
Power structures persist because power itself becomes the game. Even attempts to redistribute power often reinforce its logic rather than dismantling it. Can anarchism go beyond shifting power and instead make it something that naturally dissipates?
Anarchist traditions have long challenged hierarchies, whether in the state, workplace, or community. But many anti-authoritarian movements still rely on structures that, even if more horizontal, retain concentrations of influence and decision-making power.
Rather than focusing on who holds power, what if the goal was to prevent its accumulation in the first place? Could anarchism explore ways to make power differentials naturally unsustainable—not by enforcing a single cultural model, but by shifting the conditions that allow control to persist?
This raises several key questions:
What real-world examples exist of power dissipating naturally rather than being seized or redistributed? Could anarchist movements unintentionally reinforce power dynamics by organizing in ways that still centralize influence? By making power itself unsustainable, is there a way to create a lasting form of anarchism that doesn’t just resist hierarchy but renders it obsolete?
Do anarchists focus too much on who has power rather than how power itself functions? Can structures be built that don’t just distribute power but dissolve it over time? How do we prevent "soft" power (charisma, knowledge, networks) from becoming a new hierarchy?
Thanks to anon for the guest Topic of the Week! Want to submit your own? Use our fancy new form here!
Comments
Power is a reified concept…
anon (not verified) Mon, 03/24/2025 - 17:40
Power is a reified concept that describes a whole range of phenomenon but general refers to the capacity, ability, etc. for an individual or group to obtain the material objects of their wills and desires.
If power is bad, as the traditional/social anarchist position has always implied, why do those who "have power" live better lives? Seems like power is doing good things for them.
It is weakness that corrupts, not power. The weak suffer and lash out precisely because they are weak, out of a lack of control over their lives.
So to respond pointedly to the TotW, you can take the antinatalist/pacifist/passive quietist nihilism route and guarantee that you will never improve your conditions, or one could recognize it takes power to assert ones desires. You can't do anything mentioned and suggested in the TotW without power.
Nazi troll's, nazi troll's,…
anon (not verified) Mon, 03/24/2025 - 19:14
In reply to Power is a reified concept… by anon (not verified)
Nazi troll's, nazi troll's,
nazi troll's, FUCK OFF!
🖕
From the heart
It's a start, a work of art
To revolutionize make a change nothing's strange
People, people we are the same
No we're not the same
'Cause we don't know the game
What we need is awareness, we can't get careless
You say what is this?
My beloved lets get down to business
Mental self defensive fitness
Don't rush the show
You gotta go for what you know
Make everybody see, in order to fight the powers that be
Lemme hear you say
Fight the power
Fight the power
Fight the power
Fight the power
Fight the power
Fight the power
Fight the power
We've got to fight the powers that be
wait. are you calling people…
kt (not verified) Tue, 03/25/2025 - 08:06
In reply to Nazi troll's, nazi troll's,… by anon (not verified)
wait. are you calling people nazi's because their understanding of power is different then yours. because it might be more nuanced than the reactionary over-simplistic one anarchists are trained to adopt? who is the real authoritarian here?
for fuck sake, there is no…
anon (not verified) Tue, 03/25/2025 - 08:14
In reply to wait. are you calling people… by kt (not verified)
for fuck sake, there is no fucking apostrophe in nazis. what the actual fuck.
whoops. typo. i guess…
anon (not verified) Tue, 03/25/2025 - 08:17
In reply to for fuck sake, there is no… by anon (not verified)
whoops. typo. i guess everything else can be discounted.
OooOooh nOoo talk like nazis…
anon (not verified) Tue, 03/25/2025 - 08:23
In reply to whoops. typo. i guess… by anon (not verified)
OooOooh nOoo talk like nazis get called nazi's (sic). OooOooo!
Damnit I stabbed myself with…
anon (not verified) Tue, 03/25/2025 - 08:43
In reply to OooOooh nOoo talk like nazis… by anon (not verified)
Damnit I stabbed myself with my own sarcasm! Take two *clears throat*:
OooOooh nOoo talk like nazis cry about being called nazi's (sic). OooOooh!
same question: can you use…
anon (not verified) Tue, 03/25/2025 - 09:19
In reply to Damnit I stabbed myself with… by anon (not verified)
same question:
can you use your words to say what is exactly "nazi", or do you just like saying it. it makes you feel like you are fighting something bad.
you get the same line of thinking from facebook libs
no, i agree with your point…
anon (not verified) Tue, 03/25/2025 - 08:46
In reply to whoops. typo. i guess… by anon (not verified)
no, i agree with your point. the apostrophe thing is just irritating.
it was my fuckin' finger,…
anon (not verified) Tue, 03/25/2025 - 09:16
In reply to no, i agree with your point… by anon (not verified)
it was my fuckin' finger, not my brain. maybe subconscious, but i don't think so.
Ew. Don't use your fuckin'…
anon (not verified) Tue, 03/25/2025 - 10:01
In reply to it was my fuckin' finger,… by anon (not verified)
Ew. Don't use your fuckin' finger! Use a clean one, you fuckin' nazi's
BING BONG
anon (not verified) Tue, 03/25/2025 - 10:28
In reply to Ew. Don't use your fuckin'… by anon (not verified)
BING BONG
> reactionary For fucks sake…
anon (not verified) Tue, 03/25/2025 - 08:26
In reply to wait. are you calling people… by kt (not verified)
> reactionary
For fucks sake, learn what this word means.
> who is the real authoritarian here?
The fucker (you) who is posting their nazi-esq perception of power for all to ridicule. That's who.
can you use your words to…
anon (not verified) Tue, 03/25/2025 - 09:18
In reply to > reactionary For fucks sake… by anon (not verified)
can you use your words to say what is exactly "nazi-esq", or do you just like saying it. it makes you feel like you are fighting something bad.
why don't you start by using…
lumpy (not verified) Tue, 03/25/2025 - 09:22
In reply to can you use your words to… by anon (not verified)
why don't you start by using the word reactive instead of "reactionary" so you look less like a jackass?
trying to help you zdude, if you're going to flex, learn the words first
ok lumpy. you are like soooo…
anon (not verified) Tue, 03/25/2025 - 09:35
In reply to why don't you start by using… by lumpy (not verified)
ok lumpy. you are like soooo smart. the way you use words is the correct way. thank you for your brilliance.
BEEP
anon (not verified) Tue, 03/25/2025 - 10:02
In reply to ok lumpy. you are like soooo… by anon (not verified)
BEEP
lumpy, reactionary can be…
anon (not verified) Tue, 03/25/2025 - 09:41
In reply to why don't you start by using… by lumpy (not verified)
lumpy, reactionary can be used as a noun, verb, or adjective you moron. i am not stuck in politics like you. i see reactionary as how someone responds to something, not limited to conservative politics. so, stop being so reactionary, you jack ass.
lumpy is reactive, but he’s…
anon (not verified) Tue, 03/25/2025 - 09:48
In reply to lumpy, reactionary can be… by anon (not verified)
lumpy is reactive, but he’s no reactionary. The two words do in fact have different meanings although you’re free to use your special definition.
yeah, double down cuz you're…
lumpy (not verified) Tue, 03/25/2025 - 09:56
In reply to lumpy, reactionary can be… by anon (not verified)
yeah, double down cuz you're "too smart" again. everyone's totally buying it! lol
not selling anything. take a…
anon (not verified) Tue, 03/25/2025 - 10:27
In reply to yeah, double down cuz you're… by lumpy (not verified)
not selling anything. take a deep breath. it'll be ok lumpy.
it is totally reasonable to…
kt (not verified) Wed, 03/26/2025 - 12:53
In reply to yeah, double down cuz you're… by lumpy (not verified)
it is totally reasonable to use the word "reactionary" to describe how someone responds to something, or “…of, pertaining to, marked by, or favoring reaction”
it is only the leftist knee-jerk politicos who get offended, even more reason to use it to describe their reactionary responses.
It’s not. The word is…
anon (not verified) Wed, 03/26/2025 - 13:10
In reply to it is totally reasonable to… by kt (not verified)
It’s not. The word is reactive. (Some) anarchists like using words with extra syllables to make themselves feel superior. Understanding thuh bigg wurds isn’t a priority.
"Well, I'll go to college…
EmmaAintDead Wed, 03/26/2025 - 14:19
In reply to It’s not. The word is… by anon (not verified)
"Well, I'll go to college and I'll learn some big words
And I'll talk real loud, goddamn right, I'll be heard
You'll remember the guy that said all those big words
He must've learned in college"
-- Modest Mouse, the wisest philosopher of all
You can't troll your way…
anon (not verified) Wed, 03/26/2025 - 14:25
In reply to "Well, I'll go to college… by EmmaAintDead
You can't troll your way into saving face. You didn't know the meaning of a basic word and concept and tried to sound smart and your smugness go the better of you. HOW EMBARRASSING!
you may not have noticed but…
literally the … (not verified) Wed, 03/26/2025 - 14:42
In reply to You can't troll your way… by anon (not verified)
you may not have noticed but commenter "kt" uses no capital letters and user "emmaaintdead uses capital letters so thats how u can tell theyre different commenters. maybe "emma" is for example agreeing that "kt" is using words for attention instead of to communicate information. or maybe emma is making a more subtle point about how isaac brock uses a lot of puns and kt seems to be ignoring that "reaction" means different things in different contexts
Yes. Excellent song…
anon (not verified) Wed, 03/26/2025 - 14:51
In reply to you may not have noticed but… by literally the … (not verified)
Yes. Excellent song reference by emma and suffixes matter!
no, embarrassing is what a…
kt (not verified) Wed, 03/26/2025 - 16:00
In reply to You can't troll your way… by anon (not verified)
no, embarrassing is what a snot you seem to be. you are the suggest of them all, telling people they must do things this way, nit that. get a fuckin' life.
no. that is one form of the…
kt (not verified) Wed, 03/26/2025 - 15:58
In reply to It’s not. The word is… by anon (not verified)
no. that is one form of the word to use, so is reactionary. that is why ultra conservatives are called that, because they are often reactionary. it is only recently that the word is almost exclusively used that way. it appears in older texts and in all sorts of writing it can be used. don't let the leftoids fool you, they can be reactionary too, as you have seen.
older texts than the 1799…
literally the … (not verified) Wed, 03/26/2025 - 16:22
In reply to no. that is one form of the… by kt (not verified)
older texts than the 1799 translation of Lazare Carnot's letter on the Coup of 18 Fructidor[10]???! make a difference, contribute to wikipedia: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactionary#History_and_usage
That thing you're talking…
anon (not verified) Mon, 03/24/2025 - 19:35
In reply to Power is a reified concept… by anon (not verified)
That thing you're talking about is *privilege*, not "power". Those having more capacity are just being allowed so because there's a whole system legitimating it, therefore it is justice, not power, that they got. The factors and parameters allowing for some oligarch criminal to elect residence at Mar-a-Lago and become President and Dictator are all found within the laws, regulations and values of society.
Imbalance
Poster (not verified) Tue, 03/25/2025 - 12:45
In reply to Power is a reified concept… by anon (not verified)
The risk that i probably should have predicted was that the conversation gets mired in semantically defining power rather than addressing the core dynamic: the imbalance that allows coercion, suppression, and control to be the defining social mechanism.
It’s a fundamental incision, not just a reactionary rejection of power or hierarchy. I'm questioning the game itself—the fact that our human systems reinforce this cycle where power is the currency, the goal, and the reward. "weakness corrupts" is a way of keeping the blame where humans are conditioned to expect it—on the losers of the game, not the game itself. That’s why people accept suffering as a "natural" state rather than seeing it as a constructed consequence of the power dynamic.
Humans don’t seek power because it’s natural; they seek it because that’s how the system is built. We learn to play the game we’re in, and when power-seeking is the metric for success, of course people pursue it and it will look like it "power is doing good things for them" as you say.
"You need power to do anything" – This is the most common misunderstanding. It assumes power = action, rather than positional authority over others. But plenty of things—cooperation, mutual aid, voluntary association—happen without coercive power. The challenge is getting people to see that power isn’t just about doing things; it’s about how those things are structured and enforced.
Other posters suggest its priviledge not power i mean. But that assumes that power only exists because of legitimizing structures. Surely privilege just describes how power is distributed unequally? Isn’t power, by its nature, the ability to enforce or benefit from that privilege?
The real challenge is getting people to step outside that paradigm long enough to see it as arbitrary, not inevitable. If enough people start opting out, refusing to play by those rules, the structure itself loses legitimacy.
i think the way you move…
alex (not verified) Tue, 03/25/2025 - 13:31
In reply to Imbalance by Poster (not verified)
i think the way you move from "power" to "coercive power" to "positional authority over others" to "the ability to enforce or benefit from...privilege" is exactly the reason making your incision in this way is going to lead to a discussion of semantics (which i enjoy and think are good to talk about personally but whatever). because surely part of the question is what is or is not arbitrary about the picture of society you just set forth, and in particular the different senses and ways in which people say--and experience--power.
Types of power
Poster (not verified) Tue, 03/25/2025 - 16:39
In reply to i think the way you move… by alex (not verified)
Fair point its a stream of my conscious thoughts on power. I suppose people experience "power" in different ways—some see it as agency, some as influence, some as domination and the distinctions matter.
Agency and capability (e.g., the ability to shape your life) are not the problem.
Hierarchical, coercive power (e.g., the ability to enforce will over others) is the problem I refer to
Power isn’t just some nebulous force, it’s tied to specific systems that reward and enforce dominance. If you strip those systems away, does the phenomenon of coercive power persist? Or does it dissolve without reinforcement?
When i think of it power differentials are the root of human issues, and every attempted reorganization has failed because the very act of dismantling power (often possible via violent exercising of dominance as a vehicle) reintroduces the same dynamics—just with new faces at the top. Even those with the best intentions eventually succumb because hierarchy and power are self-perpetuating and corrupting forces. If every revolution, every restructuring, every ideology eventually produces the same coercive power structures, then we need to stop treating it as a failure of individuals and recognize it as a failure of the game itself. The system—any system—that allows power to concentrate will inevitably result in its abuse.
The problem i believe is that lower, by its nature, creates stratification. It shapes relationships, determines access to resources, and defines whose voices matter. Even when people start from an egalitarian place, the gravitational pull of learned hierarchy means that some will accumulate more influence, more control, more leverage over others. And once those differentials exist, they reinforce themselves.
If power differentials are the root problem, then the solution isn’t just redistributing power—it’s dissolving its legitimacy entirely. That means
1. no acceptable justification for coercion – no divine right, no state legitimacy, no “necessary evil.”
2. Social structures designed to dissipate power, not just distribute it – fluid roles, decentralized decision-making, and no permanent concentrations of authority.
Vigilance against hierarchy formation – recognizing how power creeps in and shutting it down before it entrenches.
The challenge is that people are conditioned to believe some power is necessary to “get things done.” But is that conditioning real, or is it just an artifact of the systems we’ve lived under?
The challenge is that people…
lumpy (not verified) Tue, 03/25/2025 - 19:17
In reply to Types of power by Poster (not verified)
The challenge is that people are conditioned to believe some power is necessary to “get things done.”
^ No ... they're not, it's a material fact. Unless we use your definition of power, which as the other poster pointed out, is fraught because it's a negative definition. that's a choice you're making, to make the word have a negative connotation but words are just tools. humans created words and they create power, then they choose what to do with those things they create. you're confusing the cause for the effect and getting lost in the semantics from there, imo
Your utterly crap critique…
Tezcatlipoca Wed, 03/26/2025 - 05:35
In reply to Types of power by Poster (not verified)
Your utterly crap critique of power is a complete load of ignorant bullocks framed within a embarrassingly sophomoric understanding that overlooks its multidimensionality. Please reconsider passing off your self-admitted streams of consciousness as the wisdom of some great anarchist veteran and intellect, which clearly by merit of your stream of diarrhea, you are not.
Power, at its core, is not a coercive force. It's a vital force. It animates existence itself [**does the Boromir fingers**]. To dismiss it solely as "hierarchical domination" (yes plz daddy) misses the fundamental insight that power can also operate as a catalyst for creativity and self-realization.
Specific systems may reward coercive dynamics, but to conceive of power only in terms of domination limits the potential for individual action within those structures. Your argument presumes that dismantling one form of power will unequivocally replicate the conditions of domination; this neglects the transformative potential embedded in displacing established hierarchies. Power dynamics are fluid and contingent; they mold and are molded by the very actors they govern. Your prescriptive antidotes, which dissolve the legitimacy of fluid social structures, risk conceiving a world devoid of the potentialities and durations that harness power for positive ends.
The problem isn’t "power differentials" but the failure to recognize the multiplicity of power's manifestations. Creativity born from power can subvert established orders and engender an entirely new genesis of social relationships. The rasi af hand isn't in abolishing power, literally impossible, you're fighting windmills, but in rethinking its application—toward nurturing the collective and creationary power we all share as village or tribal rites rather than imposing uniformity. A shift like that instead invites a radical interrogation of how power can be deconstructed, reconstituted, emphasizing not just the distribution, but a proliferation of inventive practices that celebrate interconnectivity and mutual reinforcement.
Coercion is not an inevitability of human relationships; it is a pathology of assholes and unchallenged systems. A vigilant, dynamic engagement with power fosters resilience against entrenched hierarchies, allowing for self-affirming durations that can acknowledge the subtle interplay of influence, rather than rejecting [em]the very force that can liberate the individual[/em].
Embrace power...not as a foe, but as a potential ally in the pursuit of becoming.
**cue** "How the Gods Kill"
Love when someone wades in…
Poster (not verified) Wed, 03/26/2025 - 07:11
In reply to Your utterly crap critique… by Tezcatlipoca
Love when someone wades in late, after that clarifying discussion has already happened multiple times, acting like a (Simpson's) comic book guy type oracle and tries to enlighten the group with their condescending low-level word salads dismissing everything as being for silly people - real consensus building people magnet stuff. My critique isn't aimed at dismissing power in all its forms - i know power can catalyze creativity, self realization and transformative change. My concern centers on the way power, when accumulated and fixed into formal structures tends to become coercive and self-perpetuating. Its powers shift from being transient to becoming an entrenched force that controls and dominates. My view is to reconfigure our social practices so that power remains diffuse, contestable and continually subject to collective scrutiny.
yea exactly how else are we…
the fuckin lit… (not verified) Wed, 03/26/2025 - 07:13
In reply to Your utterly crap critique… by Tezcatlipoca
yea exactly how else are we supposed to destroy all the enemy's beef farmers. unironically
Q: Can structures be built…
lumpy (not verified) Mon, 03/24/2025 - 20:30
Q: Can structures be built that don’t just distribute power but dissolve it over time?
short answer, no. i also believe that this isn't just my opinion. you can't "dissolve power" by thinking about it differently, this mistakes the individual perspective for the structure or the material reality or the fist that cracks the jaw or whatever
people can learn anti-authoritarian attitudes and analysis and they become far more difficult to manipulate, the more they learn BUT power itself isn't subject to that
power is always just there, a potential that forms instantly whenever any group of humans decides to share a goal. what can be developed is their judgement, making them more resistant to getting taken in by cult leaders or bad ideas, therefore, what "dissolves" is the effectiveness of the lies told by selfish scumbags
but power is always just there, in each individual hand that decides to build or destroy, in their own interests or affinities or maybe to go charging off by the thousands to do something stupid because a cult leader spun them a yarn
anarchists are better equipped to understand this than most and after they figure that part out, they're left to stare up at the leviathan and decide if they can tolerate each other long enough to compete with the undead dragon monster, built of lies and very stupid humans who only use a small portion of their lizard brains
OR anarchist can go and try to find a quiet spot and be left alone, which is also fair enough imo but suffers a bit from a certain lack of dignity, if they've callously abandoned everyone else to the death machine. it's a bad look but an understandable choice, given the odds of success! haha!
Power is not innevitable
Poster (not verified) Tue, 03/25/2025 - 16:15
In reply to Q: Can structures be built… by lumpy (not verified)
I think you assume that the structure of power itself is immutable, rather than an effect stemming from the way we organize oursleves heirarchically or as winners and losers. If we believe power corrupts then it should become socially unwanted otherwise the path it leads to is innevitably destructive. So to do that as you mentioned anarchists learn to become resistant to manipulation. But once thats achived and people become immune to coercive power, then what happens? That is the dissolving of power as a structure. The game of power only works when people participate in it. People can learn to measure and read power imbalances and call them out with a view of both parties returning to balance. This only works when people are reaistant to it, vigilant for it and proactive when it arises.
no, i don't assume about the…
lumpy (not verified) Tue, 03/25/2025 - 19:28
In reply to Power is not innevitable by Poster (not verified)
no, i don't assume about the structure, i assume about the source, which is the humans. the evidence shows that i'm not just assuming because i don't have the same issue as you, trying to explain how anyone did anything before the first coercive hierarchy was formed by the first belligerent asshole haha
"power" is just the simple fact that when humans cooperate, they can do more than when they're alone or in its more vulgar form, if someone is faster, stronger, whatever, then can choose to exploit those who are slower, weaker, etc WHICH inevitably causes cooperation to resist/kill the belligerent asshole and so it went for a very long time before agriculture and the first cities
you're still just labouring under your negative definition, as i said elsewhere. i humbly suggest you change it or else you'll probably keep having this problem?
The terminology of…
Poster (not verified) Wed, 03/26/2025 - 05:32
In reply to no, i don't assume about the… by lumpy (not verified)
The terminology of belligerence and exploitation comes from a blaming perspective and suggests there are just people who are programmed to be assholes. The suggestion comes across that those people need cleansed from humanity and then all the other supposedly peace loving people will just be left to sort it all out - just plain old pure clean necessary mass slaughter of people who play to win - is there a eugenics angle to that? As I've said in a few posts - its my impression that those "belligerent asshole" people are playing the game they are in. Exploitation of the weak, resources at all costs, dominate and take what you want - only your lack of greed and abundance of morality is holding you back from being king capitalist nonsense is pushed on society. That's the game we are in - some can see that and some cant or choose not to.
I dont feel like I labour under the weight of how we got to formal hierarchies. Its seems to me that it arose when we settled and created surplus and thus accumulation around the advent of agriculture 7-12,000 years ago after we had a supposedly fairly egalitarian existence for over a 100,000 years before that . That caused specialization in trades and the need for larger organisation etc
You are correct though that I have tainted "power" with negative connotations - so probably best I augment the phrase with accumulation and centralization of power which inevitably leads to coercive hierarchical domination and then is usually codified into laws or embedded into economic structures.
I don't think its humanities lot in life to deal with hierarchies and dominance. I think this current cultural paradigm is a phase of learning. Its just like humanities teenage years when everything goes haywire and things get confused before we start looking back and introspecting and deciding what we want to be. We are taught it was always like this but we know it wasn't. We are taught that power and domination are always our default modes but it wasn't. We are taught that we would just be sitting around fighting or doing nothing if a hierarchy didn't come in and make us move forward but thats blatantly false - evolution was a phenomenal transition and to learn what we knew up to when agriculture and settler populations and formal entrenched hierarchies arose did not require a CEO, manager or a single driven person to pull the rest along.
heheh ok ok, i said i'd…
lumpy (not verified) Thu, 03/27/2025 - 08:14
In reply to The terminology of… by Poster (not verified)
heheh ok ok, i said i'd leave this be and i lied
but i see the problem now! you're the one who's chasing a purity test! you really don't understand your own species very well. humans are largely irrational and vicious creatures my friend. you want the problem to be something they have been taught, which is probably a bit true in some cases (definitely economics for example) but it's not the origin of the problem, which is this!
we are paranoid, greedy, murder monkeys. all of the politics and civilization stuff is grafted on top of that original problem like a very stupid looking hat. so yes, this is our lot in life, sorry to break the bad news!
anarchists are well positioned to correctly diagnose this problem and if they want, try to mitigate the continuous attempts by the rest of the species to be ... just awful to each other for SUCH stupid reasons... forever. this is our fate, STARE IN TO THE ABYSS WITH ME! and no flinching! lol
I assume i know why you…
Poster (not verified) Fri, 03/28/2025 - 09:28
In reply to heheh ok ok, i said i'd… by lumpy (not verified)
I assume i know why you think humans are irrational paranoid murder monkeys. Its what has worked in the past to keep us safe. But we have evolved beyond just a chimp brain - sure it needs reassured and calmed and reasoned with but we can see bigger pictures. We can work together on things and when theres a common purpose we can shape and buy into we are perfectly evolved to follow social norms and get on with each other and help. Under the surface of wars and death theres caring supporting and helpful things people do and it makes them feel good. The societal system doesnt really reward it so its left up to peoples empathy thresholds. Pragmatic action oriented people look at the current capitalist system and think greed, narcism, violence and self importance are valued so they do that up to the point they make themselves nauseous or mega rich and powerful. But if the system os social and social norms are that selfish narcists are not welcome and theres no systemic reward for that behaviour via economic castle building then it stops being as much of a thing. Doesnt make a utopia but it definitely tempers behaviour and choices. But how do i know that and is it just a theory with a load of stickers of unicorns and rainbows on it. Anthropology shows us that for the vast majority of our existence as a species we had a fairly rudimentary egalitarian existence. There was conflict but it was not anywhere near the same scale of attrocities. I also have a vast network of people i know across different cultures and journeys and people arent as you say. When isolated, threatened, suppressed by the system and fed a diet of daily fearmongering and xenophobia for sure the inner reactive chimp is always on the surface. The inner chimp operates well in the consumer based world grabbing, hoarding, impulse operating at a base level. Which is why i say the system drives the behaviour. Its no accident we are kept in that perpetual state. Its be design and then yes we operate like cornered frightened chimps
Jusdfuckin rEad FoUCAuLT…
InB4Brah (not verified) Mon, 03/24/2025 - 21:03
Jusdfuckin rEad FoUCAuLT aREdyud muthdrfuskcers!!
Okay computer, create…
foucault (not verified) Tue, 03/25/2025 - 14:30
In reply to Jusdfuckin rEad FoUCAuLT… by InB4Brah (not verified)
Okay computer, create Foucault power dissolving in dinosaur pee.... (processing)
product here:
https://anokchan.org/index.php?q=post/view/1229
focault away off
Poster (not verified) Tue, 03/25/2025 - 16:59
In reply to Jusdfuckin rEad FoUCAuLT… by InB4Brah (not verified)
I agree with some of focaults theory or at least what ive got from it in that i think adaptive constant vigilence for power is necessary. I agree that resistance itself is shaped by the power it fights against, meaning every rebellion risks creating its own new form of domination. So of power can’t be destroyed the best approach is to continuously expose and challenge it before it solidifies into domination and to quickly attempt to reach an equilibrium state with regard to power differentials. However that would take a reallly solidified cultural norm to avoid it needing rigid institutionalised enforcement. That only can come from recognising the root, knowing the trajectory and conscioisly dissipating the power as a norm i think
May I suggest.
ABC (not verified) Tue, 03/25/2025 - 02:52
Reading The Dawn of Everything by David Graeber. There are many examples throughout human history across the planet of people organising differently.
Power itself isn't the problem. We all have it and in commune we have a lot of it.
The problem is focusing communal power on/in individuals or "special group"
Communal power must be managed and shared communally through consensus which both focuses then disolves and disipates power naturally.
Solid post 9.2/10 Affinity…
anon (not verified) Tue, 03/25/2025 - 07:20
In reply to May I suggest. by ABC (not verified)
Solid post 9.2/10
Affinity groups and consensus (bolos) are the only way
Counterpoint: bolos are…
anon (not verified) Tue, 03/25/2025 - 08:29
In reply to Solid post 9.2/10 Affinity… by anon (not verified)
Counterpoint: bolos are utopic isolationism that breed xenophobia. They are contrary to affinity groups and anarchy.
Counter-counterpoint:…
EmmaAintDead Tue, 03/25/2025 - 08:44
In reply to Counterpoint: bolos are… by anon (not verified)
Counter-counterpoint: affinity groups are just as prone to micronationalism as anything else and have exhibited this more often than bolos by merit of having been attempted more times. nobody is free of the sin of authoritarian-home-team-ism. go sox.
counter-counter-counterpoint…
lumpy (not verified) Tue, 03/25/2025 - 09:12
In reply to Counter-counterpoint:… by EmmaAintDead
counter-counter-counterpoint! so you're saying that ... a small group is still just made of people and if some or all of those people have shitty ideas ... then they must stare deep in to the bathroom mirror?
be like: why do i suck? how can i be less suck? am i out of touch? no! everyone else is wrong!
Counter-counter-counterpoint…
anon (not verified) Tue, 03/25/2025 - 10:05
In reply to counter-counter-counterpoint… by lumpy (not verified)
Counter-counter-counterpoint to y'all both fucks: affinity groups are ad hoc formations. When they deteriorate from intention or suffer from an erosion of affinity they are dissolved.
yeah dissolved AND THEN you…
lumpy (not verified) Tue, 03/25/2025 - 11:34
In reply to Counter-counter-counterpoint… by anon (not verified)
yeah dissolved AND THEN you're supposed to work on yourself so you SUCK LESS
so maybe next time, your "affinity" won't "erode" quite so fast? or you could always learn nothing and repeat the extinction burst cycle over and over until your inevitable, lonely death
You guys have got to stop…
anon (not verified) Tue, 03/25/2025 - 10:42
In reply to counter-counter-counterpoint… by lumpy (not verified)
You guys have got to stop caring (reactively emoting) about what other people are doing and trying to control them when you don't like it.
If a group expands and does like Mordor style total destruction in a 2 mi radius, what can you do? Let them ruin everything and die off and laugh at them after. But you can't really intervene and call yourself anarchist.
There's a similarly small band of human elites keeping this horrid system going. When that 2 mi radius becomes 2 AU then we have to ask about taking out that bolo, right? Or even before? That's the question in play here. What radius does another bolo have to expand to in order to become opposition? At a certain point they're controlling you through expansion.
Then there's the question of our non human kin and how they're a part of our communities and demand defense. It's complicated. Almost like we need a council of wise people to sit around and discuss this things. Oh wait.
"But you can't really…
lumpy (not verified) Tue, 03/25/2025 - 11:46
In reply to You guys have got to stop… by anon (not verified)
"But you can't really intervene and call yourself anarchist."
^ besides stupid af, what basis for this? do you even care how dumb and wrong, things you say?
Hello
anon (not verified) Wed, 03/26/2025 - 05:42
In reply to "But you can't really… by lumpy (not verified)
How do you do, fellow policemen?
Sir, this is an anarchist…
anon (not verified) Wed, 03/26/2025 - 08:24
In reply to Hello by anon (not verified)
Sir, this is an anarchist website
"Communal power must be…
anon (not verified) Tue, 03/25/2025 - 11:09
In reply to May I suggest. by ABC (not verified)
"Communal power must be managed and shared communally through consensus which both focuses then disolves and disipates power naturally."
I don't think you know the meaning of consensus... It's not about everyone agreeing with the same things. It works by creating agreements, temporary or permanent, between parties of diverse views and interests. Consensus-building is usually how parties really work internally and how politcians often elevate themselves to positions, at least in democracies.
"Communal power"... what does it even mean?
Hello
Anon (not verified) Wed, 03/26/2025 - 02:56
In reply to "Communal power must be… by anon (not verified)
With respect, you described consensus then quickly morphed it into the "modern" definition of democracy, which is not what consensus is at all.
In saying it focuses power I mean that it focuses our communal power on and at matters at hand, not in individuals. The community raises then remedies whatever is raised in a truly democratic way. Leaders are not required. Consensus does not require leaders so it can very easily and naturally disolve situations where individuals try to assert dominance.
We are hard wired for this stuff (consensus) it is the way the human beings naturally behave. Modern democracy is entirely unnatural.
Modern democracy is only about leaders.
Communal power is collective power, the personal power of individuals multiplied in commune.
Consensus works and it is able to naturally disolve focused power around individuals.
Again, may I suggest reading The Dawn Od Everything by David Graeber. It answers the questions asked in the article we are commenting under and it gives detailed, very evidenced examples throughout human history of people who did and do exactly what the article is asking about.
they literally responded to…
anon (not verified) Wed, 03/26/2025 - 05:46
In reply to Hello by Anon (not verified)
they literally responded to say you gave a bad definition of consensus and then gave a vad definition of consensus lol
consensus means if you don't like enough of the decisions the group is making you either protest more or leave. it has nothing to do with sitting in circles and holding hands until everyone is in agreement. that's some 2005 Cindy Milstein/2025 Scott Campbell shit. we're talking about real colombian consensus, 100%
Poisoning the wells
Anon (not verified) Fri, 03/28/2025 - 02:09
In reply to they literally responded to… by anon (not verified)
This thread is a perfect little window into what is and has been done to social media and is a very typical example of how empire's operate.
Poison the wells, or in this case poson social media discussion with off topic sh*t so people cant actually have important conversations (I am aware I'm doing it but I'll be quick) Don't feed the fascists. Great article up top by the way.
I agree here. The whole…
GEF (not verified) Fri, 03/28/2025 - 07:32
In reply to they literally responded to… by anon (not verified)
I agree here. The whole Occupy consensus-making shit (that Graeber supported) is totalitarian as fuck.
True consensus-building is agoristic, even agonistic. It works as based on a continuous flow of disagreements, conflicts, debates from which at some point agreements and contracts -never really permanent- can arise. The "kumbaia" form of consensus is a suffocating process favoring a few self-absorbed big talkers dominating over Moreover it's not an end in itself, but a necessary measure in order to do shit with other, different people with different views and interests, that often diverge or even compete. There's a hundred small school kids in the schoolyard but there's only 5 basketballs and 10 jumping ropes; whatdaya think's gonna happen within a hierachical statist context with stupid rules and norms? Usually the answer is "shit".
You can't be having anarchism without that acceptance that people are NOT all the same.... that we're all unique beings, DESPITE the similarities. That's one of the major points that all the Chumpkies and his pettier versions have left out of their feelgood lectures.
Like "We All Want Power" CrimethInc once boldly said. Yeah no... this very thread demonstrates how power has multifaceted semantics. You want more power, right. But for what purpose? For WHO? That's the question some ppl aren't asking, including those starry-eyed anarchists.
left a few words out
GEF (not verified) Fri, 03/28/2025 - 07:34
In reply to I agree here. The whole… by GEF (not verified)
"dominating over" weak-minded softies.
nah for real
anon (not verified) Sun, 03/30/2025 - 00:12
In reply to I agree here. The whole… by GEF (not verified)
You're really smart, appreciate this comment a lot
It means the power a…
anon (not verified) Wed, 03/26/2025 - 05:48
In reply to "Communal power must be… by anon (not verified)
It means the power a community holds you fuckin moron
I agree with a lot of…
Poster (not verified) Wed, 03/26/2025 - 04:20
In reply to May I suggest. by ABC (not verified)
I agree with a lot of Graebers thoughts on this. I think the healthiest systems allow power to dissolve preventing ossification into permanent domination structures. I suppose to refine what i mean and to align with that clarification youve given it’s not power itself but its accumulation in fixed structures that leads to corruption.
on my view power describes…
alex (not verified) Tue, 03/25/2025 - 12:04
on my view power describes the accumulation and deployment by any means of living material by real, social, and/or fictitious bodies, or the tendency of a living thing to turn other living things towards its (own, contradistinct) ends. when a singer has a powerful voice, or when i talk about feeling "captivated" by the song, i am experiencing the tension and dynamism caused by being pulled away from my status-quo perspective into an altered state that is at least in part defined or characterized by the performance of the singer. this is probably less effective than pointing a gun at me and issuing a command, and a lot less final than pulling the trigger and e.g. seizing my home, but it isn't nothing either.
this means that for me rejecting the accumulation of power as such means rejecting life (and is part of why i take that question seriously). i think it is usually authority that people mean when they talk about power in this way. it isn't power-as-such, it's the powers-that-be, which means this ought to be a descriptive question rather than a prescriptive one--"how does power develop into things like the powers that be" (descriptive) vs "how should we interact with power whenever we find it" (prescriptive). my answer to the descriptive question (how did we get here) is: we permitted the accumulation and deployment of (social) power in the first instance, which can only ever be directly managed by real, immediate, present bodies, to become subject to law, which can only ever be applied reactively, no matter how sophisticated its agents (who constitute the state) become in their delusional efforts to enforce any particular law in advance. every legal regime is bound by this contradiction, and the various processes that inform the increasing and intensifying burden of maintaining it is what i’m calling the development of authority over a particular time in a particular place. this is my generalized account of how certain forms of power can change over time into the contemporary state, ranging from your basic codified land claims to “biopolitical” aspects of the regime such as pertain to psychiatry, childcare etc.
so, for me, the prescriptive question (what is to be done) that then follows is not phrased in terms of abstract power. i’m not concerned whether a particular person, group, project, whatever, is developing power in and of itself. i’m concerned whether they are tending toward the dissolution or intensification of the particular powers i am generally opposed to, on the one hand, and whether they are simultaneously tending towards the intensification or dissolution of the particular powers i am generally in support of (including, potentially, they themselves), on the other. it isn’t merely a quantitative question but it can be simplified to one. does this make less bad and more good, or does it make more bad and less good? does it contribute to shifts within the general disposition of the full array of the powers-that-be that is to the disadvantage (operates to limit, contain, destitute, destroy, etc) of those particular powers that i despise, or does it, for example, trick people into devoting some portion of their life and time in the service of some other set of ends than the form of opposition that it merely advertised itself as?
personally, i’ve never yet found any kind of group or organization that i wanted to be a part of. but that does not mean that i want them (all) to die or go home. i’m interested in the ways that people can grow the cracks, and not just stick flags in them for backfilling or whatever, regardless of whether i want anything to do with it. maybe that means no one person or group can have any lasting power and stay honest—i doubt it, and would not defend that idea theoretically—but as a general proposition, i don’t see how it’s sensible to talk about the dissolution of abstract power as a goal, rather than the dissolution of particular powers, which are always constituted by particular people, and presumably demand particular modes and strategies of contending with.
Sheesh, just do nihilism and…
anon (not verified) Tue, 03/25/2025 - 17:45
In reply to on my view power describes… by alex (not verified)
Sheesh, just do nihilism and you'll get rid of all this power complex syndrome yous all seem suffering from. Also, will the trollaphobic control freaks just relax and stop stereotyping our critiques with ad hominem infetences that "trolls" are overwhelmed by masturbation fantasies in their mythical mom's basements!
i liked the one that was…
alex (not verified) Tue, 03/25/2025 - 17:56
In reply to Sheesh, just do nihilism and… by anon (not verified)
i liked the one that was just "shit for brains" emojis for 23 pages personally
Agreed! The moderators…
anon (not verified) Tue, 03/25/2025 - 19:49
In reply to i liked the one that was… by alex (not verified)
Agreed! The moderators should restore that comment but they won't because they are humourless killjoys that want everyone else to be joyless too!
yea they just wanna put the…
alex (not verified) Tue, 03/25/2025 - 22:55
In reply to Agreed! The moderators… by anon (not verified)
yea they just wanna put the little guy trying to have some fun down... just like how to stasi who shoot to death anyone trying to write "shit for brains" four thousand times on the berlin wall... its a shame but what can you do
POWER Puritanical Old Whites…
anon (not verified) Tue, 03/25/2025 - 13:40
POWER
Puritanical
Old
Whites
Enforcing
Racism
POWER
Pathetic
Orcish
Whites
Expressing
Ressentiment
Plural of Powers,,,,Seething
anon (not verified) Tue, 03/25/2025 - 17:47
In reply to POWER Puritanical Old Whites… by anon (not verified)
Plural of Powers,,,,Seething
legendary Anews comment
anon (not verified) Wed, 03/26/2025 - 05:53
In reply to Plural of Powers,,,,Seething by anon (not verified)
lmfaooo
can't tell hf serious, don't care. still fuckin hilarious either way but in my mind this is the dead kennedts/chuck d (dafuq?) anon
in b4 killing in the name of
being "that guy" about the prompt again
lumpy (not verified) Tue, 03/25/2025 - 20:48
i swear, i actually have a reason tho!
i appreciate this topic and the thoughtfulness of the guest topic writer but as lots of older anarchists have probably noticed, this discussion comes up over and over and i honestly don't think it's just a semantics thing.
the reason why understanding power itself as THE problem is a mistake, is that it exonerates the very real enemies of anarchists (and everyone else) who have names and address and are individually responsible for their tyranny and the destruction of the world, sounds dramatic but that's on them too!
furthermore, suggesting that power itself is where the problem is located, is literally what every abusive asshole wants you to think, that you would do the same in their position. not true! they made a choice and if you're a real one, you would choose different
AND if you ever actually try to fight them, this type of fallacy might make you hesitate, exactly when you should be uhm ... not hesitating! too much hyper-individualism in your fartbong will have you rockin a hero-god complex in a power fantasy, completely losing the actual plot, right here in the very real world, where things aren't lookin too good right now
In fairness things havent…
EmmaAintDead Tue, 03/25/2025 - 22:06
In reply to being "that guy" about the prompt again by lumpy (not verified)
In fairness things havent looked too good in our living memory whatsoever.
But you are absolutely on to something, tha the choices you or i or anon or topic writer would make would be different than the choices of those holding political/structural/organizational/social power... which is precisely why we will never actually be in the room where those decisions are made. an anarchist cant be president not because holding office would be antithetical to anarchy, but because of the decisions one has to make in order to obtain and maintain that level of power. an anarchist would refuse their situation WAAAAAAAY before a viable shot at presidency were on the table.
That goes for just about any powerful position, extant or not. i dont think its semantic or a freeze response to the fear of choice or getting high on one's own supply. its definitionally unattainable, an anarchist would cease to exist as an anarchist somewhere closer to the school board level than the UN level.
Personalising your fight
Poster (not verified) Wed, 03/26/2025 - 02:59
In reply to being "that guy" about the prompt again by lumpy (not verified)
This is our fundamental difference on the issue distilling out. Your point seems to be that anarchists are surely too pure to be corrupted - they would never find themselves in a position of power and so would keep their purity from the outside and tell people that they are better humans than those playing the power game. I feel like that has a religiosity to it - a puritan-esque condescending tone. Not everyone is as enlightened or educated. Those in the game believe the game they are in is the only reality and the only way we can exist. They cannot see another reality other than what a director in a movie, an artist or other has painstakingly constructed for them. I dont think that means they are evil and should be annihilated for revenge for all the crimes they committed - re-educated on the impact and set on the right path in the right environment but maybe that's too understanding for your liking. Fundamentally I think humans play the game they are in - albeit some more sociopathic and willfully ignorant than others. A coalition of people is possible if we try to focus on collaboration and team wins as the goal rather than witch hunts for bad people, bad institutions, bad feelings, some of which are bad levels of education and enlightenment. Not that I live in naïve utopian world where everyone is good. People need to acknowledge they were wrong and attempt to atone - the system has to drive their behavior for common good. The current system rewards sociopathic self indulgent narcism - the ultimate skills required for winning at capitalism. If we pursue destruction and annihilation of anyone who doesnt agree with us then do we become the stasi of our new construct? - persecuting thought crimes or looking for what we think are corrupt genes or having an anarchist purity test or some nonsense. How long until we find the only one pure enough is ourselves because thats the measure we put in place. I dont want to stand shouting into the wind from the outside. The world needs its axis chucked over and started properly - not all in one go though.
SIGH look, you're not…
lumpy (not verified) Wed, 03/26/2025 - 09:10
In reply to Personalising your fight by Poster (not verified)
SIGH look, you're not telling me how my perspective works, it's not about "purity"
the anarchist position or the anti-authoritarian instinct (paired with analysis) is just literally the only chance any human has to not inevitably become "corrupted", that's your choice of framework btw
like, what is our position if not the careful study of exactly how and why this "corruption" happens as well as the sum total of arguments about why we should make different choices and how to do that?
it's literally what you're talking about, how to not get corrupted. clearly, there's lots of ways to fail, as emma pointed out. BUT what you definitely shouldn't do, in my strongly held opinion, is delude yourself that you won't need quite a bit of power of your own, to give your enemies pause, let alone defeat them
fighting is messy and necessary and your rambling point towards the end of your post is exactly that hesitation i was referring to. in fact, it sounds a lot more like a purity test than anything i've said, constantly wondering if you're being fair enough to your enemies?! i mean, of course you should do your homework and check your facts so that you don't wrongfully accuse people but it's 2025 and the fascists are on the march ... and you're worried about the phantom of poor judgement?! ffs ... lol
"if we pursue destruction and annihiliation of anyone who doesn't agree with us [...]" <--- like, where did this even come from? do you know much about fighting? you know there's a lot of ground between defending ourselves and flattening a city, yes? i'm not talking about the culture wars where millionaire podcasters are whining about being "cancelled" and i'm not talking about "thought crimes"
my analysis of power doesn't centre any of those example you give, they are mostly very silly and uhm ... terminally online concerns from where i'm standing
I do think you've assumed a…
Poster (not verified) Wed, 03/26/2025 - 10:26
In reply to SIGH look, you're not… by lumpy (not verified)
I do think you've assumed a lot from my postings that im not sure where you got - cancelling millionaires and culture wars are figments of your imagination.
This whole repeated use of the word enemies and defeating them is such a binary way to look at things and talk of cracking skulls and winning is just fire with fire. This is how you morph into the thing you are trying to replace - its a slippery slope. There are other ways to replace the system without cracking skulls of enemies and planting a flag and setting up a new state governance with only "pure" souls who wont get corrupted in there
yes ... fire with fire. some…
lumpy (not verified) Thu, 03/27/2025 - 07:52
In reply to I do think you've assumed a… by Poster (not verified)
yes ... fire with fire. some things require the flames, enemies are real. and no, you don't "become impure" by fighting, you learn and grow until this dichotomy of yours seems absurd, i assure you
the "slope" is very slippery, true but it's still something you'll have to cross to know much about the beautiful idea.
as i've said, you're confusing the possibility of being wrong about something, with entire aspects of reality that you think can somehow be avoided. looks like you're going to insist on this particular misapprehension so i'll leave you to it! best of luck!
also, quite trying to jam words in my mouth at the end with your lazy strawmanning. this is an actual disagreement, no need to misrepresent what i'm saying, pretend i said "we should set up a state!" it's a bad look, probably beneath you, so do better ;)
Power from the subjective…
anon (not verified) Wed, 03/26/2025 - 05:43
Power from the subjective perspective, not from the objectivity of guns, electricity, horsepower or authoritarian hierarchical law, but from the person, and I don't mean their biceps or wealth or bench-press, I mean from their consciousness and imagination, the great paradox is the " person of spontaneous thought/action living in the moment " because time and space and externalities have no power OVER THEM. They ALONE have conquered power by negating its influence over their being, and in doing so, become powerful individuals. This is nihilistic neutral power, It's sooOoo damn cooOool, like zeeEeen.
I do enjoy the perpsective…
Poster (not verified) Wed, 03/26/2025 - 07:19
I do enjoy the perpsective of nihilistic neutral power. However, while this subjective power is undeniably empowering on an individual level, the challenge remains: How do we translate that internal liberation into collective practices that resist the formation of coercive hierarchies? In other words, can a society of individuals who each master their inner power create a social order that prevents the reification of power into domination, while still harnessing the creative potential of that subjective force? Rather than im alright in my bubble - what about the rest of you?
yes. the anthropology angle…
lumpy (not verified) Wed, 03/26/2025 - 09:24
In reply to I do enjoy the perpsective… by Poster (not verified)
yes. the anthropology angle answers this question imo
there's many documented cases of traditional societies that emphasized the anti-authoritarian instinct. ancient peoples could always gang up on a particularly toxic individual and i trace this tradition all the way to the present, where it hasn't been doing very well, true!
BUT that's a very tiny fraction of the time our species has existed. we've mostly forgotten the ancient wisdom of cracking the skulls of all the would-be tyrants, or putting them out in the snow to fix their shitty attitudes but mother anarchy hasn't forgotten us! she always waits for us to remember, she's good like that
you guys are prescriptively…
anon (not verified) Wed, 03/26/2025 - 09:28
In reply to yes. the anthropology angle… by lumpy (not verified)
you guys are prescriptively debating preconfigured societies with the explicit intent of trying to control people, you see that, right? id love to steel man your arguments but you literally cant. this is not anarchism, its textbook, classic liberalism. power does not corrupt. weakness does. not all people with capacity and ability are bad. some give to others
Nah youve scrolled down and…
Poster (not verified) Wed, 03/26/2025 - 10:08
In reply to you guys are prescriptively… by anon (not verified)
Nah youve scrolled down and assumed something. No one is suggesting controlling or directing how people should live. Im asking questions and suggesting a thought process that removes the assumed logic of hierarchy and the need for structures.
The idea that only the "bad ones" are corrupted by power, while the "right kind" of person could wield it benevolently, is just another version of the "great leader" myth. It assumes there’s some pure soul who can resist the structural pressures of power, which is movie based nonsense. There is no dichotomy of good and bad people or even a third option of not assed. Its system driven behaviour. Most people act for the game they are in and do the best they can based on what makes things better for them. Others like us theorise and look for answers and flip the system around looking for a better way especially when the system is pure dogshit and doesnt work without dominance and suppression. I do love the thought that we fight fire with fire and go give them a taste of their own medicine but then we become assholes but we think its for the right reasons because were right and they are wrong so the deserve skulls cracked in. We remove ourselves from the system to analyse it and then we feel better than those who dont see what we see and assume they are bad people who would always do what we consider wrong because they like the misery it inflicts on other people - no chance
everyone is literally always…
lumpy (not verified) Thu, 03/27/2025 - 07:59
In reply to Nah youve scrolled down and… by Poster (not verified)
everyone is literally always wielding tiny bits of power. the only reason your theory doesn't collapse is because you're pretending you've never touched it and it won't ever touch you
you do this by abstracting, in to "coercive power" or "hierarchy" but i can guarantee you've already used and/or been part of those things too. it's inevitable. that's why what we choose to do is what's important
ancient peoples could always…
anon (not verified) Wed, 03/26/2025 - 09:34
In reply to yes. the anthropology angle… by lumpy (not verified)
ancient peoples could always gang up on a particularly toxic individual and i trace this tradition all the way to the present, where it hasn't been doing very well, true!
are you fucking serious?? the gall...
some of the best post-leftist anarchist thinkers have been completed ostracized and exiled to the extent of total irrelevance because of your ilk. go through the back catalog of the brilliant and take note of how many folks people like you have canceled
"ancient practice that's ineffective today" my fucking ass
“some of the best post…
anon (not verified) Wed, 03/26/2025 - 10:08
In reply to ancient peoples could always… by anon (not verified)
“some of the best post-leftist anarchist thinkers have been completed ostracized and exiled to the extent of total irrelevance because of your ilk.”
What “post-leftist thinker” was ever relevant beyond their incredibly niche subculture? Beyond social clout, what did these exiles lose? Were they kicked out of their study group, banned from commenting on @news, lost that big money LBC publishing deal?
the mongol clans massacred…
anon (not verified) Wed, 03/26/2025 - 12:19
In reply to “some of the best post… by anon (not verified)
the mongol clans massacred each other for centuries all over the asian steppe for very petty reasons. that's US anarchism except the horses are larped like monty python, and "massacred" just means your patreon falls off
> best LMAO! According to…
anon (not verified) Wed, 03/26/2025 - 12:48
In reply to ancient peoples could always… by anon (not verified)
> best
LMAO! According to who? A bunch irrelevant white men poorly attempting to re-articulate largely ignored deep thoughts to more edgy white men in an irrelevant niche branch adjacent to anarchy?
Effective ways to shut up squawking edgelords writing screeds on why diddling kids and letting slaves do all the work should not be discounted as mere "canceling", brow
NNP 5:43 anon here, well…
anon (not verified) Wed, 03/26/2025 - 16:27
In reply to I do enjoy the perpsective… by Poster (not verified)
NNP 5:43 anon here, well that is exa tly what Stirner was attempting to explain in his awkward 19th century German existence/translation. NooOoow I'm going to be shut down for mentioning the drEaded StIRner, but I trIEd,,,sigh,,,
Stirner's critique that all…
Poster (not verified) Wed, 03/26/2025 - 16:54
In reply to NNP 5:43 anon here, well… by anon (not verified)
Stirner's critique that all fixed, abstract authority limits genuine freedom i agree with. He argues that power should never be solidified into coercive structures that dominate the individual. However i think Stirner’s focus is on individual liberation - encouraging people to free themselves from imposed ideologies. If thats right it could be expanded on to look at a collective level and into communal systems that continuously dissolve concentrated power differentials
But nO one cAn dO It (this…
NNP (not verified) Wed, 03/26/2025 - 17:04
In reply to Stirner's critique that all… by Poster (not verified)
But nO one cAn dO It (this is how I sound when I talk) bEcAUse thEY lAck thE iNNer mEntAl dIscIpLinE tO cArrY iT thROugH. It'S hARd bEing A pUrE InDiViDualIst, iT's nO wAlk iN tHe pArK wIth All yOUr bUDdiEs. YOu gOttA dO sOliTaRy iN ThE ManS hOuSe tO gAiN tEh FinAl LibErAtiNg ePiPhanY sIgH.
poster...with all due…
literally the … (not verified) Wed, 03/26/2025 - 17:13
In reply to Stirner's critique that all… by Poster (not verified)
poster...with all due respect, i think a significant part of stirner's critique is directly squarely at the idea that the questions you're continually asking here, of no one and everyone at once, can do anything but prevent us from earnestly asking them of each other as we are, by endlessly deferring the need to in favor of some general settlement of terms or perfection of the law. this "power creep" you're concerned about--have you experienced it? you seem sympathetic to consensus groups. have you been part of one, and if so, did you experience it failing, and if so, are you perhaps looking for a way to blame some generalizable flaw or stupidity of man versus the specific people and circumstances you found yourself in? its the imposition of the idea over the reality thats to be questioned, in my opinion. you gotta bring it back home
also there are a couple guys…
literally the … (not verified) Wed, 03/26/2025 - 17:27
In reply to poster...with all due… by literally the … (not verified)
also there are a couple guys who extended stirner's critique to the level of political economy that you seem particularly concerned by but you might not like the answer lol
Fair point i havent…
Poster (not verified) Thu, 03/27/2025 - 17:13
In reply to poster...with all due… by literally the … (not verified)
Fair point i havent mentioned any previous experience because its just a pattern i see everywhere in every interaction with consolidated power or influence. It seemed generic enough to discuss conceptually. People can start for the right reasons in communes and working together then you have a few who are good at brokering decisions and diffusing conflict so the lazy inner chimp in folks delegate that role to them. Then they become deferred to for most important calls. Then consensus becomes tiresome to reach and listen to so to expedite the journey and its defered for some people to make a call for everyone. Then as that continues people who naturally dislike authority and dictat start to challenge and call it out. This shows cracks in the system that others would be happier to propagate for peace and stability and as its a lesser evil than the outside world so they rally behind the status quo. Then dissenting voices are cast as problem makers and ignored and all of a sudden you are expected to get in line and follow...then its fucked. Starts well intentioned - people flex their ability - power gets consolidated - people get comfortable and tyranny eventually rules. So why keep repeating that? Is it as other have said because those people were bad to start with? - not in my experience. So what changed then? Did their hormones changes and they chemically altered? Or as others have said are we all just murderous chimps pretending to be good as a facade and we just didnt see their true nature - i dont think so either. So the asumption is something tempted them to abandon their principles and boiled them slowly like a frog. I dont think its just that we are built broken, unchangeable, forever locked in a pattern kf our programming. We arent fixed beings, we are reflective, we do learn, we can plan for innevitabilities like patterns in group organisation and so dissipate the power from accumulating.
When i look beyond those groups its not unique. Its definitely a pattern. People get responsibility, they get respect and power and they start to enjoy being exhaulted. They then crave it and bow to expectation to keep the high going and start to weild the power. Things fuck up damn fast.
After unpicking all that in my brain the path out of it seems to me to be the affinity groups or something similar. Im glad i got to discuss it. But i think for them to work they would need constant vigilence looking out for microgroups, insularisation and group think echo chamber pitfalls. With that comes scaling and how to weave in wider purpose. Its something id like to see more in practice over a long period.
i think the trick is that it…
alex (not verified) Fri, 03/28/2025 - 01:10
In reply to Fair point i havent… by Poster (not verified)
i think the trick is that it's generic enough in the sense that similar dynamics play out in many social settings, which would seem to suggest that something must be similarly wrong in all of them--such as human nature--but the specifics are what tend to show why people choose/fall into this kind of decadent pattern. no doubt vigiliance is always warranted, but the question posed by the situation you just laid out seems to be why people decide to forgo exactly that vigilance in favor of convenience. my sense from my own experience and from what i've seen/heard is that it's the realities posed by living together in conditions of relative poverty that tend to cause people to begin to develop internal politics, especially when it isnt clear that theres anywhere else to go. in a setting of any kind of generalized wealth, where it is easier for people to move from one situation to another, to recombine more freely because there are more people, spaces, and capacity for them to do so, i believe that it is more likely--based on my understanding of other places and other times-- that more e.g. affinity groups, communal houses etc would live better and last longer, not just because they had more to work with but because the less people are trapped or bound to a situation the more likely they are to find ways to make the one theyre in work. i dont think this is due to a flaw in human nature but rather the way that debts tend to accrue behind any closed door in a society thats based on debt, privation and exploitation. no matter how intentionally that space was made to not participate in it, thats still whats outside, and everyone knows it. at least, thats what ive experienced. im sure that others have had a better time with it. but for me, and i mean personally, given my particular goals and understanding of myself within this place and in this time, the answers here are more likely to be things like better infrastructure and better hospitality than novel forms of organization or widescale shifts in consciousness, whatever that means. anythings possible but i think if you want those possibilities to have a chance in hell at making it past a proof of concept, theres got to be material supports and a basis for propagation.
Absolutely i understand the…
Poster (not verified) Fri, 03/28/2025 - 12:44
In reply to i think the trick is that it… by alex (not verified)
Absolutely i understand the relative comfort is a massive factor in why those groups break up but Universal Income and Capitalism caring about collective wellbeing is at loggerheads. That circle i dont think will ever square. If it depends on the market carving out breathing room to try new things it will be commodified and water-down capitalism a bit as a compromise and we will just end up having affinity groups to help generate capital rather than true freedom. The hope i see is small groups using mutual aid networks, cooperatives that aren’t governed by capitalist logic. Those grassroots systems should be more resilient because they’re built on principles of cooperation rather than competition.
Poster... I think you've…
anon (not verified) Wed, 03/26/2025 - 19:12
In reply to Stirner's critique that all… by Poster (not verified)
Poster... I think you've just read Chumpsky and extrapolated his positions to Stirner, which is pretty reckless ham-fisting. Have you ever even read from the Stirn!? According to Max, there's no such thing as "illegitimate authority" as ALL authority -coercive or not- is something he rejects. Only his self matters. The "communal" is another of these soft authorities he also rejects. Nothing and none is above his person.
You're sounding like these socialists who tried to appropriate Nietzsche...
"soft power" "soft authority…
literally the … (not verified) Wed, 03/26/2025 - 19:38
In reply to Poster... I think you've… by anon (not verified)
"soft power" "soft authority" its a squishy world yall seem to live in. did your saint max say anything max stirner did or is it more of a santa claus kind of thing
I choose Santa Claus. Every…
YALL! (not verified) Wed, 03/26/2025 - 20:07
In reply to "soft power" "soft authority… by literally the … (not verified)
I choose Santa Claus. Every fucking year. Embrace the illusion that soft power is. Obey the invisible iron hand of the Leviathan!
godspeed brother. how goes…
anon (not verified) Wed, 03/26/2025 - 23:09
In reply to I choose Santa Claus. Every… by YALL! (not verified)
godspeed brother. how goes your portfolio or whatever
OooOooh yoU FooOooL …
NNP (not verified) Thu, 03/27/2025 - 04:49
In reply to I choose Santa Claus. Every… by YALL! (not verified)
OooOooh yoU FooOooL eNsLavEd bY yoUR wEaK iNnEr bLinDnEss,,,gRoPinG tHroUgH a JUnGLe oF DanGLiNg mEdiOcRe TrOpEs sEArcHiNg fOr a mAsK tHaT wILL GiVe yOU tHe iLLuSioN oF PrEsTiGe!
NoOo waAay, MaAaX is abouT…
NNP (not verified) Wed, 03/26/2025 - 20:07
In reply to "soft power" "soft authority… by literally the … (not verified)
NoOo waAay, MaAaX is abouT nEUtrAliZing eXterNal aUthoRitAriaN pOweR wIEldEd bY sPOokS. HIs iNnAte pErSoNaL pOwEr rEmAinS UndILUtEd by LeEcHinG pHanToMs oF AutHoriTY.
Add new comment