I'm always happy to ramble on about anarchism! Thanks engaging me with an open mind. My "extreme" views aren't always met with a great reaction haha

Your follow up gets into a lot of deep theory from several different areas, but it's a great question! I'll do my best to answer it concisely but please know that I won't be able to answer it perfectly; dozens of books have been written on each aspect of the breakdown I'll be following this bit up with. If you're interested in diving deep into these areas, the YouTube channel I linked in my last comment primarily does video essays. His largest project is titled "A Modern Anarchism" and it's a synthesis work, bringing several strains of anarchism together to form a coherent framework for the present. I think you would find it very interesting. Some other notable creators in the theory and praxis space of anarchism are Andrewism and Zoe Baker. Shout-out to The Anarchist Library as well!

The way I read your question touches on a few areas. Hierarchical realism and self determination, complex systems and decentralization, and the cyclical nature of human history.

On hierarchical realism and self determination:

Like capitalist realism, many anarchists view society at large to be in a state of hierarchical realism - that is- dominant hierarchies are so ingrained into our collective conscience that the majority of people are incapable of imagining a world post-hierarchy. That isn't a dig, it takes a long time of focused work to deconstruct all of the inherent biases our upbringing imbues us with. As such, any imagining of an anarchist society by people in a hierarchical society will inevitably be tainted by those biases, and will therefore be unable to perfectly depict an anarchist utopia. (Doesn't mean people haven't tried, Ursula LeGuin's The Dispossessed does a fair job that addresses your question to boot). To a degree, your question can never truly be answered. It is very much a question worth asking though.

Hierarchical realism not only taints our imagination towards the future. It taints our imagination for how we might oppose domination in the present. Hierarchy, primarily capitalism and the state in this instance, has stripped us of our self determination, the means and ability to manage our own affairs. From mending clothes to managing society, most of us are incapable of truly controlling our lives and are consequently reliant on the current systems of power for our very existence. Anarchists encourage people to reclaim their self determination because it's vital to a thriving, citizen managed, society.

I'm sure you've noticed a trend in society that points toward a broad delegation of tasks that are vital to modern life. Meal delivery services, hardware that's increasingly difficult to repair, the hyper-specialization of intellectual labor, broad individual isolation from community, public schooling that is geared to make good workers instead of an educated and capable population, representative democracy. Much of it stems from a systemic pressure to atomize human function and interaction that strips us of our self determination. Anarchists believe that reclaiming ou self determination not only empowers the individual, but creates an empowered society. A society organized without coercion, geared to ensure the individual is capable and supported to manage their life and interests, is one with people who know that allowing individuals to wield systemic power to control the collective is an idea worth rejecting.

On complex systems and decentralization:

Complex systems (as they apply to social structures) in a nutshell: society functions like a living organism. The status quo seeks to exist indefinitely and either resists harmful pressures or co-opts them in order to persist.

You are correct in saying that the power structures that anarchists propose isn't rigid, it's not supposed to be! The Anarchist approach to freedom and power is intentionally fluid, in part to allow the individual the maximal amount of freedom and self determination, as well as to entrench a system of collective power that is capable of changing and adapting to the ever changing needs of the community. In contrast, hierarchy is incredibly rigid. It is slow to change and slow to adapt,

A decentralized society is also more resilient in the face of disaster. Think of it in terms of cells, but not too hard lol. It isn't a great analogy. A decentralized society would be best represented by a cellular culture. If one cell- hell, 90% of cells- die, the culture may still be able to recover and regrow. By nature of its complex organization, cells.dying doesn't necessarily mean death of the culture. The remaining cells can adapt to the endogenous or exogenous pressures that lead to cell death in the first place and come out stronger than before. In this analogy, hierarchy would be considered a single cell. If the surrounding environment becomes inhospitable to the cell, or the cell develops some horrible mutation in one of its organelles, the cell dies. That's the end of the cell and something else that is either capable of dealing with the environment or isn't terminally mutated will take its place.

You recognized this in your comment and I can't do it justice so I'll stop there on complex systems but I hope I painted a decent picture. See this video for a much better explanation.

On the cyclical nature of human history:

Hierarchy isnt new, and neither are horizontal societies. Human history is a tapestry of these social forms existing in parallel, with one being more prevelant than the other at times. Most of our written history has occurred in some form of hierarchical society, but the majority of human history points toward a largely horizontal structure. I won't call these structures anarchic, but they do speak to the horizontal impulses present in the overwhelming majority of humans.

The way I, and many anarchists, see it, people have cooperative and competitive impulses. A horizontal social structure reinforces our cooperative drive, while a hierarchical social structure reinforces our competitive drive. Human history as we currently understand it seems to bear this truth out. The late anthropologist David Graeber has said that human history seems to operate on a roughly 500 year cycle; where different social forms emerge, replace their predecessor, grow in strength and area, and are eventually replaced by other emergent forms. This isn't necessarily saying hierarchical forms are replaced by horizontal forms. Feudalism was replaced by capitalism after all. It's simply pointing out that social organizations seem to have an expiration date. Capitalism emerged in the 16th century, it may be well on its way to replacement. Anarchists want to replace it with something as close to anarchy as we can imagine. In 500 years anarchy may go down on the path you described. With people slowly reinventing hierarchical forms that were abolished well beyond living memory. It might also be replaced by something more horizontal and equitable than we can imagine. A post-anarchy, if you will.

I hope that these errant threads were able to answer your question. I wanted to add some more thoughts here to kind of tie them all together but I'm coming up short. This reply wasn't as direct as my last one, but the resources I've peppered throughout my comment may be able to satisfy that if I missed the mark here.

Feel free to ask any more questions you might have too! I'm happy to have a go at them

Edit: just wanted to throw in anarchy in a nutshell is order without authority. That's what the circle A symbolizes!

There's a few ways you could take that. I'm reading your comment as a more structural concern over something like disorganized street violence so that's how I'll be approaching this. I'm also a social anarchist (pro organization), there are individualist anarchists (broadly anti organization) who may have a different perspective.

Anarchists don't advocate for only abolishing structural hierarchies. We also labor to build horizontal organizations to serve as opposition and an eventual replacement of these hierarchies. This is called prefiguration, often described as "building the new in the shell of the old". To oppose mob violence and territorial domination, these structures may take the form of neighborhood councils, community defense forces, or larger federated iterations of these bodies.

The thing that distinguishes these organizations from their hierarchical counterparts (municipal councils and police respectively) is the distribution and flow of power. These bodies are organized in a horizontal fashion; where the power flows from the bottom up. The people living in a given area might convene at regular intervals to coordinate efforts that are relevant to them. For example, a neighborhood council may organize a community defense force, composed of members in the community. The council would determine the scope of responsibilities for the defense force, allocate resources and equipment, and hash out other administrative contingencies.

Positions of "power" within these bodies and organizations would be confined to delegates, who are given explicit tasks to accomplish, are immediately revocable by the community at any time, and who's position would be dissolved upon completion of their task. In addition, it's common to have these delegations to be assigned by rotation (think jury duty, in a sense) to community members.

This isn't everything, of course. But I hope that gave you a rough idea of how these structures would be capable of combatting violence within a community. Bodies like these form a "government" of sorts to manage an area. I didn't mention it above but its worth pointing out that these organizations are voluntary. Anarchy is all about creating a world without coercion. It's been demonstrated time and again that people want to be involved in their communities, they want to help shape the world in a meaningful way and these structures simply provide a means for individuals to do their part in the ways they're capable and willing to do so.

All of these structures could be scaled up as well through federation, where communities coordinate on mutual goals for the betterment of each other. We know these and similar organizational forms are viable because they've been done before and are being done to this day. The CNT-FAI, Zapatistas, and Rojava are examples.

The CNT-FAI were a Spanish anarcho-symdicalist organization that controlled much of Spain during the Spanish revolution. They were successfully combatting the fascist forces within Spain until the USSR betrayed them. It's a long and interesting story that my few sentences are absolutely not doing justice lol.

If you'd like to learn how the Zapatistas and Rojava function, I've linked a few videos that go into some detail on their history and social structure. There aren't many resources like that for the CNT-FAI, unfortunately.

Oh boy do I have some great news for you! That's what anarchism is all about. Right wing "libertarians" stole the word from anarchists way back when. There's a deep political and intellectual tradition spanning two centuries exploring and philosophizing what it means to have order without authority and how to construct a society without government. I'd be happy to leave some reading/watching/listening material for you if you'd like to see what real libertarianism is about

I'm not the person you replied to but I've been passively suicidal for about a decade. I read this article. It seemed a bit prescriptive and patronizing to me. I get the impression that the article is targeted towards people who are acutely suicidal. As someone who's been chronically suicidal, I've noticed that there aren't many resources that are similar to this for people in my situation. These suicide hotlines seem to be targeted at people who are experiencing acute distress over someone who's been struggling with mental health for extended periods of time. I'm not going to say these resources are worthless, but they're worthless to me and I would assume at least a few people who have similar problems. I've never felt compelled to reach out or search for resources like this. They've always felt insincere, similar to corporate PR speak or celebrity "apologies". Like these hotlines are there so that people who aren't suicidal can go "well, we gave them a phone number. We don't need to feel bad that people are suffering cause we did what we could." I'm sure these hotlines have helped people and they should stick around. I'm just jaded and cynical.

I asked my wife about suicide hotlines too, she has periods of suicidal ideation and has attempted suicide when she was younger. She said it's a coin flip for her. They either made her feel more distressed and therefore more suicidal, or they made her slightly less suicidal (enough to not act on it). She said in the moments they helped, they served as a reminder to not provide a permanent solution with a temporary problem. She also hates that phrase but couldn't find a better way to word it haha.

I'm not sure if what we said will help or hurt in your processing, but those are our honest perspectives

It isn't theft, it's copyright infringement. Otherwise known as a bullshit crime that corporations invented to force the state to protect their bottom line. An individual infringing on a corporations copyright is, at worst, neutral. The artists working on these movies, games, albums, etc are either salaried, contracted, or having the majority of their profits siphoned off from their publisher. If you really care about supporting artists, throw independent artists a few bucks where you can and "steal" to your hearts content from the companies that already exploit their creative workforce.

Honestly, I wish pirating measurably hurt corporations bottom lines. They need to go down and that would be the easiest way to do it. But decades of rampant piracy have shown that piracy actually helps these companies in most instances, as people who have pirated a product and like it are more likely to purchase the product in the future compared to someone who simply hasn't used the product in question.

Additionally, many smaller or independent creators either don't give a shit about piracy or actively encourage those without the means to pay to pirate it anyway. People who are doing it for the love of their craft aren't profit centered ghouls who only care about enriching themselves and create things to contribute to our shared culture and entertainment. Pull your head out of your ass

Get some keto bread. It's basically pure fiber in bread shape. The aldi keto bread is fantastic

I may have worded that weird. Just to be clear, food not bombs in general isn't a social democrat org. The chapter in my town just so happens to be run by them. More often than not, you'll find at least a handful of anarchists in the mix at a food not bombs group

YMMV depending on country. In the US you can find at least a handful of named anarchist organizations in any given state. Many anarchist or libertarian organizations keep it on the DL for a multitude of reasons. You may have better luck finding groups under the monikers of communalist, x or y federation, social ecologist, or just plain ole socialist. Mutual aid networks, food not bombs chapters, and IWW chapters are other spaces a lot of anarchists occupy. Many anarchists still stick to affinity groups and the like as well so, while they may be out there and active, it's likely you'll never hear about them. Further muddying the waters there's also the concept of social insertion where anarchists support local movements and encourage (but don't attempt to force) the popular movement to develop in a more libertarian fashion. Some big names in the libertarian milieu in the US are the symbiosis network and moneyless society. The black rose anarchist federation is another one I've seen around.

That said, it's still hard to find other anarchists in a lot of areas. I've been on the hunt for a while and haven't had any luck in my area. The closest I have is a food not bombs chapter in my city but they're all a bunch of zionist soc-dems. 🤷 They do good work but I don't want to be the only anarchist in the group haha. I'll be handing out zines and fliers at the pride parade in a few weeks in the hopes of starting a reading group and hopefully an explicitly anarchist org in my city

Fair enough. I'm not going to sit here and claim that out current agricultural structure is perfect or even ideal. I personally think a decentralized and highly local system of food production and distribution would be better for the products themselves as well as the environment, human health, and community strength. A million times better is hyperbole but I think it's fair to say industrial agriculture is better for the plant than it's equivalent for livestock.

Fertilizers aren't great, pesticides aren't great, soil erosion isn't great. If we waved a magic wand and turned everyone vegan we would still see a net decrease in these harmful agricultural practices simply because people need less food than cows or pigs (among others), especially in the numbers were raising these animals in. If we're going to care for the wellbeing of the plants we eat, it would still be better to stop raising animals for food from a purely mathematical perspective.

I also agree that animals are easier to empathize with, and as such, we may overlook other (possibly intelligent) forms of life as a consequence. Perhaps one day we will achieve a thorough understanding on the lived experiences of plants and that knowledge may create another paradigm shift. But we need a planet that is capable of sustaining life for that to happen. Reducing our collective meat consumption is one of the myriad tools we have to ensure that end. Sorry if I'm coming off as confrontational or anything. I'm sick and my brain is foggy so I wasn't paying much mind to tone in this comment haha. Not trying to start shit or anything, just too lazy to edit

I'm not a vegan but it's foolish to think that vegans aren't objectively correct. Let's even say that plants are conscious beings on the level of cows or pigs. The conditions these plants are grown in are a million times better than that of the average factory farm animal. Additionally, in order to sustain ourselves on cows and pigs, exponentially more of these conscious plants need to be killed to fatten the conscious animals we are eating.

If we just ate the plants instead there would be several orders of magnitude less suffering in the word, antibiotic resistant bacteria would be a less immediate issue, a significant amount of our greenhouse gas emissions would disappear, and we'd all probably be healthier to boot.

Yes, something has to die in order for any organism to continue it's existence. Let's not pretend that only plants dying aren't a better alternative in every way to animals dying in order to further our collective existence. You accuse vegans of being reactionary but your comment smacks of knee-jerky defensiveness for something you seem to understand is wrong

If you haven't given pocket city 2 a try yet I highly recommend it

It's just public, unlike reddit. There have been countless controversies over poor moderation on reddit. On lemmy everyone can see when someone is banned for bullshit reasons and call it out. Don't mistake awareness for frequency