Anarchism: Info Page

Anarchist Concepts & Frameworks

Conceptual Definition

Anarchism is the opposition to hierarchical power structures, the framework for locating and understanding them, and the method by which we might dismantle and replace those hierarchical power structures with a horizontal society of free association, controlled together by the people.

Overview

Anarchism also referred to as libertarian socialism emerged as the anti-state wing of the socialist movement. All anarchists are libertarian socialists that believe that a fundamentally different society & economic system is not only possible, but necessary. We strive for a horizontal, stateless, classless, socialist society free from domination that is grounded in the principles of solidarity, self-management, direct democracy, ecological sustainability, and cooperation.Anarchists are opposed to all structures of hierarchical domination, including capitalism, the state, white supremacy, heteropatriarchy, imperialism, and settler colonialism. We believe that a new society can only be brought into being through social revolutionary pressure generated by the direct action of independent mass movements, encompassing dual power structures, prefigurative politics and nationwide general strikes.

Anarchist Frameworks - Bullet Points

● Abolition of class society and establishment of a libertarian socialist economy based on the collectivization of resources and economic power.● Diminishing hierarchy by eliminating hierarchical structures and organizing of alternative horizontal (i.e., non-hierarchical) structures.● Abolition of state structures and establishment of council-based decision-making structures → Councils are elected by the workers of a self managed union or residents of a region to see their interests voiced through direct democracy (with an imperative mandate and a at all times possible withdrawal of trust in their delegate).● Federalism → Independent Communes / Districts / Regions join together with councils at higher and higher levels in order to make increasingly complex decisions while maintaining autonomy on the regional level.● Free and fair distribution of social wealth and creative and productive tasks → "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs"

Detailed Frameworks

Abolition of the class society
Capitalist societies, like the feudal and slave-based systems before them, divide people into distinct classes with differing economic positions and social power. Anarchism highlights the divide between the capitalist class i.e. those who own the factories, land, or housing and control decisions about our work and life, -and the wage-earning class - that is us, the workers, who have to sell their labor for a wage in order to make ends meet. Over time, class divisions have become more complex, with some workers holding shares in corporations or managers earning more than small-scale capitalists. Yet for anarchists, the solution remains clear: class society must be abolished, no matter what it looks like. This means the abolition of private property i.e, the private ownership of factories, businesses, land etc. which should instead be collectively owned and controlled by the workers themselves. Only through this collective ownership can we actually create a society where decisions are made collectively, instead of for the profit of the capitalist class.Council society / Popular assemblies
In an anarchist society, decisions are made through a horizontal federation network of autonomouse councils. These councils are built from the ground up, starting at the regional level and expanding to higher-level councils in the federation. At the regional level people gather to make choices on issues that affect them using direct democracy. That would be, for example, the question of regional projects, the distribution of work shifts in a company or the organization of the renovation of our common houses and public spaces. Of course, there are also questions that are more complex. When it comes to a complex division of labor, such as for example the production of a tram, the affected companies in the supply chain would find common solutions by sending delegates to a federation council. These delegates, unlike traditional representatives, hold no personal power, they carry out council decision and can be recalled at any time if they stray from their directive. This directive voted on thru direct democarcy sets guidelines or specific instructions the delegates must follow, ensuring they stay accountable to their community. If discussions take place at a higher level, outcomes are shared back with the community for review. Through this federation of councils, all affected people collectively shape decisions, while each commune maintains its autonomy.Federalism
Anarchists use 'federalism' differently from its modern establishment usage, instead drawing on 19th-century thinkers like Proudhon and Peter Kropotkin. In this context, federalism is important for anarchist to operate effectively on a larger scale. Whether it's the previously agreed on construction of public infrastructure or the fair distribution of goods: it takes complex global networking and consultation. This works on one hand through councils at higher and higher levels of the federation and on the other hand through the independence of its lower councils. If this independence were not given, there would quickly be a tendency to shift work to specific co-ops or regions. To see where this leads, we only need to look at the relationship between regions and businesses in capitalism. Nationalist movements, competition, and alienation from the global community would be the result. So anarchist federalism relies on mutual respect for each communs's independence, ensuring that decisions reflect the collective will without centralizing power."From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs"
Social tasks, i.e. work, are distributed freely and fairly among all, just like wealth. This means that goods and resources are accessible to everyone, to be used according to each person’s needs. Anarchism strives for a society in which everyone can freely choose their activities and develop creatively. Anarchism envisions a community where everyone has the freedom to choose meaningful activities and pursue creative development. However, for this to be sustainable, these efforts need to be coordinated through a system of councils and federations to ensure balanced production and prevent any one group or union from becoming overburdened. This also includes reproductive and caregiving work, which has historically inequitably fallen primarily on women.In such a system, our work and production are not driven by the profit motives of capitalists at the expense of workers wellbeing. Instead, our collective goal becomes supporting the well-being of all people and the community as a whole.

Anarchist History & Movement

Anti-capitalist movements can be found in various times and places throughout world history, but the anarchist movement emerged as a distinct form of libertarian socialism out of the struggles of the growing labor movement. All key theorists were also revolutionaries who fought within the workers’ movement. As an ideological current of anarchism, anarcho-communism solidified in the last quarter of the 19th century and quickly became the most widespread current of anarchism. Its theoretical foundation were strongly influenced by the works of Mikhail Bakunin. Anarcho-communism received further influences from revolutionary Marxism, with which it was in lively exchange, both practically and theoretically. Pjotr Kropotkin, who became famous for his concept of mutual aid, was central to the development. In addition to the strong focus on overcoming class society and the establishment of a socialist economy, mutual aid is an example of the desired solidarity and free economy. Anarcho-communism quickly emerged as the most influential and most common current of anarchism, influencing leading anarchist theorists such as Errico Malatesta, Emma Goldman, Alexander Berkman and Erich Mühsam, and more importantly the minds of the revolutionary masses in the two great anarchist revolutions of the 20th century in Europe. Both in Catalonia & Aragon(1936-1939) during the Spanish Civil War and in the Free Territory(Makhnovshchina) (1918-1921). Here, figures like Makhno and Peter Arshinov refined strategies for revolutionary organization after the betrayal by the USSR.

Today Anarcho-Communism is the most important and influential anarchist current and is represented in countless worldwide anarchist groups and regional federations. It often overlaps with other major anarchist ideologies, like Anarcho-Syndicalism, Eco-Anarchism, and Anarcha-Feminism, however, historically and today, these currents are often intertwined. Today, more libertarian socialist organizations are emerging worldwide, actively engaging in union organizing, building community councils and fostering cooperative networks. Through this the anarchist movement has been strengthening collective power from the ground up, making solidarity and mutual aid the backbone of our movement. In an international context, libertarian socialist movements have emerged in various regions, such as the Zapatista Autonomous Municipalities in Mexico, where communities have sought to build alternatives to state control. A similar project in self-management can be found in Rojava. The social revolution in Rojava established the Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria and gives us a modern example of anarchist principles in action. Amid the Syrian Civil War, they managed to build a society based on libertarian socialism focused on direct democracy, gender equality, and decentralized decision-making. The region emphasized grassroots organizing, local councils, and communal control of resources. Despite facing external threats and internal challenges, Rojava's self-management shows how anarchist ideals can thrive in difficult conditions. Anarchists today can learn a great deal from Rojava's tactics, resilience, and how they're building an alternative society in the face of constant adversity. Amidst all of this, anarchism is once again emerging as a relevant revolutionary social force on the international stage.

General List of Contemporary & Historical Social Revolutionary Activity.

The Anarchist Definition of the State
The state is a top down hierarchical institution that inherently perpetuates minority class rule, which maintains its power both by a monopoly of violence and through the transmission and reproduction of statist power relationships throughout society, Kropotkin, for example, writes that the state “not only includes the existence of a power situated above society, but also of a territorial concentration and a concentration of many functions in the life of societies in the hands of a few... A whole mechanism of legislation and of policing is developed to subject some classes to the domination of other classes.” The state is therefore “the perfect example of a hierarchical institution, developed over centuries to subject all individuals and all of their possible groupings to the central will. The State is necessarily hierarchical & authoritarian - or it ceases to be the State.”

Understanding the Libertarian Socialist Opposition to Centralization for Revolutionary Change

A common falsehood often spread by unedcuated leftist and authoritarian socialists is that anarchists 'skip' the transition phase to communism. In reality, anarchists reject the transition state and vanguard rule, not a transitional phase itself. For us, the transition must be rooted in libertarian socialism, rejecting centralization. Most authoritarian socialists fail to understand why anarchists fundamentally reject centralized states and vanguard parties for revolutionary change. The following text provides an overview of the reasons libertarian socialists oppose centralization to enact this change, instead making use of decentralized systems that are based on prefigurative politics.

1. The State is Counter-Revolutionary:
Libertarian socialists and state socialists have fundamentally different understandings of the role of the state. State socialists cling to the dangerous illusion that the state is simply a tool that, when seized, can be used to create a "workers state," to liberate the working class and oppress the bourgeoisie. This is undestanding of the state is not only naive but reckless. The state, by its very nature, is a mechanism of centralized power that is designed to supress direct democratic control by the people. It entrenches power in the hands of bureaucrats who, as members of an insulated governing structure, holds different relations to power and develop interests that are inherently opposed to the broader working class. The state apparatus, by design, exists to undermine revolutionary change and should never be empowered through centralization. It must be recognized as an inherently counter-revolutionary force, one that, like capitalism, must be relentlessly challenged, dismantled, and decentralized at every stage during the transition process. Far from being a tool for liberation, the state must be weakened and pushed back continuously, ultimately aiming for its abolition as a genuine transition to a communist society. Thus, the misguided authoritarian concept of a "workers state" is not just wrong but turns them into collaborators with the very class structures they claim to oppose, reinforcing the same class hierarchies under a different banner while maintaining the illusion of revolution.State socialists often argue that these representatives or bureaucrats would still be workers, thus not forming a distinct ruling class, completely ignoring the fact that, as part of a governing hierarchy, their interests inevitably diverge from the working class. Bakunin replied to this argument by insisting that such individuals are “former workers, who, as soon as they become rulers or representatives of the people, will cease to be workers and will begin to look upon the whole worker's world from the heights of the state. They will no longer represent the people but themselves and their own pretensions to govern the people.” Those who hold power are structurally inclined to consolidate and use it for their own benefit, often at the expense of the masses freedom and well-being. As a result the state, no matter who is in position of authoritarian rule, will always reinforce class hierarchies, rendering it fundamentally incapable of advancing toward a truly communist society. Rudolf Rocker for example wrote: "Just as the functions of the bodily organs of plants and animals cannot be arbitrarily altered, so that, for example, one cannot at will hear with his eyes and see with his ears, so also one cannot at pleasure transform an organ of social oppression into an instrument for the liberation of the oppressed. The state can only be what it is: the defender of mass exploitation and social privileges, the creator of privileged classes and castes and of new monopolies. Who fails to recognise this function of the state does not understand the real nature of the present social order at all, and is incapable of pointing out to humanity new outlooks for its social evolution."2. Why use Prefigurative Structures? / Means and Ends:
The connection between Means and Ends is essential in pursuing the vision of a stateless, classless and horizontal society. To quote Bookchin:-"There can be no separation of the revolutionary process from the revolutionary goal." Human beings engage in activities that transform themselves and the world around them. The means used to achieve our goals must align with the desired end state. If revolutionaries use inappropriate means, they may inadvertently create a society different from their original intentions. Revolutionaries therefore have to use means that are constituted by forms of practice that will actually transform individuals into the kinds of people who will be able to and want to create a stateless, classless, horizontal society. If revolutionaries make the mistake of using the wrong or inappropriate means, then they will produce people who will create a different society to the one they initially intended.To quote Malatesta:
"It is not enough to desire something; if one really wants it, adequate means must be used to secure it. And these means are not arbitrary, but instead cannot but be conditioned by the ends we aspire to and by the circumstances in which the struggle takes place, for if we ignore the choice of means we would achieve other ends, possibly diametrically opposed to those we aspire to, and this would be the obvious and inevitable consequence of our choice of means. Whoever sets out on the highroad and takes a wrong turning does not go where he intends to go but where the road leads him."Many Anarchists argue that the state, like all social structures, is constituted by forms of human activity and so participating in the state produces and reproduces particular kinds of people and particular kinds of social relations. This occurs irrespective of the intentions or goals of people because what matters is the nature of the social structure they are participating in and the forms of activity this social structure is constituted by and reproduced through. Socialists who enter the state “have placed themselves in determinate conditions that in turn determine them.” - Reculus.
Those who wield state power will therefore engage in forms of human activity that will over time transform them into oppressors of the working class who are concerned with reproducing and expanding their power over other people. Anarchists held that this process of socialists being transformed into oppressors would occur both to socialists who are elected into the currently existing capitalist state and also to socialists who attempt to seize the existing state via a coup and transform it into a "workers state".This commitment to aligning means with ends is why anarchists have embraced prefigurative politics in building organizations and dual-power structures. The use of prefigurative politics in these structres is a form of human activity that reproduces egalitarian, horizontal social relations. Even within the constraints of capitalist society or the limitations of a socialist transitional society, these prefigurative structures meed to strive to engage in horizontal, participatory forms of action that reinforce the horizontal social framework they envision for the future.3. Corruption and Benevolent Rulers:
Most statists tend to lack any analysis of "Means and Ends" meaning the re-&production of certain social relations and argue that in the framework of a revolutionary vanguard party, well intentioned socialist leaders could truly represent the workers, claiming that the real challenge is to keep corrupt individuals out of power. Anarchists, however, see corruption as a product of hierarchical systems themselves. Even under a so-called "benevolent leader" hierarchies are inherenlty fragile to corruption, as people who don’t prioritize the public good will inevitably gain executive power. Anarchists argue that "getting the right people in power" is futile because the system itself incentivizes corruption, once inside, individuals gain disproportionate control over how power is distributed, often using it for personal or factional interests. Thus, even well intentioned progress can be quickly undone when those with self-serving motives assume control. Hierarchical systems are inherently structured to reward power consolidation, leading to a concentration of unchecked authority at the top and diminishing accountability to those below.4. Self-Perpetuation of the State:
The Leninist notion that a centralized state could ever "wither away" is a naive fantasy that borders on delusion. It ignores a core principle of political power dynamics, that centralized authority, once established, becomes self-preserving and expansionist by nature. Instead of withering, a state apparatus structured to enforce "proletarian dictatorship" thru a vanguard party will inevitably seeks to perpetuate its control, as it creates layers of loyal bureaucracy and rigid hierarchies whose survival depends on the continuation and growth of state power. Rather than dissolving, such states historically entrench themselves, transforming into sprawling authoritarian systems that prioritize their own preservation over any emancipatory ideals they claimed to represent.The power of the state is what allows those people to act in their self-interest. Therefore, it is in the interest of all people that currently operate the state, to perpetuate the power of the state. With this in mind, each time the power of the state is threatened, those who operate the state will have a tendency to obstruct that threat. But every power structure that exists, is competition for the state. Thus, the state stands at odds with any structure which may threaten its control over society. The masses, however, have an inherent power in their numbers and in their primary function as the laborers that make society run. So, the state will always have an institutional tendency to view the masses as a threat to the unitary power of the state. And, therefore, the state will always seek to control and suppress the latent power of the masses, except when it serves the interests of the state.Closing Words:
These observations and predictions by theorists like Bakunin, Malatesta, Kropotkin, and Rocker and history has shown this to be true time and time again.The state inevitably reproduces hierarchies, it is not neutral tool to be seized, its a structure designed to maintain class structures and protect existing power relations. Authoritarian theorists cling to the idea of a centralized state fail to grasp the nature of the state itself. The only real path to communism is through the complete destruction of capitalist power and the dismantling of the state apparatus, this is what all socialism shold be about. Only by embracing a libertarian socialist process focused on decentralization and directly democratic self-management of the workers can we begin the process of transitioning to a truly stateless, classless society.

How Would Anarchism Defend Itself?
This examples is about a internal organization model for a libertarian socialist military designed to defend a revolutionary society from external threats, particularly from reactionary, imperialist capitalist forces. This model is based on historical examples, incorporating flexible organizational principles and empowering the collective within the military structure unlike traditional hierarchical command systems.Each militia would operate with a horizontal structure, empowering members to make decisions autonomously, with temporary delegation of authority that can be revoked or reassigned as needed. This model allows for quick responses to changing certain conditions changing, unlike hierarchical rigid structures that can easily suffer delays due command chains. The decentralization of decision-making leads to more adaptability so militias can adjust tactics and strategies in real time based on the circumstances. While they keep their autonomy they would also be federated into the larger organized network to coordinate with other militias across regions. At each level of federation, elected commanders coordinate activities, but the autonomy of individual militias is preserved. Militias keeping the right to challenge directives that conflict with their immediate needs is extremely important and a huge advantage over traditional hierarchical forces facing paralysis in the absence of clear top-down orders. The decentralized structure ensures that militias can operate as independent cells, maintaining functional continuity even when central coordination is temporarily unavailable. This model is flexible and scalable, making sure militias can function both independently and within a larger, coordinated network. When faced with heightened threats or larger-scale combat, militias can just as well coordinate to concentrate forces where and when they’re needed most.While this model is rooted in libertarian socialist principles, it is flexible enough to allow for temporary command structures if the militia members decide the context calls for it. In times of heightened threat or urgency, central decision-making can be introduced, but these positions would be designed to be temporary and voted in with the understanding that they will dissolve once their specific, short-term function has been fulfilled. Like this the system remains aligned with libertarian principles, while still gaining the coordination necessary to address a specific context/situation. This model isn’t purely anarchist either, similar tactics have been successful throughout history, even within statist militaries. For example, guerilla tactics in Vietnam, Cuba, and China used decentralized groups to resist imperial powers. These smaller, independent units were key to maintaining resilience and flexibility, even when under centralization. This approach has also tested contexts such as in the CNT-FAI during the Spanish Civil War, where militias managed to organize a substantial fighting force with minimal reliance on centralized authority. A very similar moder is also currently being used in Rojava.The goal in starting a militia for defense today, right here, right now, is to create small, autonomous units capable of independent action. Regional cells could teach combat skills, medical support, mechanics, and coordination. Over time, they would evolve into a stronger, decentralized system that adapts as needed. Prototyping anarchist militias in the here and now is important, its not about creating a final structure, but to start building local militias and training for the future to prefigure parts of a revolutionary society and making sure the movement is prepared for challenges.

A Community Resolution to Violent Crime in an Anarchist Society
In the revolutionary process, a libertarian socialist society would dismantle the existing bourgeois police and judiciary structures, rejecting the need for a centralized authority to enforce laws. Unlike most state socialists we reject it being replaced by a new ruling class or a centralized state apparatus, and instead organize a system rooted in grassroots, democratic control, centered around collective responsibility and community-led security initiatives. This approach prioritizes preventing crime through the elimination of the socio-economic conditions that often drive criminal behavior like poverty, inequality, and lack of access to resources. By redistributing wealth and ensuring that everyone’s material needs are met, the system would address the root causes of the large majority of crime, significantly reduceing it to a minuscule point.However, while prevention is the most important focus, we acknowledge that some crimes, would still occur. In such cases, justice and security would not revert to punitive measures but would instead focus on community-led rehabilitation and restorative justice. This would involve the establishment of social emergency services, therapeutic facilities, and support systems to help individuals who commit violent offenses. For more severe violent crimes, such as reactionary violence against the revolution, murder, rape, special measures would be required, involving community discussions to determine the most appropriate course of action, including preventive detention and rehabilitation. Ultimately, the aim is to create a society based on cooperation and mutual aid, where safety and justice are ensured not through authoritarian control but through communal effort, a focus on healing, and an unwavering commitment to social reintegration. The shift from a punitive justice system to one based on collective responsibility and restorative practices ensures fairness, safety, and long-term security without the need for a centralized state apparatus.So what happens in an actively violent situation? In a libertarian socialist commune, one possible approach to handling an active violent threat to others would involve community-based militias, which are directly subordinate to and accountable to the commune itself. These militias would not operate as an external force, but as part of the community, working to intervene and prevent harm. Preventive detention would only be considered acceptable if the individual is a threat to those around them.These cases would be handled at the community level, with a focus on the needs of the people affected and the larger community. A community based approach where most people know and understand each other would ensure a careful and considerate way of handling these situations in the legal system. The approach here would ideally focus on transformative justice and rehabilitation, rather than punitive measures driven by revenge and punishment. Transformative justice first popularized by Queer, Black, Indigenous, and otherwise marginalized communities because they were unable to rely on the police and the courts to obtain justice after being victimized by interpersonal harm (such as hate crimes, sexual assaults, and domestic violence), it prioritizes the importance of relationships with oneself, one's community, and one's environment. A similar approach of rejecting retributive punishment can be seen used more and more in Rojava and how they utilize "restorative justice" sets a good example.Statist critics of community militias often make flawed comparisons and arguments around police forces and authority. This comparison is quite baseless, as in an horizontal anarchist society, militias would be directly accountable to the community for self-defense purposes and not have any special privileges, they are part off and so accountable to the community. They are fundamentally different from enforcers with special rights standing above the people serving the interests of the bourgeoisie. They exist for community defense ensuring that no one's freedom as an individual is forcefully taken away thru coercion.

Individual Autonomy and Accountability
Anarchism values bodily autonomy as essential to its ideals, ensuring individuals can act freely as long as their actions impact only themselves and do not coerce/oppress others. Anarchism creates absolute freedom of self-expression, love, and identity, allowing individuals to define their own lives without coercion. This principle of autonomy also supports the full legalization of all drugs, the allowance of sport fighting, the recognition of both suicide and assisted suicide as civil rights, etc. though we should implement systems to mitigate potential negative repercussions.Conversely, when individuals make decisions that affect others, they are held accountable for the outcomes, whether acting as an individual or part of another democratic body. This principle fundamentally undermines the justification for capitalism, as private ownership of workplaces inherently impacts others involuntarily, relying on coercion and thus violating individual autonomy. Similarly, property rights are redefined: This also extends to the topic of property rights: individuals may own personal belongings, but they may not own anything which is communally operated. People would be free to treat their own bodies as they wish, but must bear responsibility when their actions impact others.

What a Libertarian Socialist Economy Looks Like
There are different models and proposals for how a libertarian socialist decentralized-planned economy could look like. The general concept is that the economic planning is based on a more bottom up model similar to the early management that could be seen in Anarchist Catalonia, rather than through a centralized state like for example in the USSR.Participatory Economics (Parecon) is an decentralized-planned economic system that strives to build a democratic, cooperative society by decentralizing decision-making in the process of organizing production. Participatory Economics has quickly gained traction among the libertarian left as an alternative to both capitalist and centrally planned systems, offering a vision of an economy that empowers individuals and communities through collective decision-making by workers and consumers councils. The modern conception of Parecon is heavily associated with political theorist Michael Albert and economist Robin Hahnel, who describes participatory economics as an anarchist economic vision.Alternatively to the text here is a summary Video.Economic Coucils:
Producer/Worker Councils: Producer Councils are self-managed groups of workers who collectively oversee the production process, ensuring that goods and services are produced according to regional needs and in alignment with broader federation goals. These councils replace traditional top-down management structures, giving workers control over their work environment, income distribution, and division of labor. The councils collaborate within industry federations, ensuring that production meets the needs of society as expressed by Consumer Councils.
Consumer Councils: Consumer Councils are regionally organized bodies where consumption needs are collectively determined and prioritize the distribution of goods and services based on equity and necessity. These councils operate as the primary decision-makers regarding consumption, establishing demands that guide production at the regional and federation levels. Consumer Councils coordinate with Workers Councils to ensure that economic activity aligns with community needs, and they send representatives to higher-level councils for broader decision-making on public goods and services.(Regional Level) Economic Coucils / Industry Federations:
Each region has its own economic councils i.e. the Producer/Worker Councils and the Consumer Councils that are integrated into broader networks across regions. In this model, regional economies will manage local production and distribution, with each region forming interconnected nodes within a wider federation. Councils are responsible for planning, production, and distribution within their own region, managing everyday needs like food, housing, healthcare, and public services. The Industry Federation coordinates production within specific industries across regions, ensuring efficiency and resource alignment. Regional councils collaborate through the Economic Councils Assembly, which facilitates coordination between regions and sectors, maintaining a decentralized yet cohesive economic structure..
(Federation Level) Economic Councils Assembly:
These federated councils would act as a coordination body rather than a strict central authority. They manage inter-community resource allocation, large-scale infrastructure projects, and regional resources. The Economic Councils Assembly could ensures that external market transactions are conducted in a way that supports the broader federation rather than serving as an economic powerhouse. Any trade with capitalist economies would be conducted with clear oversight to ensure it supports mutual aid and not competitive profit-seeking.Production and Purchases:
Each regions Producer/Worker & Consumer Council creates a production and distribution plan based on local needs and resources, ensuring that it aligns with residents' needs. Planning would involve assessment where each sector (agriculture, healthcare, industry) presents its anticipated needs and available resources. Resources produced locally (such as food or energy) are first allocated to meet community needs, and any surplus is made available for exchange with other communities or stored for emergencies. Regions could use software or simple planning tools to track resources, project demand, and manage inventory, allowing them to make adjustments based on actual needs. The Producer/Consumer Council would need to approve the economic plans of the Economic Councils Assembly. Any purchases from the global market (e.g., materials, equipment, food) should be limited to what the region or larger federation cannot produce itself. These purchases are planned and managed through the Economic Councils Assembly to ensure they align with the needs and priorities of the federation. To address the challenge of speculative pricing driven by external capitalist markets, a community in a decentralized, planned economy could focus on forming local trade agreements to bypass the profit-driven forces of large-scale agricultural producers. By pooling resources and focusing more on local, sustainable production, these initiatives would create a buffer against federation external price fluctuations, ensuring more stable resource access.Inter-Commune Exchange and Coordination:
In a participatory economy, the inter-commune exchange of goods and services would be be coordinated through a Economic Councils Assembly. Each council will propose what they intend to produce, what they need from others, and how reassources could best be distributed. Coordination mechanisms will ensure that regions do not overproduce or underproduce certain goods. Importantly, this system rejects the commodification of goods and services; everything produced is aimed at meeting human needs, not maximizing profit. Through transparent process, each region’s needs and surplus in communicated to distribute resources to communities in need, prioritizing areas with demand. For high-value or specialized goods (like medical equipment or machinery), a Economic Councils Assembly could maintain a inventory and facilitate exchange.Commune Oversight:
All decisions, resource allocations, and exchange transactions of producer/consumer councils are publicly documented and would be openly discussed in delegation votes. Everyone can access this information to verify that decisions align with their interests, keeping both the region level and the Economic Councils Assemblies accountable. This also includes all economic transactions, especially exchanges with the external market. A Economic Assembly, meeting frequently open to all regional delegates, where they review performance, identify issues, and propose changes to exchange policies. Community feedback mechanisms allow residents to submit concerns through their local councils, ensuring that the Assembly remains grounded in the needs of its member communities.Assembly of Councils of the Federation
The Economic Councils Assembly would not coerce communes but acts as a coordinating body that facilitates cooperation across the regions. While local producer/consumer councils maintain autonomy, the Economic Councils Assembly would facilitates the sharing of resources and organize commune collective initiatives. This participation is voluntary but encouraged thru solidarity but also regional relations including economic means like reciprocated sharing of reassources and economic inclusion. The delegation process would work to align the economic interests of each commune with the collective good, providing a platform for collaboration on larger-scale projects and resource allocation. The Economic Councils Assembly would oversee the coordinated distribution of surplus resources between communes experiencing scarcity, ensuring that food, medicine, and other essentials are equitably shared, especially during crises or when certain regions face shortages. When it comes to external purchases from global markets, the Economic Councils Assembly would play a critical role in planning these transactions so trade aligns with the common needs, rather than individual communes acting in isolation, which could lead to competition or imbalance. The federation could negotiate trade agreements with global suppliers, pooling resources and collective bargaining power to secure the best terms for all communes involved, preventing any single commune from becoming overly reliant on external markets or engaging in transactions that undermine the principles of mutual aid. Rather than simply reacting to market forces, regions could collectively plan external purchases, ensuring that they meet long-term goals. This includes bulk purchases, collective investment in necessary technologies, and securing stable prices for essential goods.Trade Agreements with Oversight:
The federation could coordinate trade agreements with international suppliers to secure essential goods like raw materials, technology, or specialized items that arent produced locally. The federation could negotiate fixed prices and setting up cooperative networks with other regions to avoid market fluctuations thru a assembly. For example if there’s a shortage of grain or medicine, the federation can secure a bulk contract at stable rates, protecting the community from price hikes caused by speculative trading or supply disruptions. By controlling external purchases, the federation could stabilize the internal market. Its goal is to meet community needs, not maximize profits, shielding the local economy from global price volatility. For example, purchasing medical supplies at a fixed price helps distribute resources fairly within the community, without being influenced by global market pressures. Even tho global market influences still wouldnt be avoidable, negotiating long-term favorable trade deals to secure essential goods would help avoid a lot of market instability. By overseeing external purchases with transparency, the federation can participate in global trade without exposing local economies to market volatility. This approach ensures resources are distributed equitably and meets the collective needs of the community, stabilizing the decentralized planned economy.

Council Democracy / (Soviet Democracy - Rätedemokratie)

On Popular Assemblies, Council Society & Direct Democracy
Popular assemblies & council democarcy as explained in Council society / Popular assemblies offer an directly democratic, socialist approach to self-organization and decision-making that actually empowers the people, resolves conflicts peacefully and ensures responsive decision-making.Direct participation in the decision-making process of a community imprives peoples understanding of civic participation and the impact they can have on shaping their lives. These assemblies foster open dialogue and peaceful conflict resolution by promoting the exchange of ideas, compromise, and negotiation. This approach leads to decisions that are broadly supported, reducing division within the community while effectively addressing local projects and issues. The decision-making on local issues and projects also leads to more responsible and thoughtful choices, as the community is directly influenced by the consequences of their actions because of the proximity to the outcomes.In an anarchist society, delegates would operate differently from traditional representatives. These delegates hold no personal power; their role is simply to relay proposals from their council and act as a conduit for the regions collective will. They can be immediately recalled if they stray too far from their directive, which is set by the council thru an imperative mandate. This directive outlines specific guidelines or instructions that delegates must adhere to, ensuring they remain accountable to the councils. Additionally, any outcomes from discussions at higher levels are shared with the community for review. This process ensures that all affected regions have a direct role in shaping decisions, while maintaining their autonomy.

These councils should prioritize reaching as broad a consensus as possible. When utilizing direct democracy, decisions must reflect the collective will rather than merely a majority opinion. This means actively striving for solutions that accommodate as many perspectives as possible. There are different possible ideas/conceptions of modified direct democracy out there that could be useful in reaching as high of a consensus as possible.

This specific proposal of how modified direct democracy could theoretically be organized comes from After the Revolution written by Daniel Baryon.

First, a resolution is presented by an individual in the democratic body. Following this, there is a discussion period about the resolution. After this discussion has concluded, the voters all place their first votes as a temperature check and the results are tallied. If the first vote comes to a 90% majority, the measure is passed and planning will begin.

If not, those who voted against the measure are asked to qualify their concerns into deal-breakers or non-deal-breakers. Those who have said that their grievances are not deal-breakers put their complaints into one of several categories and each category of complaint elects a delegate to plead their case.After these delegates have each plead their case, voters are asked to weigh in on their agreement with the grievance and those with the grievance offer amendments that, if instituted, would garner their support. These friendly amendments are then voted on and a temperature check is taken to re-assess the status of consensus. If majority has now reached 90%, the motion is passed and planning will begin.If not, those who said that their grievance was a complete deal-breaker are asked to categorize their complaints and elect delegates to plead their case. Voters are then asked to weigh in on their agreement with these grievances and more amendments are gathered. If, after all amendments have been passed, turned down, or sustained, the majority has now reached 2/3, the motion is passed and planning will begin.

After passage, the minority enters into a contention process during the planning phase of the resolution, such that they might still have some recourse before the resolution is fully implemented. If, during this contention phase, the majority drops below 50%, the resolution is tabled or dismissed.

However, if the minority can’t reach a simple majority during planning and implementation, the resolution is carried forward. The body now elects a delegate or numerous delegates to carry out the implementation of the measure under the strict mandate of what was contained in it.

Anarchist Media

• Anarchist Material/Media/News (Link Compilation)

Anarchist/Socialist Video Media

Anarchist Audio- Media

Anarchist Literature

Introductory Texts

• Introduction to Anarchist Communism
• ABC of Anarchism
• An Anarchist FAQ

Political Theorists

Modern Theorists

Anarchist Currents

History literature

• The Bolshevik Myth
• The Anarchist Collectives (Spanish Revolution)
• THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTION by Rosa Luxemburg
• Anarchism in the Chinese Revolution
• Kronstadt 1921: An Analysis of Bolshevik Propaganda
• 1919: When the Bolsheviks Turned on the Workers
• The Russian Counterrevolution
• Cuban Anarchism: The History of A Movement
• Manifesto of the Makhnovists

Measuring Hierarchy

(This work introduces a new method for measuring and comparing hierarchies, offering a clear, mathematical approach that works across different fields and sizes of hierarchies)

• "Measuring Hierarchy" by Oriol Carbonell-Nicolau

Economic literature - reading list

Anti-Capitalist

(A simple anti-capitalist starter text.)

• The Capitalist System by Bakunin

Marxist Economics

(A summary of Capital that has been approved by Marx.)

• Karl Marx’s Capital Summary by Cafiero

Capital as Power Economics
A post-Marxist economic theory that closely aligns with a anarchist analysis.
CasP offers a critical perspective on capitalism, emphasizing the role of power dynamics in economic processes, distinct from both mainstream and Marxist economic theories.

(A CasP primer pre-text for the full following economic text.)

• Capital as Power: Toward a New Cosmology of Capitalism by Bichler/Nitzan

(Full CasP economic theory.)

• Capital as Power: A Study of Order and Creorder by Bichler/Nitzan

• CasP News & Discussion Website

Libertarian Socialist Economy

• Parecon: life after capitalism

• Parecon Website

GET ACTIVE NOW!

• Join your local Anarchist Collective!

Note:
This website was inspired by the german anarchist website: anarchismus.dePlease send any translation errors or complaints to- [email protected]Feel free to take anything from this site we don't belive in copyright!

Socialism is Incompatible with Representative Politics Trustee Model
Socialim by definition requires the collective control of the means of production, resources and decision-making. Unlike authoritarian socialists, we recognize that representative politics trustee model, is in direct conflict with that conception. In any representative structure whether at a union, council, or national level the people are systematically removed from power. The choices they make are reduced to selecting individuals to rule over their lives for a few years, rather than actively shaping their lives.People often believe that electing someone who aligns with their views gives them power, even though the person elected gains power, not the voters. Once in office, they become part of a system that perpetuates their interest and statist, capitalist relations, leaving the people further distanced from control. Many confuse voting for a representative with holding real power, not realizing true power comes from directly shaping decisions.The reality is that policy is irrelevant in a system where the masses are alienated from decision-making and the power to affect change. In representative politics, the cult of personality eclipses policy. Elections are won not on the strength of ideas but on the appeal of a leader’s persona. Voters with progressive inclinations will still vote against their own interests because they are swayed by a candidate's charisma or populist rhetoric. Voters are encouraged to support individuals, not policy, further removing them from meaningful participation in decision-making.

Anarchism: Info Page