kept in check by a bigger power

Who controls that bigger power and what's stopping them from becoming corrupt? There is no bigger power than the state and police is the state. You can't have anything bigger. As soon as you have representative democracy the people will go from humans to a resource. They will be grown and molded to not care about their society and just root for their team. Governance isn't something you can delegate to others. It makes you lazy and means you will stop thinking about the actual problems and start fighting with anyone who disagrees with you.

Representational democracy does not work. The state is a living system that has interests of it's own and those will always be prioritized over the citizens. Sooner or later every state devolves into authoritarianism. All the while screwing over anyone who wants to live without it.

I will so thank you!

I'm surprised that an anarchist position is getting downvoted in this community. I guess the libs came to party.

Thank you for your insightful comment. :)

ACAB!

Seriously, what are you talking about?

Anarchy. I'm an anarchist. I'm talking about anarchy. People do not need to be controlled/enforced/governed. We are perfectly capable of organizing a society ourselves. Stopping violence should not be the responsibility of a special group but everyone. Social pressure is more powerful than direct violence. Otherwise the police would not have such a cushy job.

What would be the motive to write or follow laws?

No one needs to write laws. Custom is already a ruleset that most people in a society follow. You don't need laws on top of that. It's unnecessary and creates cases where the right thing cannot be done because it's illegal. Government creates a ton of unnecessary busywork that most people do not need to concern themselves with. What does the government do that you couldn't do with free association and an empowered populus?

Do you follow laws just because you're afraid of the police? Or is it because of the social pressure to not cause a fuss. Do you need rules to be written down on a piece of paper for you to follow them? I think not. I've followed a lot of "made up" rules because I understand these rules make my life better. Human beings are capable of working together without needing someone else to tell them how to live their life. We did it for millennia before archy clawed it's way into every society (by colonizing the anarchic ones because they were "primitive")

It's not the CEOs/police or the existence of their function

Yes it is. You cannot have police that doesn't abuse their power. If you have a position in society that gives people power, It's the power-hungry that fill them. Everyone that doesn't want to dictate other peoples lives will not fill those positions. so sooner or later they are going to be filled by people who want power and nothing else. It's no coincidence archy keeps devolving into fascism and totalitarianism. It's inevitable. Society elevates people who want power so you end up with people who believe they are god and can do no wrong.

No. We do not need cops. The police will always be a corrupt hand of state violence. As long as there are cops (as in special people who are allowed to use violence) in any form they will ultimately become corrupt. As long as law is enforced it is not equal, and it will never protect "the people". The people are the only ones that can protect "the people". You don't need cops, you need everyone to start policing people around them. That is the only way everyone gets protection.

ACAB! All power to all the people!

Wube (creators of Factorio) have the best customer policy in game development.

• Don't go on sale so you will always pay the cheapest price.
• if you have the game on steam you can download a DRM-free version directly from their website. (alongside all old versions)
• Encourage the community to create mods, host your own mod portal accessible inside the game.
• Make a good game.
• Be open about game development through monthly blog posts.

The only way I would like it more is if the game was open source but since that's impossible to sell I will take this.

You just had to phrase it like that didn't you?

Rant incoming. (if you like this for some weird reason there's more on my profile)

Preface that non of the following arguments are against you or your ideas. You just said something in a way that got me thinking. Any reference to "you" is a straw-man. I don't want to make any assumptions about your ideas but will inevitably use a fictional person to talk to because it's easier to structure a rant that way.

There is nothing wrong with "dividing people into labels and treating them differently". It is wrong to try and derive any absolute value (good/bad, strong/weak, smart/dumb) out of people since humans are far too complex to fit on a single point on a spectrum. Sometimes you act smart sometimes dumb. In some situations you are strong in others you nope out as soon as possible. But that's not all labels are.

Labels are primarily a tool for self-identification. "Anarchist" is a label. One that I've attached unto myself quite firmly. It's the label I use as my primary identity and view the world through an anarchist lens because of that. Labels are a way to categorize and understand ourselves and those around us.

Even if you haven't labelled yourself you can have one be attached to you, and that's not necessarily bad. When categorizing you will reach a point where you need a label for "the rest". This means that a group of people creates a label for you (some examples include cis, strait/hetero, gender-conforming, neurotypical). These labels get created and attached to you whether you want it or not and there is nothing wrong with that. The world is filled with different people and in order for that difference to be understood by both yourself and others you need words to describe things.

The problems begin when you add extra value to those labels. Fascist slogans work well here since fascism is built on this othering. By saying that there is some intrinsic or natural value in a label you are encouraging the behaviour associated with that label. And same vice-versa. This is how cultural control works. Through shaping a common concept of a type of person and then laughing at it, or showing respect to it, depending on the desired outcome. This phenomena exists everywhere, because it is a useful tool for managing groups. It's a lot easier to call someone a statist to ignore their arguments than actually engage with them.

But this isn't bad. some people are different and in a certain space you don't want some people so labelling them to make sure they know they aren't welcome. This community uses it in it's about section:

Yes, if you're an obnoxious (-->)neo-lib(<--) you're going to get banned.

To sum it up, it's not that simple. Everyone labels people. It's how we understand the world around us. We treat others differently due to their labels so we can keep a culture we cherish alive. And I believe cultural control is a societal tactic, not just fascist one, ingrained into human social interaction and by extension society just as much as culture. It's how we maintain long-term control over the world, over the future.

At the end of the day you should try and understand and get along with everyone. But to say everyone needs to be treated the same is to ignore the fact that we're all different. We can't be treated the same.

Power structures can't be dismantled but hierarchical (or archic as I like calling) ones can be turned into anarchic ones. Instead of structures of domination and subordination you use structures based on mutual trust and symbiotic gain.

It also implies that people are divided into strong and weak. That there is some inherent qualities in people that are inferior to other people who don't have those qualities. No-one is better than anyone else, a human beings is far too diverse for that. We're all just different. Not better. Not worse. Just different.

Glad to see I'm not the only one having rambling problems. Hope you're ready for a swim (of an alphabetic variety).

But just quickly wanted to get in that I very much dislike cars, just a convenient example because of cars being notoriously long to get in the Soviet union.

the soviet union is the primary reason why I shy away from communism (technically state capitalism but that doesn't matter).

any system has successfully met all the fundamental basic needs of health, shelter and food, and is no longer capitalist.

I'm using the word capitalist the classical (marx) sense of private ownership of the means of production. Companies are capitalist and coops are socialist. one is privately owned, the other collectively.

Freely associated groups, who set rules amongst themselves? Doesn't sound very anarchist at all, sounds quick democratic

Why? If there are no hierarchical structures, Eg the rules are made collectively, why would it not be anarchism? On the democratic part I would say that without majority rule, which is still rule and thus would be opposed by anarchists, it shouldn't be called democracy as the original meaning of the word is "people rule".

Sure, Europeans states are free to do what they want, with certain restrictions they agree to by being part of the EU.

States are fundamentally archic structures, and the EU is even more archic. They are all managed top-down. You have someone at the top of the pyramid who says what will be done. That's archy. That's vertical organisation.

Anarchy is managed differently, through horizontal organisation. Instead of choosing people who will have power over you, you use your own social potential to build collective power to resist the archic power. I view anarchy as a fluid machine. Like a water bubble in 0g. The parts of the machine (people) can move around and bounce off of each-other which changes the shape of the machine. Every cog shapes the machine to fit them. Archy is a machine made of steel someone comes along, sets up the shape, and if a gear doesn't fit they get ground to dust. Anarchy is chaotic organisation. It doesn't do in-groups and out-groups, instead seeing the world as a single group, and empowering everyone in that group to find their place. In such conditions any harmful activity is completely pointless.

Bad people will always exist. But archy rewards bad behaviour by allowing them to get to the top. Anarchy is nothing more than saying "people are imperfect, so no-one should have the right to rule, as every ruler will make mistakes".

On the topic of defence. There is no need to have centralized defence. decentralized defence forces can work wonders. If someone comes and attacks your group the entire group will defend itself. Why should it fall on anyone specific. There are many ways to defend and an anarchist group would encourage everyone to defend the group in their own way.

supply and demand aren't made up things we can leave behind in a post capitalist world.

Maybe supply and demand aren't, but economics are: https://anarchistfaq.org/afaq/sectionC.html#secc12. (If you didn't notice the AFAQ has different sections, The complete A4 PDF is 3077 pages)

Money is great. It's just accounting, and allows for greater personal choice

Money is one of the foundations of archy. as soon as you have a concrete number that is associated with a single person those people have power and authority over those with a smaller number. You can't have a fair society with money. And if everyone's basic needs are met then why do you even need it. how can you have an economy if people can just opt out of it.

Small freely associating groups are no longer possible we have cities of millions.

Why? Computers have allowed people to stay connected to hundreds of people. And even though it's currently used to incentivise consumerist isolationism, it doesn't have to be. Why do you think that millions of groups of millions of people can't work without some centralized oversight? I would say they would work better because they won't have the bottlenecks of centralisation. Why can't every apartment block be a commune? Why can't the chef that lives next door make the meals for all of you? Why can't the cleaner clean all of your appartments? Why can't that truck driver bring the chef fresh produce from the farmer he's known for 20 years so all of you can eat and be merry? Why can't that work in a city of millions? If an apartment block doesn't have a chef someone who wants to go to the nearby school and learn. Why does society need to be made up of people who don't know each-other, doing everything they can to screw over everyone else because that's how you get ahead in life? AND WHY SHOULD WE LIVE IN A SYSTEM THAT ENCOURAGES IT? That's all archy is. Means for awful people to screw over others. If not everyone is good then no-one is capable of rule.

are you seriously suggesting not having a police force? Not having courts?

ABSOLUTELY! ACAB! (Originally an anarchist slogan until it's mainstream adoption during BLM) The police are professional bullies, no matter what shape they take. If the responsibility of the enforcement of rules falls on a single group, that group makes the rules. Law enforcement should be the duty of everyone. you see something doing something you think is wrong, go up to them and tell them to stop. If other people are around ask them what they think is going on. no-one else is responsible for your safety but yourself, by keeping others safe. Tit-for-tat. By protecting those around you, you're creating a culture of mutual protection so when you're in trouble that culture will help you. The courts and police were not meant to protect people. They were made to protect property and the ruling class. The only reason they protect people is because the people that threaten the ruling class often threaten normal people as well. (Also the facade of justice gives them plenty of bootlickers) For every person that got justice out of the courts there is another that got screwed over. For every woman that sent their abuser to jail there is another whose life was screwed owner by false allegations.

Justice does not come from books and laws. but from the reactions of people. in a communal justice system the shame of being outed is far more motivating for not committing crimes than fear of jail. Just look at how effective christian rule was during the medieval ages.

Anarchy is about creating a culture that opposes archy. A culture that makes the security of all the people the responsibility of all the people. A culture that ensures everyone has a place in society that they have chosen, not been pushed into. A culture that doesn't assume anyone needs to be governed.

To me anarchy is the society of kindness. Where the power consolidates among those that gain the most respect. Respect that, if abused, will be taken away.

Anarchy is society in it's most complicatedly simple, chaotically ordered, and collectively individual. It's my reason to live. So I hope you can see why these ideas matter to me.