Anarchist Foundations Overview:

Principles, Praxis and History of Anarchism

PRINCIPLES & FOUNDATIONS

Anarchism emerged as the anti-state wing of the socialist movement, which is commonly referred to as libertarian socialism. Anarchists, without exception, are libertarian socialists committed to the belief that a fundamentally different society and 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 action by independent mass movements, dual power structures, prefigurative politics, and general strikes.

Foundations - Bullet Points

● Classless Society: Abolition of class society and establishment of a libertarian socialist economy based on the collectivization of resources and economic power.● Horizontalism: Abolishing hierarchical systems in favor of horizontal(i.e. non-hierarchical), self-managed structures that prioritize collective decision-making and individual autonomy, empowering people to have control over their lives.● Popular Councils: Abolition of state top-down structures and establishment of horizontal council-based decision-making structures → Councils are elected by the workers of a self managed union or residents of a region with interests voiced through direct democracy with a recallable delegate operating with a imperative mandate.● Anarchist 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 keeping decision-making horizontal.● "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs:" Free and fair distribution of creative and productive tasks and all social wealth including services like healthcare, education etc.● Individual Autonomy: Upholding the freedom of individuals to make choices about their own lives, including unrestricted bodily autonomy and self-expression, free from coercion.

DETAILED FOUNDATIONS

Abolishing 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. Libertarian socialists highlight the power divide between the capitalist class(also referred to as the bourgeoisie) 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 take back control of our lives ensuring that decisions about work, production, and resources benefit everyone and are made collectively, instead of for the profit of the capitalist class.Horizontalism
Anarchism wants to empower each individual to have control over their own life. Libertarian socialists reject hierachical power structures in organization because the concentration of power always means alienation of the people from control over their lives and, as a consequence, domination and compulsory labor. These hierarchical power structures must be abolished and replaced with a horizontal, self-managed society where power is held by each individual. Unlike systems with concentrated authority, such as capitalism and the state, horizontalism ensures everyone has equal power, influence and decisions are made collectively and not top-down in any association. This includes things like the workplace, the community, any organizations, and the broader decision-making structures of society.Popular Councils
In an anarchist society, decisions are made through a horizontal federation of autonomous popular councils/assemblies sometimes referred to as "council system/democracy" or as "the Federative Principle". These councils could be establish in any association for example in the workplace, communities, regions, issue-based groups or through anarchist unions/syndicates. These councils are built from the ground up, starting at the base usually regional level and expanding to higher-level councils in a federation. At the regional level, people gather in assemblies to make choices on issues that affect them using direct democracy. That would be, for example, the rules & code of conduct of a association/council, or the distrobution of goods, assessment and planning of production or the question of regional projects like building a community center, environmental conservation projects, the distribution of work shifts in a company or the organization of the renovation of our common houses and public spaces. Councils should operate free from the authority of hierarchical organizations & political parties, excluding them from participation. The directly democratic decision-making should reflect the collective interests, rejecting simple majoritarianism and striving for a consensus when possible. To anarchsits, direct democarcy is a form of collective deliberation based on full and equal participation, allowing individuals to directly participate in the decision-making, fostering autonomy and critical thought, ensuring that all voices are heard, and no one is subordinated, unlike in hierarchical systems.Anarchist Federalism
Of course, there are also questions that are more complex, for this we use federalism. Libertarian socialists use 'federalism' differently from its modern establishment usage(i.e. Republican Federalism), instead Anarchist Federalism draws on early anarchist thinkers like Proudhon, Peter Kropotkin, Erich Mühsam, Nestor Makhno and many others. In this context, federalism is important for anarchists to operate effectively on a larger scale. Instead of capitalist or statist hierarchy, self-management i.e. direct democracy would be the guiding principle of the freely associated federation. Whether it's the previously agreed on construction of public infrastructure or the fair distribution of goods: it takes complex global networking and consultation. When it comes to a complex division of labor, such as for example the production of a tram, the affected industries in the supply chain would find common solutions by sending delegates to a federation council. These individuals are tasked with conveying the local group's proposal to a wider assembly, comprised of delegates from various groups within the federation. These delegates, unlike traditional representatives, are always recallable and hold no personal power, they carry out council decision and can be recalled at any time if they stray from their mandate/directive. This directive is directly voted on and sets guidelines or specific instructions the delegates must follow, ensuring they stay accountable to their community. At a higher level council congress delegates engage in discussions to synthesize positions and develop collective decisions that reflect the will of participating organizations. If discussions take place at a higher level council congress, outcomes are shared back with the community along with explanations and any implications for review and amendments. If amendments are proposed, they are sent back up the federative structure for consideration. This iterative process ensures that the final decision is as participatory and inclusive as possible. The final ratification happens on the base level of the popular councils as all power is held by each individual not any "representatives". Through this federation of councils, all effected people collectively shape decisions, while each commune maintains its autonomy.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 federalism relies on mutual respect for each commune's autonomy, ensuring that decisions reflect collective interest without centralizing power."From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs"
Social tasks, i.e. work, would be distributed freely and fairly among all, just like wealth. This also means that goods and resources are accessible to everyone, to be used according to each person’s needs. This also includes things like healthcare, education, housing, food, and access to utilities such as water, electricity, and internet. While in capitalism, these most basic essentials are turned into commodities sold to the highest bidder while the rest of us are forced to go without. Housing is treated as an investment opportunity for landlords and corporations, leading to countless empty unused houses and high rents while families struggle to keep a roof over their heads. Similarly, food waste piles up in landfills while millions go hungry, all because profits matter more than people’s needs. This also extends to things like healthcare, which is either underfunded or access is dictated by what you can afford, not what you need. Utilities like water and electricity, which are fundamental to life are privatized, leaving many to choose between paying bills or putting food on the table. These aren’t personal failings, they are the consequence of a system designed to prioritize profit over people.In an anarchist society, these essentials are seen as basic human rights, enabling everyone to live free, to self actualize and fulfill their potential. Anarchism strives for a society in which 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 well-being. Instead, our collective goal becomes supporting the well-being of all people and the community as a whole.Individual Autonomy & Accountability
Anarchism values individual autonomy as essential to its ideals, ensuring individuals can act freely as long as their actions impact only themselves and do not infringe on others. In an anarchist society, absolute freedom of self-expression, love, and identity - allowing individuals to live authentically and define their own lives without coercion is considered a fundamental civil right. This principle of autonomy also supports the recognition of abortion as a civil right, full legalization of drugs, ownership of firearms, the allowance of sports fighting, the recognition of both suicide and assisted suicide etc. though we should implement systems to mitigate potential harm and ensure that choices are informed and non-exploitative.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 and wage labour inherently impacts others involuntarily, under threat of losing housing, healthcare, education, food, and other basic living conditions. 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.

HISTORY & MOVEMENT

Anti-capitalist movements have appeared throughout history, but the anarchist movement emerged as the libertarian wing of socialism within the growing labor struggle. Its emergence was closely tied to the International Workingmen's Association also known as the First International in the late 1860s, where the split between the authoritarian socialists and the libertarian socialists emerged. Various currents of anarchist thought emerged during this time, including Anarcho-Mutualism, Anarcho-Syndicalism, and Anarcho-Communism. These currents are not in strong opposition, they often overlap and support each other, each emphasizing different aspects of anti-capitalist theory and practice. All key theorists were also revolutionaries who fought within the workers’ movement. As an ideological current of anarchism, Anarcho-Communism truly solidified in the late 19th century, quickly becoming the dominant current of anarchism, strongly influenced by Mikhail Bakunin’s work. Anarcho-Communism placed more emphasis on class struggle and argued that a communist(i.e. stateless, classless, moneyless) society can only be achieved thru anarchism. It received further influences from revolutionary Marxism, with which it was in lively exchange, both practically and theoretically. Pyotr Kropotkin, renowned for his concept of mutual aid, was central to its development. As Anarcho-Communism became the dominant form of anarchism, it influenced theorists like Errico Malatesta, Emma Goldman and Erich Mühsam, and more importantly the minds of the revolutionary masses in the two great anarchist revolutions of the 20th century in Europe. For example the anarcho-syndicalist union confederation CNT proposed that during the social revolution workers should establish both federations of producers’ associations, which would self-manage the workplace, and “libertarian communes” in each locality, which would organize such things as housing, education, etc. and federate together to form the “Confederation of Autonomous Libertarian Communes." Later they attempted to put this into practice both in Catalonia & Aragon during the Spanish Revolution (1936-1939), anarchist unions and militias expropriated the capitalist class, established self-managed communes, with around two thousand enterprises collectivized in catalonia alone and directly controlled by workers' committees through systems of direct democracy, organized into horizontal planning councils like the Economic Council of Catalonia. The revolution created self-management in all aspects, improved free schooling, collective & equal food access, decommodification in multiple areas, free and improved healthcare. The revolution was ultimately undermined by the betrayal of authoritarian leftist like Marxist-Leninists with the influence of the USSR, which lead to a fascist victory in the civil war against the entire Popular Front. Also, during the previous revolution which established the Free Territory (Makhovshchina) (1918-1921) in Ukraine. Here the revolution led to the creation of "Free Soviets" anarchist popular council structures that acted independently from any central authority, excluding all political parties from participation, and met to self-manage the production & activities of workers and peasants through direct democracy. This liberated territory of the anarchist movement was ultimately betrayed by the leadership of the USSR, as the Marxist-Leninist Bolsheviks sought to further consolidate their own power. In the aftermath, revolutionaries like Nestor Makhno and Peter Arshinov refined strategies for revolutionary organization, learning from the brutal lessons of the conflict.

In the time after the Spanish Revolution’s defeat, anarchism suffered a massive blow as fascist and authoritarian regimes crushed revolutionary movements as Anarchists were hunted, imprisoned, and executed. The later Red Scare forced many underground or into exile while revolutionary trade unions were co-opted or dismantled. By the 1980s, the movement had shifted towards individualist, lifestyle-oriented currents and insurrectionary tactics, which struggled to build sustained power in the face of rising neoliberal capitalism. Despite this, anarchists persisted in anti-colonial struggles, labor movements, and grassroots organizing, resisting both state repression and authoritarian leftist dominance imposed by the shadow of the USSR. In recent years, anarchism surged back into mainstream after the Occupy movement repopularized anarchist tactics like direct action, mutual aid, and direct democracy with consensus decision-making. Today Anarcho-Communism is the most widespread and influential anarchist current and is represented in countless worldwide anarchist groups and regional federations. These federation often also represent anarchist liberation movements like Anarcha-Feminism or Black Anarchism. Now, 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. Besides the specific anarchist movement other libertarian socialist project have emerged, such as the EZLN - Zapatista Autonomous Municipalities in Mexico, where communities built a bottom-up autonomous-council alternative to state control with recallable delegation etc. based on a libertarian socialist outlook with a heavy focus on indigenous rights called "Neozapatismo." Despite operating under the constant pressure of a hostile state and neo-liberal global order, the Zapatistas have achieved remarkable gains in their autonomous region like decommodification, food sovereignty, collective health care, and self-determined education, demonstrating what is possible through sustained, revolutionary anarchist practices. As another example, in the most difficult of conditions of Syria, the Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria(Rojava) based on Democratic Confederalism has experimented with radical gender equality initiatives, and decentralized administration based on grassroots community councils amid the Syrian Civil War. While facing ongoing conflict and discrepancies in their revolutionary project due to many limitations, these efforts reflect broader trends in libertarian socialist approaches to self-management. Amidst all of this, the anarchist movement is also reemerging as a relevant revolutionary force on the international stage again, offering tangible alternatives to the current crisis of capitalism, state and ecology through building collective power on the grassroots level and opposing fascism at every step.

{General List of Contemporary & Historical Social Revolutionary Activity. }

Anarchist Analysis of Class
The conception of class usually differs between revolutionary anarchism and orthodox Marxism.
Whereas Marxists tend to conceive of class as purely a relationship to society's productive means, the anarchist conception of class incorporates both the economic relationship and the relationship to the means of coercion and administration (i.e. the state).
Those who control the means of production, coercion, and administration (i.e. the dominating ruling classes) are enabled structurally to exploit, extract from, and oppress those who do not (i.e. the dominated classes).This more complete conception of class shifts the focus away from the industrial proletariat as the primary or only revolutionary subject. Anarchists argue that while the working class is a crucial protagonist in the process of revolutionary transformation, it is not alone.
For anarchists this has meant the inclusion of social groups in our revolutionary strategy that sit outside of Marxism's strictly economistic notion of class.
For example: peasants, students, the unemployed, the "lumpenproletariat", those laboring in the black or gray markets, prisoners, tenants, etc.
Each of these groups has a particular social relationship-one of exploitation and domination-to the means of production, coercion, and administration. Thus, we consider them part of the dominated classes

Anarchist Analysis of the State
The state is a centralized 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.”

The anarchist understanding of the state, unlike the authoritarian conception, avoids the overly broad and idealist framing and instead the anarchist analysis focuses on the concrete, contemporary, and historical features of the state, describing it mechanically as it exists in practice rather than imposing ideological or abstract attributes onto it.From these mechanical features inherent to the state, anarchists identify the state as fundamentally antithetical to revolutionary goals. Anarchists conclude that the presence of these features in the revolutionary process leads to the death of the revolution itself.The counter-revolutionary effects of the state are elaborated upon in the next section.

Why reject the state to transition to anarchy/communism?
Understanding Anarchist Opposition to Using the State 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. No one believes that full anarchism/communism will be brought about over night or can be instantly established. Instead anarchist aim to establish the structures from which communism would emerge from, in practice this means the transition must be rooted in the prefiguration of libertarian socialism, rejecting the hierarchies and centralization in state structures. Most authoritarian socialists fail to understand why anarchists reject hierarchical structures for revolutionary change. The following text provides an overview of the reasons libertarian socialists oppose centralization to enact this change, instead making use of horizontal 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. Marxist-Leninists for example cling to the dangerous illusion that the state is simply a tool by which one class suppresses another class that, when seized, can be used to create a "workers state," to liberate the working class and oppress the bourgeoisie. This understanding 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 suppress direct 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. Besides the inherently different relation to these power structures, this bureaucrat class of state officials, forming the new ruling class, have the disposal over the product, hence over the surplus-value, whereas the workers receive wages only, thus forming an exploited 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 and dismantled at every stage during the transition process. The state must be dismantled and pushed back continuously, ultimately aiming for its abolition to achieve a actual 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. "Every lawgiver, be he supreme court justice, minister or parliamentarian, feels himself elevated above those for whom he can create regulations, thus becoming, even when he wasn’t before, the agent of an elite divorced from the whole with different, increased needs and life goals."-Erich Mühsam. 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 recognize 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".The state not only has a negative effects on those who wielded its power. It also harm the vast numbers of people who are subject to it by making them engage in forms of practice that did not develop them into the kinds of people needed for a communist society. This is because instead of learning how to self-organize their lives effectively workers are subject to the power of a ruling minority and so are forced to do as instructed. They learn to obey and defer to their superiors rather than to think and act for themselves. Instead of learning how to associate with others as equals they learn to put those in power on a pedestal and venerate them in just the same way that people under capitalism learn to hero worship so-called ‘captains of industry’ or political figureheads like the British royal family. As Bakunin wrote, -“power corrupts those invested with it just as much as those compelled to submit to it.”Just like hierarchical social-relations reproduce themselves, libertarian socialist horizontal social-relations would aswell and over time by human beings engaging in these anarchist forms of activity and in so doing continuously creating and re-creating both anarchist social relations and themselves as people with the right kinds of capacities, drives and forms of consciousness for a anarchist society. For example, under anarchism workers within their local councils would make decisions through a system of direct-democracy in which every member has a vote. Through participating in these local councils they would not only make decisions but also reproduce themselves as people who are able to and want to make decisions in this manner, such as being able to effectively take minutes, formulate proposals that people will support and make sure that a small minority of people do not do all the talking in meetings. People who want to and are able to reproduce a communist society will not magically come into existence. A communist society can only emerge through a social revolution that abolishes capitalism.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 structures is a form of human activity that reproduces egalitarian, horizontal social relations. For this reason many anarchsit theorists also argued that we should form mass working class social movements which struggle for immediate reforms in the present via direct action and organized in a manner that prefigures an anarchist society and thus produces and re-produces these libertarian social relations. Even within the constraints of capitalist society or the limitations of a socialist transitional society, these prefigurative structures need 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:
Statists irgnoring this understanding of re-&production of certain social relations ternd to argue that in the framework of a revolutionary vanguard party, class conscious socialist rulers 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 rulers" hierarchies are inherently 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. There is no one person, vanguard or state that can "represent" the people, this is a liberal mythology to justify the hierarchical structure of republic governance. 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. But even if "class conscious benevolent rulers" genuinely committed to representing workers and advancing socialism gain power, such a system is doomed to fail on a long enough timeframe. Eventually, individuals who lack this commitment can rise to power, whether through "democratic" processes or party politics. Centralizing power in a single figure or institution creates a critical failure point where a single person or a small group of people can subvert the whole revolution. This makes the system vulnerable to coups, imperialist sabotage, or the rulers's removal. If the "benevolent rulers" are deposed, the entire structure becomes vulnerable, leaving it ripe for manipulation or control by foreign interests. This failure point can be time and time again seen in state "socialist" experiments like the USSR or China where rulers became detached from the people or were replaced by such people over the years to come. Centralization ultimately creates a inherent failure point in the system and undermines the resilience and autonomy of movements needed for lasting social change. Thus, even well intentioned progress towards socialism can be quickly undone when those with self-serving motives assume control.4. Self-Perpetuation of the State:
The Leninist notion that a centralized state could ever "wither away" is a naive fantasy unsubstantiated in reality. 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" through a vanguard party will inevitably seek 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, Rocker etc. and history has shown this to be true time and time again.The state inevitably reproduces hierarchies, it is not a 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 libertarian communism is through the complete destruction of capitalist power and the dismantling of the state apparatus, this is what all socialism should 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. Leninist vanguardist ideology and its offshoots must be firmly rejected and discarded into the trash bin of history, alongside other reactionary and counter-revolutionary experiments that perpetuate oppressive class systems and fail to deliver genuine transformation.

What is a modern-day social revolution?

1.Skepticism on Revolution in a Modern Nation-State?
The first problem already arises with the doubt about whether a revolution is even possible.
Skepticism and pessimism about the possibility of a social revolution in First-World nations are common. Phrases like “We need a socialist revolution, but it’ll never happen here,” or “Isn’t the working class too ‘privileged’ to revolt?” often reflect this. For example many claim the USA, is too "powerful" and "stable" for revolution. Yet history shows no system is unbreakable. If revolution can happen in the imperial core it enshrines that change is possible everywhere. After decades of anti-capitalist ideology in schools and media, coupled with the post-WWII economic boom that dulled class consciousness and weakened unions, it's easy to assume the US will remain capitalist forever. However, the tide is turning, and even the world's most powerful imperialist nation is not immune to the onset of a revolutionary situation that challenges the power of the ruling class. The german revolution of April 1919 declaring the Bavarian Council Republic, along with the British General Strike of 1926, demonstrate that even in the strongest economic centers of capitalism, its inherent contradictions can not be overcome. Remarkably, in 1968, France a nation celebrated for its high living standards, experienced the largest revolutionary general strike in history, despite being in a period of economic prosperity., revealing that it is not merely the absolute level of poverty or deprivation that ignites such movements. Instead, it is the persistent contradictions of the system leading to instability & oppression that drives the masses toward a tipping point. Over time, the constant cycles of exploitation, inequality, and insecurity push the working class to recognize that the existing system does not exist to address their needs or resolve their struggles and realize that the only solution is to take matters into their own hands, sparking the conditions necessary for revolution. If that weren’t enough, we must remember that consciousness evolves over time and is shaped by events. A 2023 poll found that 11% of Americans over 28 million adults support communist economics. This shows a significant support for communist radical-left ideas in a country with limited class consciousness and weak worker organization. Recent history also shows a clear trajectory: the 2011 Occupy movement, rooted in anarchist principles like consensus direct-democracy & self-management, brought masses to the streets and reignited interest in anarchism. Similarly, the BLM protests, rising labor actions, and unionization efforts reveal that economic and political instability fuel liberatory movements and intensify class struggle. Anarchist theorists typically differentiate between three distinct periods of societal transformation: the periods of evolution, characterized by gradual, incremental changes through for examples gains made by unions, and the periods of revolution, which involves rapid, fundamental large scale shifts catalyzed by moments of rupture that lead to social upheaval. The period of evolution is often seen as a preparatory period, where smaller gains accumulate and lay the groundwork for the conditions necessary to achieve large-scale revolutionary outcomes. They also describe a period of incubation, which lies between evolution and revolution. The period of incubation is the period that transforms a revolutionary situation into a fully realized revolutionary period. Then anarchists intervene in the revolutionary period as an organized mass movement in order to ensure that it becomes a social revolution and wont be co-opted. Currently, society is in a period of evolution, as the structural conditions and collective momentum needed for a full-scale social revolution have not yet materialized. The question isn’t “if” a revolution will happen, but “when” and whether we’ll be prepared. Afterall we dont simply want a politcal revolution or coup, we want a "social revolution.",2.What is a social revolution?
In order to understand what social revolution is, it is helpful first to distinguish it from political revolution.
Political revolution-examples of which include the French Revolution, the Revolutions of 1848, and later state socialist revolutions such as Cuba etc. involves the total seizure of state power. This swapping of one ruling minority for another may result in alterations to the structures of domination, but it is not capable of uprooting and destroying them, for this a strong movement is needed. This is precisely because the state itself is fundamentally a structure of domination, not a neutral instrument which can be seized upon and used for emancipatory ends. A social revolution is marked by both destruction and creation. It destroys-with the aim of preventing its future reemergence-the total system of domination. This includes the abolition of the state and the capitalist mode of production along with private property and the active overturning of old cultural norms, as well as the destruction of social classes and all other forms of domination such as white supremacy, settler colonialism, and patriarchy. These acts of destruction are intertwined with a process of creation. The means by which the system of domination is destroyed are themselves the same means through which a libertarian socialist society will be born. In other words, when the front of dominated classes have accumulated the necessary social force to initiate this final confrontation with the system of domination, it will take place primarily in the institutions where social movements are rooted-our workplaces, schools, neighborhoods, prisons-in some cases expropriating and placing them under self management and in others razing them. In order to create and re-create anarchist relations workers are creating the anarchist society by using anarchist systems of organization and decision- making (i.e. horizontal popular councils) even if they don't actually identify as anarchists.3.When? & How?
The dominated classes accumulate the necessary social force and organization to carry out a social revolution by engaging in the everyday battles of class struggle through social movements. Anarchist revolutionaries, inserted in these social movements, work to orient them to our principles and to unite them into a broad front of dominated classes aimed at attacking the system of domination. We refer to the ability of these social movements, after having accumulated sufficient force and organization, to challenge the structures of domination as popular power. Having achieved popular power and engaged in careful preparation, the front of oppressed classes (the broad front of social movements acting together) can seize upon an opportune moment of upheaval to heighten it and transform it into a truly revolutionary rupture. Many anarchists believe that the role of a revolutionary anarchist organization begins well before a social revolution unfolds. Its members participate in social movements to shape them, infuse them with our principles, and prepare them for the confrontation that social revolution entails. That does not mean we want to impose an exact absolute vision on the revolutionary process, but principles of self management, federalism, and socialism must be core to a social revolution. For the social revolution to build up enough dual power and successfully sustain itself during the process of a revolutionary rupture, we must build resilient dual power structures on a large scale.

What is Dual Power / Counter Power?
When anarchists, libertarian communists & socialists, and other revolutionaries discuss revolution, the concept of "Dual Power" is often described as a critical step - but what exactly does "Dual Power" mean?Dual Power, sometimes referred to as Counter Power by anarchists to differentiate it from its leninist origins, in its broadest sense, describes a situation where two or more competing political frameworks exist in the same territory at the same time. It implies a high level of popular mobilization, in which large numbers of people participate in alternative institutions set up outside and against those of the state. One of capitalism’s most insidious mechanisms has been making us dependent on our exploiters for survival, this is why it is crucial to build "Dual Power Structures", alternatives to provide for ourselves outside of our current framework.So what does it mean to build "Prefigurative Dual Power Structures?"
Establishing prefigurative dual power structures involves creating and connecting institutions of direct participatory democracy to challenge the existing systems of state and capitalist power, with the ultimate aim of achieving a revolutionary break. This process of building counter-institutions includes:•Establishing regional popular councils as alternative decision-making bodies to replace statist structures, ensuring that during a revolutionary rupture we have a viable alternative. These structures should be organized horizontal where power is held collectively and decisions are made democratically from the ground up rather than by centralized authorities. (A good overwiew for implementing this during large-scale uprisings can be found in The Formation of Local Councils by Omar Aziz).•Developing strike power through radical unions and independent workers' councils, which can halt capitalist production and transition economic control directly to workers during revolutionary upheaval.•Organizing defense militias as alternatives to state-controlled military and police forces, providing protection for revolutionary movements against state repression and counter-revolutionary forces. These militias would need to recruit & train new members locally to ensure sustainable, community-led defense and preparedness.•Establishing community emergency services, such as medical training programs and first-aid networks, to provide immediate care and ensure communities can remain resilient when systems are disrupted. This includes training more people locally to handle medical emergencies and build a local healthcare infrastructure.•Establishing food supply centers and mutual aid distribution networks to sustain communities during periods of economic disruption and ensure that resources remain accessible when state or capitalist supply chains collapse.

How Would Anarchism Defend Itself?
"The question of the defence of the revolution from the armed counter-revolution is no easy matter. It may require great organizational commitment from the armed revolutionary masses." - Nestor MakhnoThis 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. Historically anarchist armed forces advocated for a organized and coordinated military force "without trampling on the internal autonomy of the fighting units, which enabled them to be re-organized into regiments and brigades, coordinated by a common operational staff" - Nestor MakhnoEach militia would be part of and federated thru popular councils and 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 federated. This approach has also been 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. George Orwell described the CNT-FAI militia confederation in "Homage to Catalonia" as -"The essential point of the system was social equality between officers and men. Everyone from general to private drew the same pay, ate the same food, wore the same clothes, and mingled on terms of complete equality. If you wanted to slap the general commanding the division on the back and ask him for a cigarette, you could do so, and no one thought it curious. In theory at any rate each militia was a democracy and not a hierarchy. It was understood that orders had to be obeyed, but it was also understood that when you gave an order you gave it as comrade to comrade and not as superior to inferior. There were officers and N.C.O.S. but there was no military rank in the ordinary sense; no titles, no badges, no heel-clicking and saluting. They had attempted to produce within the militias a sort of temporary working model of the classless society."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 Anarchist Resolution to Crime & Justice
1.Anarchist criminology
Our bourgeois justice systems are formalized networks of power relations designed to serve the ruling class by enforcing social control through laws, police, courts, and prisons, primarily in the interest of capitalist economics. In the revolutionary process, a libertarian socialist society would dismantle the existing bourgeois police, the carceral state and its bourgeois judiciary structures, rejecting the need for a centralized authority. Unlike authoritarian socialists, we reject the replacement of the existing system with a new ruling class or centralized state apparatus to ensure rules & a code of conduct that guarantees security and freedom for all. Instead Anarchist criminology supports systems rooted in prevention and grassroots community organizing, 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. It is rooted in the materialist perspective, which recognizes that every action has a cause and effect. From this view, crime is not an inherent moral failing but a consequence of material failures, whether directly, such as through poverty, or indirectly, such as the long-term impact of these conditions on mental health and community stability. So anarchists belive in "seeking the causes of each crime and making every effort to eliminate them" as Malatesta said, this means by addressing these material causes, we aim to abolish their effects, tackling crime at its source. Redistributing the hoarded power & wealth of the capitalist class and ensuring that everyone’s material needs are met would address the root causes of the large majority of crime, significantly reducing 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- & transformative justice. "We must reckon with a residue of delinquency … which in the meantime will oblige the mass of workers to take defensive action. Discarding every concept of punishment and revenge, which still dominate penal law, and guided only by the need for self-defence and the desire to rehabilitate, we must seek the means to achieve our goal, without falling into the dangers of authoritarianism and consequently finding ourselves in contradiction with the system of liberty and free-will on which we seek to build the new society" - MalatestaThis would involve the establishment of community-defense militias, social emergency services, therapeutic facilities, conflict-resolution assemblies and supports systems to help individuals who commit violent offenses. For more severe violent crimes, such as counter-revolutionary & reactionary violence, murder, and rape, special measures i.e. preventive detention would be required, alongside the aforementioned community discussions to determine the most appropriate course of action. Ultimately, the aim is to create justice structures based on conflict resolution where safety and justice are ensured not through authoritarian control but through communal effort, a focus on healing, and an commitment to social reintegration. The shift from a punitive justice system to one based on collective responsibility and restorative practices ensures safety and long-term security without the need for a centralized state apparatus.2.Community Self Defense
So what happens in an actively dangerous violent situation? In a anarchist commune, one approach to handling an active violent threat to others would involve Community-Defense Militias, which are directly accountable to the commune itself. For example Malatesta wrote -"A criminal is not someone against nature or subject to a metaphysical law but someone who offends their fellow humans by violating the equal freedom of others. So long as such people exist, we must defend ourselves. This necessary defense against those who violate not the status quo but the deepest feelings distinguishing humans from beasts is one of the pretexts by which governments justify their existence. - to eliminate all social causes of crime & to seek useful alternatives to crime, these are the steps one must take. But if criminals persist, the people must find the means and the energy to directly defend themselves" 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 as a form of self/community-defense i.e. for more severe violent acts as mentioned above if the individual is a active threat to those around them. Any community-defense militias would be directly accountable to the commune for self-defense purposes and would be open to all members of the association. Malatesta mentioned the fears that - "one can, with justification, fear that this necessary defense against crime could become the beginning of and pretext for a new system of oppression and privilege" but clarified that - "by preventing personal advantage from being derived from the detection of crime, and by leaving defense measures to interested groups, society can reconcile complete freedom with protection against those who threaten it." These defense militias do not exist as enforcers with special rights standing above the people, instead they have the same power & rights as everyone else, operating as community self-defense, ensuring that no one is harmed, oppressed, or infringed upon. There are many historical examples showing that decentralized, community defense can effectively address safety and justice such as the neighborhood defense committees in Barcelona from 1933 to 1938 during the anarchist revolution and civil war.3.Rehabilitation & Transformative justice
Punishment has consistently failed as a tool for reducing violence. Instead, it reinforces systemic oppression, increases violence against targeted groups, and fosters resentment rather than meaningful change. Perpetrators often shift their harmful actions to hidden areas, like domestic violence, where they're less likely to be caught by repressing behaviors or black-market industries. Punishment pushes issues out of public view without addressing the root causes of antisocial behavior.Anarchist criminology rejects the traditional legal systems in favor of Participatory justice methods like Transformative justice and Restorative justice. These conceptions of justice are non-retributive responses to harm build around community accountability and reparation- i.e. they aim to repair the harm done to everyone affected and ensure that offenders take responsibility for their actions, to understand the harm they have caused, to give them an opportunity to redeem themselves, and to discourage them from causing further harm. Malatesta supporting rehabilitation for example wrote that - "Criminals should be seen as brothers who have strayed, as sick people needing loving treatment. In this way, it will be possible to preserve liberty while addressing crime." When someone, for example, breaks the rules of a association getting someone hurt, the case would be handled at the community level, focusing on the needs of those 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 a conflict resolution justice system. This approach to justice focuses on understanding the contexts that enabled this harm to prevent any future incidents, on rehabilitation and on how the harm can be repaired. Transformative justice first was 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.As Kropotkin wrote - "There was a custom of old by which each commune(community, clan, municipality) was considered responsible as a whole for any antisocial act committed by any of its members. This old custom has disappeared like so many good remnants of the communal Organization of old. But we are returning to it; and again, after having passed through a period of the most unbridled individualism, the feeling is growing among us that society is responsible for the anti-social deeds committed in its midst." A example of this kind of self-management can be seen in the Autonomous Zapatistas Municipality and how they handle crime/harm thru participatory justice. Another example commonly brought up is seen in Street Committees in South Africa where the police were violently repressing people and could not be relied on by the population. To address the real need for public safety, they first build the "makgotla" which were oppressive draconian courts with centralized authority but in the 1980s the "makgotla" were abolished by the youth-based anti-apartheid movement and replaced by inclusive and democratic organizations - first “People’s Courts,” and later “Street Committees.” The Street Committees were managed thru popular assemblies with the goal to keep peace in their area. While sometimes utilizing violence (mainly against those collaborating with the Apartheid government), Street Committees focused primarily on healing and restorative justice. In addition to addressing normal street crime, the Street Committees also addressed disputes between neighbors, family conflicts, employee or tenant grievances, and the like.
More on this topic can be found in Alternatives to Police by Rose City CopWatch.

Why Do Most Anarchists Support Popular Councils/Assemblies & Direct Democracy?
Popular assemblies/councils as explained in Popular Councils offer an directly democratic, anarchist approach to self-organization and decision-making that actually empowers the people, resolves conflicts peacefully and ensures responsive decision-making which is supported by most anarchists. Popular councils have always been a extremly important part in self-management to anarchists "The best method to create new collective freedom is the 'Free Soviet.' Proceeding from this conviction, the anarchist revolutionary will call the enslaved to struggle for these free associations." - Nestor Makhno.And direct-democracy is often seen as a way of direct decision-making for example David Graeber claimed- "Anarchy is democracy without the government." since Anarchism takes the ideas at the core of democracy - meaning collective deliberation based on full and equal participation, very seriously.It is obvious that individuals must work together in order to lead a fully human life. And so, "having to join with others humans” the individual has three options: “ 1.he must submit to the will of others or 2.subject others to his will or 3.live with others in fraternal agreement in the interests of the greatest good of all. Nobody can escape from this necessity.”-Errico Malatesta.Anarchists obviously pick the last option, where individuals engage as equals, expressing themselves and developing their intellectual and ethical capacities. Direct democracy allows individuals to participate in decision-making, fostering autonomy and critical thought, unlike hierarchical systems.For anarchists, direct democracy usually means any form of direct voting based on full and equal participation within a free associations, which we see as essential for peoples self-management and free agreement. Some disagree with this definition and argue democracy always implying majoritarianism because they claim democracy strictly means "rule of the people" which was based on a historical misconception in the first place as the idea that democracy means "rule of the people" is false because "kratos" means "power" or "capacity". Therefore, demokratia is lacking in archy "arkhe" and even in pointless semantic discussions around the word aligns with the anarchist conception of "Power to the People," Democracy only became associated with "rule of the people" since it was used synonymously with republicanism between 18th- and 19th century."Democracy was not invented in ancient Greece. Granted, the word “democracy” was invented in ancient Greece —but largely by people who didn’t like the thing itself very much. Democracy was never really “invented” at all. Neither does it emerge from any particular intellectual tradition. It’s not even really a mode of government. In its essence it is just the belief that humans are fundamentally equal and ought to be allowed to manage their collective affairs in an egalitarian fashion, using whatever means appear most conducive. That, and the hard work of bringing arrangements based on those principles into being.In today’s North America, its anarchists - proponents of a political philosophy that has generally been opposed to governments of any sort - who actively try to develop and promote such democratic institutions. In a way the anarchist identification with this notion of democracy goes back a long way. In 1550, or even 1750, when both words were still terms of abuse, detractors often used “democracy” interchangeably with “anarchy”, - But while “democracy” gradually became something everyone felt they had to support (even as no one agreed on what precisely it was), “anarchy” took the opposite path, becoming for most a synonym for violent disorder. Actually the term means simply “without rulers”. Just as in the case of democracy, there are two different ways one could tell the history of anarchism. On the one hand, we could look at the history of the word “anarchism”, which was coined by Pierre-Joseph Proudhon in 1840 and was adopted by a political movement in late-nineteenth-century Europe, becoming especially strongly established in Russia, Italy, and Spain, before spreading across the rest of the world; on the other hand, we could see it as a much broader political sensibility."This understanding follows the same logic we have on anarchism, meaning that Bakunin, Kropotkin, and others, did not invent the idea of anarchism, but, having discovered this broader phenomena among the masses, they merely helped refine and propagate it.Bertrand Russell observed that "anarchist organisations dislike the enforcement of decisions upon dissenters and instead, members of anarchist associations collectively define obligations, managing their own activities. These associations operate through assemblies where decisions are made collaboratively, ensuring laws can be revised as needed. Administrative tasks may be delegated to elected individuals with clearly defined, limited mandates. These delegates are recallable at all times and hold no personal power; their role is simply to relay proposals from their council and act as a conduit for the region's collective interest. They can be immediately recalled if they stray far from their directive, which is set by the council through an imperative mandate. This directive could 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 councils have a direct role in shaping decisions, while maintaining their autonomy."Anarchists use this bottom-up federalism to connect associations into federations. These relationships, like those within associations, are free and horizontal, maximizing participation and individual freedom.

Direct participation in the decision-making process of a community improves people's 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.Anarchist decision-making emphasizes avoiding both majoritarian and minority rule. As noted by Malatesta, anarchists prevent majoritarian rule by prioritizing consensus-building to achieve collective agreement; however, if consensus proves unattainable, they may employ supermajority voting to prevent minority rule. This approach minimizes the risk of bad-faith obstruction by a minority while preventing the tyranny of a simple majority.Some Individualist critics argue that direct democracy may still impose majority rule. However, this is unsubstantiated since anarchists emphasize the rights of minorities to dissent, withdraw, or protest.
“If the majority have acted in bad faith then the minority will have to take political action, including politically disobedient action if appropriate, to defend their citizenship and independence, and the political association itself… Political disobedience is merely one possible expression of the active citizenship on which a self-managing democracy is based … The social practice of promising involves the right to refuse or change commitments; similarly, the practice of self-assumed political obligation is meaningless without the practical recognition of the right of minorities to refuse or withdraw consent, or where necessary, to disobey.”

Councils should always strive for a directly democratic consensus when possible. Rejecting majority dominance and striving for consensus when possible facilitates the resolution of grievances and the creation of collectively decided solutions, while actively fostering solidarity. 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 consensus 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.

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 council 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. Decentralized democratic planning give us more precision in aligning production with societal needs unlike market economies. "Economic problems in the free society will be resolved by the producer-consumer co-operatives in which the Free Soviets(i.e. Popular Councils/Assemblies) will act as coordinators and clarifiers." -Nestor Makhno
Markets, are driven by profit, consistently overproduce waste and fail to meet the even most essential human needs, leaving millions in deprivation while resources are squandered. Market systems externalize environmental costs, allowing corporations to pollute with impunity, devastating ecosystems and communities without accountability. This is easily preventable through democratic planning, since it ensures that those directly affected by production and environmental impacts have control, enabling rational, need-based allocation and strict pollution regulation. It is not just a less damaging alternative but its a demonstrably superior system for achieving efficiency, equity, and any actual long-term sustainability."There will be no bosses... In the new system of production, the functions of organization will devolve upon specially-created agencies, purpose-built by the working masses: workers councils or workplace committees. These agencies, liaising with one another at the level of municipality, province and then country, will make up the municipal, provincial and thereafter general (federal) institutions for the management and administration of production. Appointed by the masses and continually subject to their supervision and control, these bodies are to be constantly renewed, thereby achieving the idea of genuine self-management of the masses. Unified production, in which the means of production and their output belong to all, with wage slavery replaced by the principle of comradely cooperation and equality of rights for all producers an established fact, production overseen by workers' administration bodies elected by the masses." -Nestor MakhnoOne commonly proposed model is Participatory Economics (Parecon) which is a decentralized-planned economic system that strives to build a democratic, cooperative society by decentralizing decision-making in the process of organizing production. Participatory Economics along similar conceptions have 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." Alternative information/summary of Parecon can be found in this Video and this Overview Site.Anarchists, in common with all radical proponents of social change are justifiably wary of outlining any rigid “Blueprint” for an anarchist society that would suggest that it is THE solution and should be followed to the letter. Any set of theoretical ideas about a new society and economy is only a model should be seen as concepts that are flexible and don't need to be implemented to the letter. All of us together will ultimately decide co-operatively on which elements are worthy, which need to modified, and which may be discarded. So, this model is intended to be one possible structure to orient ourselves around.Whatever specific model we use an anarchist economy is organized around the social ownership of productive commons, federations of self-managing workplaces, and federations of self-governing communes. In this system, self-managing workplaces and communes work together to coordinate the use of society's resources. The resources used to produce goods and services are collectively owned by everyone in society, not by states or a small minority of private shareholders who gain disproportionate power and wealth. The knowledge, technology, and resources we inherit today are the result of thousands of years of collective human endeavor, and everyone deserves access to and the benefits of this shared heritage. This is what we call social ownership.This following model is based of both historical anarchist economics and modern conceptions like Parecon:Economic Councils:
Producer/Worker Councils - Industry Federation: 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 would band together into a Industrly Federation(or Syndicalist union), ensuring that production meets the needs of society. They submit plans for the resources that they need and the goods and services they expect to produce to coordinate with the other councils.Consumer Councils - Consumers' Federation: 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 and submit plans for the goods and services they expect to consume that guide production at the regional and federation levels. For the federation level they would band together into a Consumers Federation. Consumers' Federation(Consumer Councils) coordinate with Industry Federation(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.Economic Councils & Federation Assembly:
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 a Economic Councils Assembly(of Consumers Federation & Indistry Federation), which facilitates coordination between regions and sectors, maintaining a decentralized yet cohesive economic structure. They manage inter-community resource allocation, large-scale infrastructure projects, and regional resources thru annual, decentralized democratic planning process called participatory planning.Production and External Resources:
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. Producer/Worker Councils submit plans for the resources that they need and the goods and services they expect to produce for the year ahead including any expected pollution emitted. Consumer councils submit plans for the goods and services they expect to consume information is then updated and plans are revised over a series of rounds until a feasible plan for the year ahead is set. Producer/Consumer Council would first approve the economic plans made at the level of the Economic Councils Assembly. Any exchange from a outside capitalist market (e.g., materials, equipment, food) which depending on the context of a revolutionary society might end up being necessary, should be limited to what the region or larger federation cannot produce itself. These exchanges if they are neccecary could be 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 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 resources could best be distributed. Coordination mechanisms will ensure that regions do not overproduce or underproduce certain goods. This system rejects market forces, 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.All decisions, resource allocations, and exchange transactions of producer/consumer councils would be documented and 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:
While local producer/consumer councils maintain autonomy, the Economic Councils Assembly of the Industry & Consumers Federation would facilitate the sharing of resources and organize commune collective initiatives. This participation is voluntary but encouraged through solidarity but also regional relations including economic means like reciprocated sharing of resources 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 exchanges from global markets, if that ends up being necessary, 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 exchanges, ensuring that they meet long-term goals.

Analysis of Material Inequality based on Capital as PowerMaterial inequality is neither a natural occurrence nor a neutral outcome. It is the direct result of historically embedded, institutionally reinforced, and self-perpetuating asymmetries of power.Power Precedes Wealth
Before economic inequality can arise, political inequality must first be established:● Who determines how resources are allocated?● Who organizes production?● Who sets the rules governing society?Those who possess the power to make these decisions inevitably accumulate material wealth and shape the conditions under which others live. In this framework, wealth is the material manifestation of social and political power.Domination Is Institutionalized
Inequality persists and deepens because power asymmetries are entrenched within key social institutions:● Inheritance sustains private dynasties and class privilege.● Private ownership of the means of production generates structural divisions between owners and workers those who dominate and those who are dominated.● The centralized state enforces these asymmetries through law, coercion, and ideological control.● Hierarchical labor structures reduce human beings to instruments of capital accumulation.The system does not merely permit inequality; it is structurally designed to produce it.The Reproduction of Inequality
Once power is concentrated, it reproduces itself through:● The accumulation of wealth, which in turn enables greater political and social influence.● The diffusion of ideology-meritocracy, consumerism, nationalism, that legitimizes and obscures the structures of domination.The Circle of Power
1. Domination establishes hierarchy2. Hierarchy produces economic advantage3. Economic advantage amplifies influence4. Influence sustains dominationAlienation and the Internalization of Inequality
Inequality is 1.Manifested in internalized submission, guilt, and competitive individualism 2. Seen in the normalization of injustice and the belief in meritocracy 3. Evident in the disempowerment of the majority, who lack control over their own livesInequality becomes self-justifying and invisible; the dominated come to internalize their condition as natural.Through this alternative to Marxism, Capital as Power (CasP) lens, the root of material inequality lies in the asymmetry of power structures. Redistribution alone cannot resolve systemic domination, genuine equality demands the horizontal democratization of power itself.

LIBERTARIAN SOCIALIST MEDIA

• Anarchist News Sources List

Anarchist Video- Media

Recommended Videos for Newcomers

Anarchist Channels

ANARCHIST LITERATURE

Political Theorists Library

Modern Contributors

Anarchist Currents

History literature

• A Brief History of Popular Assemblies and Worker Councils
• Breaking the Chains: A History of Anarchism
• 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 Org.
• Parecon Info Site

SPREAD THE WORD!

Material for posters, stickers, flyers.
Dowload it here: Poster-1 & Poster-2 & Poster-3

Note About This Website:
This is a collaborative project written form a social anarchist perspective by a small group of Anarchist-Communists and -Syndicalists.We started working on this website to make it easy for non-anarchists to get started and help new anarchists dig deeper into their journey. Whether you're just curious or looking to learn more, we hope you found this site helpful.Our site was inspired by and draws heavily on the german anarchist website anarchismus.de
and our summary includes excerpts from- & is heavily sourced from Black Rose Federation: New to Anarchism? & The Anarchist FAQ.Additional elements were directly sourced from Anarchist Communist Federation, Means and Ends The Revolutionary Practice of Anarchism in Europe and the United States, The Heart of Democracy , The State is Counter-Revolutionary , Building Dual Power , The Democracy Project, and more classical 20th century anarchist works.
-Please send any translation errors, linking errors, complaints or suggestions to-
[email protected]-Legal Disclaimer: This website presents theoretical discussions on anarchist theory and history. It is not a call to action or encouragement of illegal activities. The content is for educational purposes only.

Why reject the state to transition to anarchy/communism?
Understanding Anarchist Opposition to Using the State 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. No one believes that full anarchism/communism will be brought about over night or can be instantly established. Instead anarchist aim to establish the structures from which communism would emerge from, in practice this means the transition must be rooted in the prefiguration of libertarian socialism, rejecting the hierarchies and centralization in state structures. Most authoritarian socialists fail to understand why anarchists reject hierarchical structures for revolutionary change. The following text provides an overview of the reasons libertarian socialists oppose centralization to enact this change, instead making use of horizontal 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. Marxist-Leninists for example cling to the dangerous illusion that the state is simply a tool by which one class suppresses another class that, when seized, can be used to create a "workers state," to liberate the working class and oppress the bourgeoisie. This understanding 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 suppress direct 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. Besides the inherently different relation to these power structures, this bureaucrat class of state officials, forming the new ruling class, have the disposal over the product, hence over the surplus-value, whereas the workers receive wages only, thus forming an exploited 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 dismantled 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 recognize 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".The state not only has a negative effects on those who wielded its power. It also harm the vast numbers of people who are subject to it by making them engage in forms of practice that did not develop them into the kinds of people needed for a communist society. This is because instead of learning how to self-organize their lives effectively workers are subject to the power of a ruling minority and so are forced to do as instructed. They learn to obey and defer to their superiors rather than to think and act for themselves. Instead of learning how to associate with others as equals they learn to put those in power on a pedestal and venerate them in just the same way that people under capitalism learn to hero worship so-called ‘captains of industry’ or political figureheads like the British royal family. As Bakunin wrote, -“power corrupts those invested with it just as much as those compelled to submit to it.”Just like hierarchical social-relations reproduce themselves, libertarian socialist horizontal social-relations would aswell and over time by human beings engaging in these anarchist forms of activity and in so doing continuously creating and re-creating both anarchist social relations and themselves as people with the right kinds of capacities, drives and forms of consciousness for a anarchist society. For example, under anarchism workers within their local councils would make decisions through a system of direct-democracy in which every member has a vote. Through participating in these local councils they would not only make decisions but also reproduce themselves as people who are able to and want to make decisions in this manner, such as being able to effectively take minutes, formulate proposals that people will support and make sure that a small minority of people do not do all the talking in meetings. People who want to and are able to reproduce a communist society will not magically come into existence. A communist society can only emerge through a social revolution that abolishes capitalism.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 structures is a form of human activity that reproduces egalitarian, horizontal social relations. For this reason many anarchsit theorists also argued that we should form mass working class social movements which struggle for immediate reforms in the present via direct action and organized in a manner that prefigures an anarchist society and thus produces and re-produces these libertarian social relations. Even within the constraints of capitalist society or the limitations of a socialist transitional society, these prefigurative structures need 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:
Statists irgnoring this understanding of re-&production of certain social relations ternd to argue that in the framework of a revolutionary vanguard party, class conscious socialist rulers 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 rulers" hierarchies are inherently 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. There is no one person, vanguard or state that can "represent" the people, this is a liberal mythology to justify the hierarchical structure of republic governance. 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. But even if "class conscious benevolent rulers" genuinely committed to representing workers and advancing socialism gain power, such a system is doomed to fail on a long enough timeframe. Eventually, individuals who lack this commitment can rise to power, whether through "democratic" processes or party politics. Centralizing power in a single figure or institution creates a critical failure point where a single person or a small group of people can subvert the whole revolution. This makes the system vulnerable to coups, imperialist sabotage, or the rulers's removal. If the "benevolent rulers" are deposed, the entire structure becomes vulnerable, leaving it ripe for manipulation or control by foreign interests. This failure point can be time and time again seen in state "socialist" experiments like the USSR or China where rulers became detached from the people or were replaced by such people over the years to come. Centralization ultimately creates a inherent failure point in the system and undermines the resilience and autonomy of movements needed for lasting social change. Thus, even well intentioned progress towards socialism can be quickly undone when those with self-serving motives assume control.4. Self-Perpetuation of the State:
The Leninist notion that a centralized state could ever "wither away" is a naive fantasy unsubstantiated in reality. 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" through a vanguard party will inevitably seek 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, Rocker etc. and history has shown this to be true time and time again.The state inevitably reproduces hierarchies, it is not a 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 libertarian communism is through the complete destruction of capitalist power and the dismantling of the state apparatus, this is what all socialism should 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. Leninist vanguardist ideology and its offshoots must be firmly rejected and discarded into the trash bin of history, alongside other reactionary and counter-revolutionary experiments that perpetuate oppressive class systems and fail to deliver genuine transformation.

Anarchist Grundlage Übersicht:

Anarchistische Prinzipien & Soziale Organisation

PRINZIPIEN UND GRUNDLAGEN

Der Anarchismus entstand als der antistaatliche Flügel der sozialistischen Bewegung, die oft als "libertärer Sozialismus" oder "antiautoritäre Sozialismus" bezeichnet wird. Anarchist*innen sind alle libertäre Sozialistinnen die an die Notwendigkeit und Möglichkeit einer grundsätzlich anderen Gesellschaft und eines anderen Wirtschaftssystems glauben. Wir streben eine horizontale, staatenlose, klassenlose, sozialistische Gesellschaft an, die frei von Herrschaft ist und auf den Prinzipien von Solidarität, Selbstverwaltung, direkter Demokratie, ökologischer Nachhaltigkeit und Kooperation beruht.Anarchist*innen lehnen alle Formen hierarchischer Herrschaft ab, einschließlich Kapitalismus, Staat, weiße Vorherrschaft, Heteropatriarchat, Imperialismus und Siedlerkolonialismus. Wir sind überzeugt, dass eine neue Gesellschaft nur durch den sozial revolutionären Druck entstehen kann, der durch direkte Aktionen unabhängiger Massenbewegungen erzeugt wird. Dazu gehören Gegenmacht, präfigurative Politik und großangelegte Generalstreiks.

Grundlagen - Stichpunkte

● Klassenlose Gesellschaft: Abolition of class society and establishment of a libertarian socialist economy based on the collectivization of resources and economic power.● Horizontalismus: Abschaffung hierarchischer Systeme zugunsten horizontaler (nicht-hierarchischer), selbstverwalteter Strukturen, die kollektive Entscheidungsfindung und individuelle Autonomie fördern und den Menschen die Kontrolle über ihr Leben zurückgeben.● Rätegesellschaft: Abschaffung staatlicher, von oben nach unten gerichteter Strukturen und Einrichtung von einem Rätesystem. Diese Räte werden von den Arbeiterinnen eines selbstverwalteten Betriebs oder den Bewohnerinnen einer Region gewählt, mit direkter Demokratie und widerrufbaren Delegierten, die ein imperatives Mandat haben.● Anarchistischer Föderalismus: Unabhängige Kommunen / Bezirke / Regionen schließen sich in Räten auf höheren Ebenen zusammen, um komplexere Entscheidungen zu treffen, wobei die Autonomie auf regionaler Ebene erhalten bleibt und Entscheidungen horizontal getroffen werden.● „Alle nach ihren Fähigkeiten, allen nach ihren Bedürfnissen:“ Freie und gerechte Verteilung kreativer und produktiver Aufgaben sowie des gesamten gesellschaftlichen Reichtums, einschließlich Dienstleistungen wie Gesundheitsversorgung und Bildung etc.● Individuelle Autonomie: Schutz der Freiheit von Individuen, Entscheidungen über ihr eigenes Leben zu treffen, einschließlich uneingeschränkter körperlicher Autonomie und Selbstausdruck, frei von Zwang.

AUSFÜHRLICHE GRUNDLAGEN

Anarchismus kurz definiert
Anarchismus ist die Ablehnung hierarchischer Machtstrukturen, die Grundlage, um diese zu lokalisieren und zu verstehen, sowie die Methode, mit der wir diese hierarchischen Machtstrukturen abbauen und durch eine horizontale Gesellschaft freier Assoziation ersetzen können, die gemeinsam von den Menschen kontrolliert wird.Abschaffung der Klassengesellschaft
Kapitalistische Gesellschaften, wie die feudalen und sklavenbasierten Systeme vor ihnen, teilen Menschen in verschiedene Klassen mit unterschiedlichen wirtschaftlichen Positionen und sozialer Macht. Libertäre Sozialistinnen betonen die Machtunterschiede zwischen der Kapitalistinnenklasse (auch Bourgeoisie genannt), also denen, die Fabriken, Land oder Wohnraum besitzen und Entscheidungen über unser Leben und unsere Arbeit kontrollieren, und der lohnarbeitenden Klasse – also uns, den Arbeiterinnen, die gezwungen sind, ihre Arbeitskraft zu verkaufen, um über die Runden zu kommen.Im Laufe der Zeit wurden Klassenteilungen komplexer: Einige Arbeiterinnen besitzen Aktien von Unternehmen oder verdienen als Managerinnen mehr als Kleinkapitalistinnen. Doch für Anarchistinnen bleibt die Lösung klar: Die Klassengesellschaft muss abgeschafft werden, egal wie sie aussieht. Das bedeutet die Abschaffung von Privateigentum, also des privaten Besitzes von Fabriken, Unternehmen, Land usw., das stattdessen kollektiv von den Arbeiterinnen selbst besessen und kontrolliert werden sollte. Nur durch diese kollektive Kontrolle können wir die Kontrolle über unser Leben zurückgewinnen, sicherstellen, dass Entscheidungen über Arbeit, Produktion und Ressourcen allen zugutekommen und kollektiv getroffen werden – und nicht nur zum Profit der Kapitalistinnenklasse.Horizontalismus
Anarchismus will jeden Einzelnen befähigen, Kontrolle über das eigene Leben zu haben. Libertäre Sozialistinnen lehnen hierarchische Machtstrukturen in Organisationen ab, da die Konzentration von Macht immer die Entfremdung der Menschen von der Kontrolle über ihr eigenes Leben bedeutet und in der Folge zu Herrschaft und Zwangsarbeit führt.Diese hierarchischen Machtstrukturen müssen abgeschafft und durch eine horizontale, selbstverwaltete Gesellschaft ersetzt werden, in der jeder Einzelne Macht besitzt. Im Gegensatz zu Systemen mit konzentrierter Autorität, wie Kapitalismus und Staat, stellt Horizontalismus sicher, dass alle die gleiche Macht und den gleichen Einfluss haben und Entscheidungen kollektiv und nicht von oben nach unten getroffen werden – sei es am Arbeitsplatz, in der Gemeinschaft, in Organisationen oder in den Entscheidungsstrukturen der gesamten Gesellschaft.Rätegesellschaft
In einer anarchistischen Gesellschaft werden Entscheidungen durch eine Stufensystem horizontale Föderation autonomer Räte/Versammlungen getroffen. Diese Räte entstehen von unten nach oben, beginnend auf regionaler Ebene und ausweitend zu höheren Räten in einer Föderation. Auf der regionalen Ebene versammeln sich Menschen in Versammlungen, um Entscheidungen zu treffen, die sie betreffen, indem sie direkte Demokratie nutzen.Das könnte beispielsweise Regeln und Verhaltenskodizes einer Vereinigung, die Verteilung von Gütern, die Bewertung und Planung von Produktionen oder Fragen zu regionalen Projekten wie dem Bau eines Gemeinschaftszentrums, Umweltprojekten, der Verteilung von Arbeitsschichten in einem Unternehmen oder der Organisation von Renovierungen unserer gemeinsamen Häuser und öffentlichen Räume umfassen.Räte sollten frei von der Autorität hierarchischer politischer Parteien agieren, die von der Teilnahme ausgeschlossen sind. Die direkt-demokratische Entscheidungsfindung sollte die kollektiven Interessen widerspiegeln, einfachen Majoritarismus ablehnen und nach Möglichkeit Konsens anstreben. Für Anarchistinnen ist direkte Demokratie eine Form kollektiver Beratung, die auf vollständiger und gleichberechtigter Teilnahme basiert, es den Menschen ermöglicht, direkt an Entscheidungsprozessen teilzunehmen, Autonomie und kritisches Denken fördert und sicherstellt, dass alle Stimmen gehört werden und niemand untergeordnet wird – im Gegensatz zu hierarchischen Systemen.Anarchistischer Föderalismus
Natürlich gibt es auch komplexere Fragestellungen, für die der Föderalismus genutzt wird. Libertäre Sozialistinnen verwenden den Begriff "Föderalismus" anders als in seinem modernen etablierten Gebrauch (z. B. Republikanischer Föderalismus). Stattdessen bezieht sich der anarchistische Föderalismus auf Gedanken von Denkerinnen des 19. Jahrhunderts wie Proudhon, Peter Kropotkin und vielen anderen.In diesem Kontext ist Föderalismus für Anarchistinnen wichtig, um effektiv in größerem Maßstab zu arbeiten. Anstelle kapitalistischer oder staatlicher Hierarchien wäre Selbstverwaltung, also direkte Demokratie, das Leitprinzip der frei assoziierten Föderation. Beispiele wie der Bau öffentlicher Infrastruktur oder die faire Verteilung von Gütern erfordern komplexe globale Vernetzung und Konsultation. In Fällen von komplizierter Arbeitsteilung – wie z. B. der Produktion einer Straßenbahn – würden die beteiligten Unternehmen in der Lieferkette durch Delegierte Lösungen finden. Diese Delegierten, im Gegensatz zu traditionellen Vertreterinnen, sind jederzeit abberufbar und besitzen keine persönliche Macht. Sie führen Ratsbeschlüsse aus und können sofort abberufen werden, wenn sie von ihrem imperativen Mandat abweichen. Dieses imperative Mandat wird durch direkte abstummung festgelegt (feste Richtlinien oder spezifische Anweisungen), die die Delegierten einhalten müssen, wodurch sie gegenüber ihrer Gemeinschaft rechenschaftspflichtig bleiben."From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs"
Soziale Aufgaben, d. h. Arbeit, würden frei und gerecht unter allen verteilt, genau wie Reichtum. Das bedeutet auch, dass Güter und Ressourcen für alle zugänglich sind und entsprechend den Bedürfnissen jeder Person genutzt werden können. Dazu gehören auch Dinge wie Gesundheitsversorgung, Bildung, Wohnen, Nahrung und Zugang zu Versorgungsleistungen wie Wasser, Strom und Internet. Im Kapitalismus hingegen werden diese grundlegendsten Dinge zu Waren, die an den Meistbietenden verkauft werden, während der Rest von uns gezwungen ist, darauf zu verzichten. Wohnraum wird als Investitionsmöglichkeit für Vermieter und Unternehmen betrachtet, was zu zahllosen leeren, ungenutzten Häusern und hohen Mieten führt, während Familien darum kämpfen, ein Dach über dem Kopf zu behalten. Ebenso stapeln sich Lebensmittelabfälle auf Mülldeponien, während Millionen hungern, und das alles, weil Profite wichtiger sind als die Bedürfnisse der Menschen. Das gilt auch für Dinge wie die Gesundheitsversorgung, die entweder unterfinanziert ist oder deren Zugang von dem bestimmt wird, was man sich leisten kann, nicht von dem, was man braucht. Versorgungsleistungen wie Wasser und Strom, die für das Leben grundlegend sind, werden privatisiert, sodass viele sich entscheiden müssen, ob sie ihre Rechnungen bezahlen oder Essen auf den Tisch bringen wollen. Dies sind keine persönlichen Verfehlungen, sondern die Folge eines Systems, das darauf ausgelegt ist, Profit über Menschen zu stellen.In einer anarchistischen Gesellschaft werden diese wesentlichen Dinge als grundlegende Menschenrechte angesehen, die es jedem ermöglichen, frei zu leben, sich selbst zu verwirklichen und sein Potenzial auszuschöpfen. Der Anarchismus strebt nach einer Gesellschaft, in der jeder die Freiheit hat, sinnvolle Aktivitäten zu wählen und sich kreativ zu entwickeln. Damit dies jedoch nachhaltig ist, müssen diese Bemühungen durch ein System von Räten und Verbänden koordiniert werden, um eine ausgewogene Produktion zu gewährleisten und zu verhindern, dass eine Gruppe oder Gewerkschaft überlastet wird. Dies umfasst auch reproduktive und pflegerische Arbeit, die historisch ungleich hauptsächlich auf Frauen fiel. In einem solchen System werden unsere Arbeit und Produktion nicht von den Profitmotiven der Kapitalisten auf Kosten des Wohlergehens der Arbeiter getrieben. Stattdessen wird es unser gemeinsames Ziel, das Wohlergehen aller Menschen und der Gemeinschaft als Ganzes zu unterstützen.Individuelle Autonomie und Zurechenbarkeit
Der Anarchismus schätzt die individuelle Autonomie als wesentlich für seine Ideale und stellt sicher, dass Individuen frei handeln können, solange ihre Handlungen nur sie selbst betreffen und nicht andere beeinträchtigen. In einer anarchistischen Gesellschaft gilt die absolute Freiheit der Selbstdarstellung, der Liebe und der Identität – die es Individuen ermöglicht, authentisch zu leben und ihr eigenes Leben ohne Zwang zu bestimmen – als grundlegendes Bürgerrecht. Dieses Prinzip der Autonomie unterstützt auch die Anerkennung der Abtreibung als Bürgerrecht, die vollständige Legalisierung von Drogen, den Besitz von Schusswaffen, die Erlaubnis zum Sportkampf, die Anerkennung von Selbstmord und Sterbehilfe usw. Allerdings sollten wir Systeme implementieren, um potenzielle Schäden zu mildern und sicherzustellen, dass Entscheidungen informiert und nicht ausbeuterisch sind.Umgekehrt werden Einzelpersonen, wenn sie Entscheidungen treffen, die andere betreffen, für die Ergebnisse zur Rechenschaft gezogen, unabhängig davon, ob sie als Einzelpersonen oder als Teil eines anderen demokratischen Gremiums handeln. Dieses Prinzip untergräbt grundlegend die Rechtfertigung des Kapitalismus, da das Privateigentum an Arbeitsplätzen und Lohnarbeit zwangsläufig unfreiwillige Auswirkungen auf andere hat, die mit dem Verlust von Wohnraum, Gesundheitsversorgung, Bildung, Nahrung und anderen grundlegenden Lebensbedingungen rechnen müssen. Dies gilt auch für das Thema Eigentumsrechte: Einzelpersonen dürfen persönliche Besitztümer besitzen, aber nichts, was gemeinschaftlich betrieben wird. Die Menschen wären frei, mit ihrem eigenen Körper umzugehen, wie sie wollen, müssten aber Verantwortung tragen, wenn ihre Handlungen Auswirkungen auf andere haben.

I've been doing a lot of articles on Durruti lately. I was intrigued by the book Towards a Fresh Revolution (Friends of Durruti) - and not only historically but ideologically - basically it's nice to see how Durruti's group (affinity group) predicted what would happen to the CNT if political and military power was handed over to the central government and the Republicans (Stalinists). As the CNT started to put in more "anarchist ministers" it became clear that the whole anarchist idea was collapsing - this group was strongly critical of it and had huge support. However, the CNT did not take steps further to continue the revolution:We are not about to rehearse the deeds, nor the tactical acumen which made the success of the popular uprising in Barcelona feasible. Here all that concerns us is to emphasize that the “Nosotros” group (abetted by other FAI affinity groups) acted as a revolutionary vanguard astute enough to steer the confederal masses towards a victorious uprising. We are also concerned to underline the inability of that group, and of all the labor leaders and organizations, anarchist or otherwise, to consolidate the revolution, when power was within their grasp and was there for the taking, because one may be armed with a rifle but disarmed in political terms. How are we to account for, how are we to understand the undisputed leaders of the CNT trotting along to a rendezvous with Companys in the Generalidad Palace? How could they have heeded a man who in the early morning of July 19th refused the CNT weapons, and who had so often harassed and incarcerated them? How come there was still a government in the Generalidad? Why did they not march up to the Generalidad and do away with the bourgeoisie’s government? How come they did not proclaim libertarian communism?[It was a critical problem - that the CNT joined the Republicans in government - the immediate infiltration by the Stalinists began and the Republican social revolution was slowly destroyed.We are opposed to collaboration with bourgeois groups. We do not believe that the class approach can be abandoned.Revolutionary workers must not shoulder official posts, nor establish themselves in the ministries. For as long as the war lasts, collaboration is permissible — on the battlefield, in the trenches, on the parapets and in productive labour in the rearguard.Our place is in the unions, in the work place, keeping alive that spirit of rebellion which will bloom on the earliest occasion that presents itself.We must have no part of combinations devised by bourgeois politicians acting in concert with foreign chancellories. That would be tantamount to strengthening our enemies and tightening the noose of capitalism. No more portfolios. No more ministries. Let’s get back to the unions and the nitty-gritty of work tools.Things had to be dealt with really radically - because in a few months the biggest Stalinist purges in Spain began - the persecution of anarchists, POUM and Trotskyists. As the anarchists were very anti-Stalinist they criticised the policies of Stalin and the Spanish Republic.
Unfortunately, due to the fact that the CNT-FAI had no revolutionary program or goals - the rejoining of the state definitely destroyed it. The collaborators and the "anarchist ministers" left the proletariat in the lurch despite having the power to change some things.

A group of friends of Durruti therefore offered a programme that could help continue the social revolution and militarize anarchist militias (create Confederal Army):
I. Establishment of a Revolutionary Junta or National Defence Council.
This body will be organised as follows: members of the revolutionary Junta will be elected by democratic vote in the union organisations. Account is to be taken of the number of comrades away at the front; these comrades must have the right to representation. The Junta will steer clear of economic affairs, which are the exclusive preserve of the unions.a) The functions of the revolutionary Junta are as follows:b) The management of the warc) The supervision of revolutionary orderd) International affairse) Revolutionary propaganda.Posts to come up regularly for re-allocation so as to prevent anyone growing attached to them. And the trade union assemblies will exercise control over the Junta’s activities.II. All economic power to the syndicates.
Since July the unions have supplied evidence of the great capacity for constructive labour. Had we not relegated them to a secondary position, they would have yielded a great return on the investment. It will be the unions that structure the proletarian economy.An Economic Council may also be set up, taking into consideration the natures of the Industrial Unions and Industrial federations, to improve on the co-ordination of economic activities.III. Free municipality.
Prior to the coming of the foreign dynasties, municipal rights were defended with great tenacity in Spain. Such decentralisation precluded the erection of a new State system. And in this new Spain which the proletariat looks forward to, the charter of freedoms that went under at Villalar shall rise again. And the so-called Catalan and Basque problems ... will be resolved.The Municipality shall take charge of those functions of society that fall outside the preserve of the unions. And since the society we are going to build shall be composed exclusively of producers, it will be the unions, no less, that will provide sustenance for the municipalities. And, as there is no disparity of interests, there can be no conflict.The Municipalities will be organised at the level of local, comarcal and peninsula federations. Unions and municipalities will maintain liaison at local, comarcal and national levels.This program strikes me as quite platformist and libertarian-communist in principle - but in fact the CNT leaders have revisionistically abandoned the principle of social revolution and thus destroyed the entire anarchist attempt to establish libertarian communism. Sadly, Durruti's Friends of the CNT group was called traitors and Bolsheviks, Trotskyists, by the leaders. The CNT leadership was infiltrated by Stalinists, or at least revisionism worked really well and played into the hands of the Stalinists.

Accusations of Marxism / why did the Trotskyists agree with the anarchist programme?
The CNT accused the Durruti group of Marxism - of being infiltrated by Trotskyists. Despite the fact that their views were not influenced by Trotskyists (perhaps in some situations) there is no direct evidence - and even if there was? What exactly is the problem? If the Trotskyists agreed with decentralised anarchist economics, proletarian internationalism what exactly was the problem?
This is a crucial text, for it represents a landmark in the evolution of anarchist thinking. The theoretical notions set out here, previously sketched only in a very confused way, are now spelled out with dazzling clarity. And these theoretical acquisitions were later to be reiterated and thought through in Balius’s pamphlet Hacia una nueva revolución. But here they appear for the first time. And no one can fail to appreciate the novelty and significance of them in the context of anarchist thought. The Friends of Durruti had picked up old theoretical concepts, at which they had arrived at the end of a painful historical experience, over a civil war and revolutionary process, which had starkly exposed the contradictions and demands of the class struggle. Are we to believe, then, that this evolution in the political thinking of the Friends of Durruti can seriously and verifiably be ascribed to the influence of some outside group, say, Trotskyists or POUMists? It is beyond dispute that this is an evolution attributable to the Friends of Durruti Group exclusively. In their analysis of the political and historical situation, they had come to the conclusion that, in a revolution, there was an ineluctable requirement that a Revolutionary Junta be established. Naturally, the Friends of Durruti shunned the characteristic terminology of marxism,[107] and employed a different idiom, characteristic of anarchist ideology: and that idiom in which they frame the notion of “dictatorship of the proletariat,” is further proof that we are dealing here with evolution internal to the Group, rather than its being colonized or captivated by some outside group. Social and historical realities are stubborn enough and tough enough to ensure that the elements of revolutionary theory can germinate in a revolutionary group which simply keeps its eyes open and its mind alert.In the same edition of the paper, there was an analysis of events since May, which included a denunciation of the incarceration and trial of POUM militants by the Stalinists, and the destruction of the collectives. Pointed contrasts were drawn between the ease in which the middle classes, the Stalinists’ spawning ground, lived, and the persecution of revolutionary workers. There was also Fulmen’s usual piece on the French Revolution, outlining an interesting contrast between the French revolutionary process and the Spanish. Finally, there was an outstanding long article denouncing abortive attempts on the part of the CNT’s leading committees to have the Friends of Durruti expelled.

"There will be no bosses... In the new system of production, the functions of organization will devolve upon specially-created agencies, purpose-built by the working masses: workers councils or workplace committees. These agencies, liaising with one another at the level of municipality, province and then country, will make up the municipal, provincial and thereafter general (federal) institutions for the management and administration of production. Appointed by the masses and continually subject to their supervision and control, these bodies are to be constantly renewed, thereby achieving the idea of genuine self-management of the masses.Unified production, in which the means of production and their output belong to all, with wage slavery replaced by the principle of comradely cooperation and equality of rights for all producers an established fact, production overseen by workers' administration bodies elected by the masses."
- Makhno

Platformism Historical misconceptions
Second, in advocating an executive committee within the specific anarchist organization they were not proposing the formation of “a Party Central Committee… that issues orders, makes laws and commands.”[1241] The authors of the Platform not only thought that an executive committee was consistent with anarchism, but that “such an organ exists in many anarchist and anarchist-syndicalist organizations.”[1242] What the Platform called an “Executive Committee” had no coercive powers. It was merely “a body performing functions of a general nature in the Union” that would not restrict the activity of groups within the organization and instead only “steer their activity” by providing “ideological or organizational assistance,” such as advising a group on the current “tactical or organizational line adopted by the Union on a variety of matters.”[1243]If a group within the specific anarchist organization decided to adopt its own tactical approach then one of three outcomes would occur: the minority would agree to follow the majority position within the organization because it is not an issue of supreme importance; the minority and majority position would coexist if feasible; or, the minority would leave the organization to form their own group. Crucially, which of these outcomes transpired “will be resolved, not by the Executive Committee which, let us repeat, is to be merely an executive organ of the Union, but by the entire Union as a body: by a Union Conference or Congress.”[1244]Third, the idea of collective responsibility did not entail the view that the members of the organization would have to follow the orders of an executive committee. Arshinov explained in his response to Malatesta that the members of the organization would be united under a common program that they all supported and which, in so far as they were members, was binding upon them. Given this,the practical activity of a member of the organization is naturally in complete harmony with the overall activity, and conversely the activity of the organization as a whole could not be at odds with the conscience and activity of each member, assuming he has accepted the program fundamental to this organization. It is this which characterizes the principle of collective responsibility: the Union as a body is answerable for the activity of each member, in the knowledge that he could only carry out his political and revolutionary work in the political spirit of the Union. Likewise, each member is fully answerable for the Union as a whole, since its activity could not be at odds with what has been determined by the whole membership.[1245]From Arshinov’s response, it is clear that Malatesta’s critique was based on a misunderstanding of what the authors of the Platform meant by collective responsibility. Malatesta himself realized that this was potentially the case. He wrote in a December 1929 letter to Makhno that,I accept and support the view that anyone who associates and cooperates with others for a common purpose must feel the need to coordinate his actions with those of his fellow members and do nothing that harms the work of others and, thus, the common cause; and respect the agreements that have been made—except when wishing sincerely to leave the association.… I maintain that those who do not feel and do not practice that duty should be thrown out of the association. Perhaps, speaking of collective responsibility, you mean precisely that accord and solidarity that must exist among the members of an association. And if that is so, your expression amounts, in my view, to an incorrect use of language, but basically it would only be an unimportant question of wording and agreement would soon be reached.[1246]Malatesta further clarified his views on the topic in a July 1930 letter he wrote to a platformist group, based in the Montmartre district of Paris. Although he continued to reject the phrase “collective responsibility” in favor of “moral responsibility,” he wrote “I find myself more or less in agreement with their way of conceiving the anarchist organization (being very far from the authoritarian spirit which the ‘Platform’ seemed to reveal) and I confirm my belief that behind the linguistic differences really lie identical positions.”[1247] Malatesta was, nonetheless, not a platformist since he thought that specific anarchist organizations should have a slightly broader program, and rejected the position that congress resolutions passed by majority vote should be binding on every group within a specific anarchist organization, rather than only those groups who voted in favor of them.The immediate practical effect of the Platform appears to have been somewhat limited. The Dielo Truda group organized a number of discussion meetings on the Platform that were attended by militants from around the world, including France, Italy, Spain, Bulgaria, Poland, and China. This culminated in an attempt to form an Anarchist International at a meeting held in a Parisian cinema on March 20, 1927.[1248] During the meeting, Makhno proposed a five-point program to be discussed: “(1) recognition of the class struggle as the most important factor of the anarchist system; (2) recognition of anarcho-communism as the basis of the movement; (3) recognition of syndicalism as one of the principal methods of anarcho-communist struggle; (4) the necessity of a ‘General Union of Anarchists’ based on ideological and tactical unity and collective responsibility; (5) the necessity of a positive program to realize the social revolution.”[1249]These five points were then pedantically rephrased by the attending delegates in a manner that changed their language but not their ultimate meaning. The wording agreed upon was:recognition of the struggle of all oppressed and exploited against state and capitalist authority as the most important factor of the anarchist system;recognition of anarcho-communism as the basis of the movement;recognition of the labor and union struggle as one of the most important means of anarchist revolutionary action;necessity in each country of as general as possible a Union of Anarchists who have the same goals and tactics, as well as collective responsibility;necessity of a positive program of action for the anarchists in the social revolution.[1250]

Platformism advocates for the creation of a specifically anarchist organization. This organization will have a unifying set of principles known as the platform. This platform will serve as the base "ideological requirements" for members of the platform (believing in anarchist communism, recognizing anarchist syndicalism as a method of achieving socialism, etc.). The platformist organization can then get behind this unified set of principles to come up with ways to take action within the capitalist world. This can include building projects, establishing connections with non-explicitly-anarchist unions/organizations, and the development of further theory based on their experiences and baseline set of theory.The baseline platform put forth by Makhno et al. has the characteristics of having a general assembly composed of all members of the platformist organization, and an executive committee (a committee that'll bring about whatever the organization decides on, partially on communicating on who work on what but mainly ensuring that the things people want done are getting done [the executive committee doesn’t make a decision for the rest of the union of anarchists. the union of anarchists itself comes to a decision which is then implemented by the executive committee - they r obv also recallable at all times]), and a majoritarian decision making process (which Malatesta and a few others disagreed with)

malatesta & kropotkin crime stuff

As Kropotkin wrote - "There was a custom of old by which each commune(community, clan, municipality) was considered responsible as a whole for any antisocial act committed by any of its members. This old custom has disappeared like so many good remnants of the communal Organization of old. But we are returning to it; and again, after having passed through a period of the most unbridled individualism, the feeling is growing among us that society is responsible for the anti-social deeds committed in its midst."-zine:
I imagine that no one would theoretically deny that freedom, understood in the sense of reciprocity, is the basic prerequisite of any civilization and of humanity itself. Only anarchy represents its logical and complete realization. On this assumption, a criminal is not someone against nature or subject to a metaphysical law but someone who offends their fellow humans by violating the equal freedom of others. So long as such people exist, we must defend ourselves.This necessary defense against those who violate not the status quo but the deepest feelings distinguishing humans from beasts is one of the pretexts by which governments justify their existence. To eliminate all social causes of crime, to develop brotherly feelings and mutual respect, to seek useful alternatives to crime—these are the steps one must take. But if criminals persist, the people must find the means and the energy to directly defend themselves, or else the police and the magistrature will reappear, and with them, government. Denying a problem does not solve it.One can, with justification, fear that this necessary defense against crime could become the beginning of and pretext for a new system of oppression and privilege. It is the anarchists' mission to see that this does not happen. By seeking the causes of each crime and making every effort to eliminate them, by preventing personal advantage from being derived from the detection of crime, and by leaving defense measures to interested groups, society can reconcile complete freedom with protection against those who threaten it. Criminals should be seen as brothers who have strayed, as sick people needing loving treatment—just as one would treat a hydrophobe or a dangerous lunatic. In this way, it will be possible to preserve liberty while addressing crime.

"We must reckon with a residue of delinquency … which in the meantime will oblige the mass of workers to take defensive action. Discarding every concept of punishment and revenge, which still dominate penal law, and guided only by the need for self-defence and the desire to rehabilitate, we must seek the means to achieve our goal, without falling into the dangers of authoritarianism and consequently finding ourselves in contradiction with the system of liberty and free-will on which we seek to build the new society" - Malatesta

life and ideas:This necessary defence against those who violate not the status quo but the deepest feelings which distinguish men from beasts, is one of the pretexts by which governments justify their existence. One must eliminate all the social causes of crime, one must develop in man brotherly feelings, and mutual respect; one must, as Fourier put it, seek useful alternatives to crime. But if, and so long as, there are criminals, either the people will find the means, and have the energy, to directly defend themselves against them, or the police and the magistrature will reappear and with them, government.It is not by denying a problem that one solves it.One can, with justification, fear that this necessary defence against crime could be the beginning of and the pretext for, a new system of oppression and privilege. It is the anarchists’ mission to see that this does not happen. By seeking the causes of each crime and making every effort to eliminate them; by making it impossible for anybody to derive personal advantage out of the detection of crime, and leaving it to the interested groups themselves to take whatever steps they deem necessary for their defence; by accustoming oneself to consider criminals as brothers who have strayed, as sick people needing loving treatment, as one would for any hydrophobe or dangerous lunatic—it will be possible to reconcile the complete freedom of all with defence against those who obviously and dangerously threaten it.Obviously this is possible, when crime will be reduced to sporadic, individual, and truly pathological cases. If it were a fact that criminals were too numerous and powerful; if, for example, they were what the bourgeoisie and fascism are today [1922], then it is not a question of discussing what we will do in an anarchist society.[142]With the growth of civilisation, and of social relations; with the growing awareness of human solidarity which unites mankind; with the development of intelligence and a refinement of feelings there is certainly a corresponding growth of social duties, and many actions which were considered as strictly individual rights and independent of any collective control will be considered, indeed they already are, matters affecting everybody, and must therefore be carried out in conformity with the general interest. For instance, even in our times parents are not allowed to keep their children in ignorance and bring them up in a way which is harmful to their development and future well-being. A person is not allowed to live in filthy conditions and neglect those rules of hygiene which can affect the health of others; one is not allowed to have an infectious disease and not have it treated. In a future society it will be considered a duty to seek to ensure the good of all, just as it will be considered blameworthy to procreate if there are reasons to believe that the progeny will be unhealthy and unhappy. But this sense of our duties to others, and of theirs to us must, according to our social concepts, develop without any other outside sanction than the esteem or the disapproval of our fellow citizens. Respect, the desire for the well-being of others, must enter into the customs, and manifest themselves not as duties but as a normal satisfaction of social instincts.There are those who would improve the morality of people by force, who would wish to introduce an Article into the penal code for every possible human action, who would place a gendarme alongside every nuptial bed and by every table. But these people if they lack the coercive powers to impose their ideas, only succeed in making a mockery of the best things; and if they have the power to command, make what is good hateful, and encourage reaction…. For us the carrying out of social duties must be a voluntary act, and one has the right to intervene with material force only against those who offend against others violently and prevent them from living in peace. Force, physical restraint, must only be used against attacks of violence and for no other reason than that of self-defence.But who will judge? Who will provide the necessary defence? Who will establish what measures of restraint are to be used? We do not see any other way than that of leaving it to the interested parties, to the people, that is the mass of citizens, who will act in different ways according to the circumstances and according to their different degrees of social development. One must, above all, avoid the creation of bodies specialising in police work; perhaps something will be lost in repressive efficiency but one will also avoid the creation of the instrument of every tyranny.We do not believe in the infallibility, nor even in the general goodness of the masses; on the contrary. But we believe even less in the infallibility and goodness of those who seize power and legislate, who consolidate and perpetuate the ideas and interests which prevail at any given moment.In every respect the injustice, and transitory violence of the people is preferable to the leaden-rule, the legalised State violence of the judiciary and police.We are, in any case, only one of the forces acting in society, and history will advance, as always, in the direction of the resultant of all the [social] forces.[143]We must reckon with a residue of delinquency … which we hope will be eliminated more or less rapidly, but which in the meantime will oblige the mass of workers to take defensive action. Discarding every concept of punishment and revenge, which still dominate penal law, and guided only by the need for self-defence and the desire to rehabilitate, we must seek the means to achieve our goal, without falling into the dangers of authoritarianism and consequently finding ourselves in contradiction with the system of liberty and free-will on which we seek to build the new society.[144]For authoritarians and statesmen, the question is a simple one: a legislative body to list the crimes and prescribe the punishments; a police force to hunt out the delinquents; a magistrature to judge them; and a prison service to make them suffer. And, as is understandable, the legislative body seeks through its penal laws to defend, above all, established interest, which it represents, and to protect the State from those who seek to “subvert” it. The police force exists to suppress crime, and having therefore an interest in the continued existence of crime becomes provocative, and develops in its officers aggressive and perverse instincts; the magistrature also lives and prospers thanks to crime and delinquents, and serves the interests of the government and the ruling classes, and acquires, in the course of exercising its function, a special way of reasoning, which makes it into a machine for awarding a maximum number of people the longest sentences it can. The warders are, or become, insensitive to the suffering of prisoners and at best, passively observe the rules without a spark of human feeling. One sees the results in statistics on delinquency. The penal laws are changed, the police force and the magistrature are reorganised, the prison system is reformed … and delinquency persists and resists all attempts to destroy, or reduce it. It is true of the past and the present, and we think it will apply in the future too, if the whole concept of crime is not changed, and all the organisms which live on the prevention and repression of delinquency are not abolished.[145]

Anarchist History And movement

Anarchist History And movement

Anarchist Foundations Overview:

Principles and Praxis of Libertarian Socialism

Democracy does not mean "rule of the people." This perception was based on a historical misconception as the idea that democracy means "rule of the people" is false because "kratos" means "power" or "capacity". Therefore, demokratia is lacking in archy "arkhe" - Democracy became associated with "rule of the people" since it was used synonymously with republicanism between 18th- and 19th century.-"Democracy was not invented in ancient Greece. Granted, the word “democracy” was invented in ancient Greece —but largely by people who didn’t like the thing itself very much. Democracy was never really “invented” at all. Neither does it emerge from any particular intellectual tradition. It’s not even really a mode of government. In its essence it is just the belief that humans are fundamentally equal and ought to be allowed to manage their collective affairs in an egalitarian fashion, using whatever means appear most conducive. That, and the hard work of bringing arrangements based on those principles into being. - Just as in the case of democracy, there are two different ways one could tell the history of anarchism. On the one hand, we could look at the history of the word “anarchism”, which was coined by Pierre-Joseph Proudhon in 1840 and was adopted by a political movement in late-nineteenth-century Europe, becoming especially strongly established in Russia, Italy, and Spain, before spreading across the rest of the world; on the other hand, we could see it as a much broader political sensibility."This similar to how many see anarchism. Meaning the perception that Bakunin, Kropotkin, and others, did not invent the idea of anarchism, but, having discovered this broader phenomena among the masses, they merely helped refine and propagate it.

Democracy does not mean "rule of the people." This perception was based on a historical misconception as the idea that democracy means "rule of the people" is false because "kratos" means "power" or "capacity". Therefore, demokratia is lacking in archy "arkhe" - Democracy became associated with "rule of the people" since it was used synonymously with republicanism between 18th- and 19th century.-"Democracy was not invented in ancient Greece. Granted, the word “democracy” was invented in ancient Greece —but largely by people who didn’t like the thing itself very much. Democracy was never really “invented” at all. Neither does it emerge from any particular intellectual tradition. It’s not even really a mode of government. In its essence it is just the belief that humans are fundamentally equal and ought to be allowed to manage their collective affairs in an egalitarian fashion, using whatever means appear most conducive. That, and the hard work of bringing arrangements based on those principles into being. - Just as in the case of democracy, there are two different ways one could tell the history of anarchism. On the one hand, we could look at the history of the word “anarchism”, which was coined by Pierre-Joseph Proudhon in 1840 and was adopted by a political movement in late-nineteenth-century Europe, becoming especially strongly established in Russia, Italy, and Spain, before spreading across the rest of the world; on the other hand, we could see it as a much broader political sensibility."This similar to how many see anarchism. Meaning the perception that Bakunin, Kropotkin, and others, did not invent the idea of anarchism, but, having discovered this broader phenomena among the masses, they merely helped refine and propagate it.

[ Updates and news on the situation of the revolutionary project of Rojava. ]

Concisely Defining Anarchism
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.

Anarchist Constitutions -
1. after the revoltuion security
2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4QeCwBZwOE
3.https://www.lboro.ac.uk/research/spotlights/anarchist-constitutionalising/

Conventional theories of capitalism are mired in a deep crisis and debate. Liberals and Marxists think of capital as an economic entity that they count in universal units of utils and abstract labor, respectively. But these units are totally fictitious: they can be neither observed nor measured. They don’t exist. And since liberalism and Marxism depend on these non-existing units, their theories hang in suspension. They cannot explain the process that matters most – the accumulation of capital.This breakdown is no accident. Every mode of power evolves together with its dominant theories and ideologies. In capitalism, these theories and ideologies originally belonged to the study of political economy – the first mechanical science of society. But the capitalist mode of power kept changing, and as the power underpinnings of capital became increasingly visible, the science of political economy disintegrated. By the late nineteenth century, with dominant capital having taken command, political economy was bifurcated into two distinct spheres: economics and politics. And in the twentieth century, when the power logic of capital had already penetrated every corner of society, the remnants of political economy were further fractured into mutually distinct social sciences. Nowadays, capital reigns supreme – yet social scientists have been left with no coherent framework to account for it.The theory of Capital as Power offers a unified alternative to this fracture. It argues that capital is not a narrow economic entity, but a symbolic quantification of power. Capital has little to do with utility or abstract labor, and it extends far beyond machines and production lines. Most broadly, it represents the organized power of dominant capital groups to reshape – or creorder – their society.This view leads to a different cosmology of capitalism. It offers a new theoretical framework for capital based on the twin notions of dominant capital and differential accumulation, a new conception of the state of capital and a new history of the capitalist mode of power. It also introduces new empirical research methods – including new categories; new ways of thinking about, relating and presenting data; new estimates and measurements; and, finally, the beginning of a new, disaggregate accounting that reveals the conflictual dynamics of society.

Conventional theories of capitalism are mired in a deep crisis and debate. Liberals and Marxists think of capital as an economic entity that they count in universal units of utils and abstract labor, respectively. But these units are totally fictitious: they can be neither observed nor measured. They don’t exist. And since liberalism and Marxism depend on these non-existing units, their theories hang in suspension. They cannot explain the process that matters most – the accumulation of capital.This breakdown is no accident. Every mode of power evolves together with its dominant theories and ideologies. In capitalism, these theories and ideologies originally belonged to the study of political economy – the first mechanical science of society. But the capitalist mode of power kept changing, and as the power underpinnings of capital became increasingly visible, the science of political economy disintegrated. By the late nineteenth century, with dominant capital having taken command, political economy was bifurcated into two distinct spheres: economics and politics. And in the twentieth century, when the power logic of capital had already penetrated every corner of society, the remnants of political economy were further fractured into mutually distinct social sciences. Nowadays, capital reigns supreme – yet social scientists have been left with no coherent framework to account for it.The theory of Capital as Power offers a unified alternative to this fracture. It argues that capital is not a narrow economic entity, but a symbolic quantification of power. Capital has little to do with utility or abstract labor, and it extends far beyond machines and production lines. Most broadly, it represents the organized power of dominant capital groups to reshape – or creorder – their society.This view leads to a different cosmology of capitalism. It offers a new theoretical framework for capital based on the twin notions of dominant capital and differential accumulation, a new conception of the state of capital and a new history of the capitalist mode of power. It also introduces new empirical research methods – including new categories; new ways of thinking about, relating and presenting data; new estimates and measurements; and, finally, the beginning of a new, disaggregate accounting that reveals the conflictual dynamics of society.

Capitalism isn’t selfish profit seeking its social control."if we treat capital as a human mega-machine, a structure of social control, capitalization and re-capitalization become possible as business organizations adapt to and change reality"

Capitalists raise prices, not during times of growth and stability, but instead, wait for the cover of stagnation and crisis. Thus obfuscating the source of inflation, while economists advocate for raising interest rates to sabotage employment.

By fusing previously distinct earning streams, amalgamation contributes to the organized power of dominant capital, regardless of whether or not it augments the more conventional rates of return."

"In order for power to successfully harness, contain and, if necessary, crush resistance, the powerful must constantly restrict, limit and inhibit the autonomy of those with less or no power."

-- no unified economics analysis - common labor theory of values --- alternatives & critiques of marxist labor theory --- ancom inflcue marxism -- every theorsit diverge --- ovlep with marxism --- post-marxsit analyis CasPIt argues that capital is not a narrow economic entity, but a symbolic quantification of powerThe Capital as Power (CasP) framework, developed by Shimshon Bichler and Jonathan Nitzan, offers a groundbreaking approach to understanding capitalism by redefining capital as a measure of power rather than as a stock of economic resources. This theory challenges traditional economic paradigms—both neoclassical and Marxist—arguing that they fail to capture the true nature of capital and its role in shaping society.
Capital as a Quantification of PowerAt its core, CasP views capital as a symbolic quantification of power. Unlike conventional perspectives that see capital as tangible assets (e.g., machinery, labor, or money), Bichler and Nitzan argue that it represents the capacity of capitalists to control and reshape societal and economic structures. Capital, therefore, is not just economic wealth but a reflection of the broader institutional and social hierarchies through which power is exerted.
Differential Accumulation: Power Through ComparisonA key concept in CasP is differential accumulation, which describes how dominant capital groups aim to increase their power relative to others. Rather than simply seeking absolute growth, capitalists focus on outperforming competitors to enhance their standing in the capitalist hierarchy. This process highlights that success in capitalism is fundamentally about gaining a larger share of power, not just creating more wealth.
Regimes of Differential AccumulationBichler and Nitzan identify four primary strategies through which differential accumulation occurs:Internal Breadth: Consolidating power through mergers and acquisitions within existing markets.
External Breadth: Expanding into new markets by building new facilities or products.
Internal Depth: Increasing profitability by reducing costs, such as through labor exploitation or efficiency measures.
External Depth: Leveraging economic or political crises to raise prices relative to competitors, a process often linked to stagflation.These regimes highlight how accumulation strategies vary based on the broader context of competition and societal dynamics.
Creorder: The Creation and Reordering of SocietyThe concept of creorder (a blend of "create" and "order") reflects the ongoing process through which dominant capital groups reshape societal structures to maintain and expand their power. This involves not just economic activities but also the manipulation of cultural, political, and ideological systems. In essence, capitalists perpetually reorganize society in ways that secure their dominance, even in the face of resistance or systemic change.
Sabotage and Power MaintenanceBichler and Nitzan emphasize that capitalists maintain power through strategic sabotage. This doesn't mean outright destruction but includes actions like limiting production, creating artificial scarcities, influencing legislation, or restricting access to certain resources. These strategies ensure that capitalists retain their position of dominance by shaping market conditions in their favor.Critique of Traditional TheoriesCasP critiques both neoclassical and Marxist economic theories for their reliance on abstract and unrealistic models. Neoclassical economics focuses on utility, while Marxist economics emphasizes labor value. Bichler and Nitzan argue that both fail to address the fundamental role of power in shaping economic systems. By redefining capital as a manifestation of power, CasP provides a more comprehensive lens to analyze real-world dynamics.
Implications for Understanding Capitalism
Critique of Marxist TheoryBichler and Nitzan critique Marxist theory, particularly its focus on labor value as the basis for understanding capital. While Marx sees capital as derived from the exploitation of labor and rooted in production, the CasP framework challenges this view by arguing that capital is primarily a mechanism of power and control, not a direct reflection of labor or material production.They assert that Marx’s focus on the labor theory of value reduces the complexity of capitalism to a narrow economic framework, missing the broader sociopolitical dynamics through which power operates. For Bichler and Nitzan, the key to understanding capitalism lies in examining the relationships and structures that enable dominant capital groups to assert control over society, rather than in the quantification of labor embedded in commodities.This critique reframes the discussion of capital, shifting the emphasis from production and surplus value to the institutional and symbolic systems that sustain and expand power within capitalist systems.The CasP framework fundamentally redefines the way we understand key aspects of capitalism:Corporate Strategies: Activities like mergers, acquisitions, and monopolization are seen as efforts to consolidate power rather than merely economic efficiency.
Economic Crises: Financial downturns, stagflation, and systemic shocks are interpreted as power struggles between dominant capital groups.
Globalization: The integration of global markets reflects a strategy to expand and solidify the power of dominant capitalists across borders.A Holistic Perspective on CapitalismBy treating capital as a measure of power, CasP integrates economic, political, and cultural dimensions into a single framework. It provides tools to understand the intersection of markets, governance, and societal control, highlighting the inseparability of economic and political power in modern capitalism.For a more detailed exploration of their ideas, their seminal book Capital as Power: A Study of Order and Creorder serves as an essential resource.

• Button

if u somehow foound this part of the page... how? but also ur a real one frfr