TherapyGary

The Anarchist Library is awesome- they have so much great content

Ah cool, thanks for the tip!

I think the most important factor when it comes to that issue is free association and, like you said, decentralization. Ideally we would see coordination rather than hierarchy; no one has to be in charge- there are simply roles that get filled. There are even guides online

It's my understanding that the US military is as capable as they are on the battlefield largely due to the autonomy each individual unit is granted.

This is where things start to get out of my wheelhouse though, but it seems to me that if enough people want this kind of change, we could make it happen by enough individuals simply pitching in

I'd imagine the same and only way we could get there in the first place- mutual aid and violence

Edit: I've been enjoying this thread, so thanks for that! Been a long time since I've gotten this deep into discussing these things, and I like it

But it is closer than people living in capitalist countries are, correct?

Closer to anarchism? I don't think so. Closer to everyone's needs being met and having freedom? Yes, I'd say so.

I guess it is sort of a progress at least (if it is, maybe I'm thinking the wrong way?)

It sounds like you're a pragmatist, and that's valid, but most anarchists are considered idealists, which seems to be where the 'disconnect' is (using that term lightly)

also do you mean society as a whole as in the whole world to be cashless or countries since it'd be a less radical change, and if so, wouldn't these cashless societies become targets of the rest of the world?

'Idealists' like myself catch a lot of flak over this exact issue. To me, it's largely a matter of principle, so I think we should do it anyway. I feel strongly that it isn't our responsibility to make sure every base is covered before making revolutionary change.

I believe that hierarchy is bad, so we should get rid of it. Yes, that then makes us a target for new oppressors, but we're only not a target now because we already have oppressors

Nice try, fed!

Jk, but this isn't an anonymous account, so I can't go into much detail on the praxis/direct action side of things. I will say that, as I believe the state, its laws, and its enforcers(cops, etc) are illegitimate, I give them no bearing on my behavior (i.e., I disregard laws (I'm not a sovcit though- I understand the consequences)). Similarly, I believe healthcare should be free, so I don't pay my medical bills; I believe food should be free, so 𝚁𝙴𝙳𝙰𝙲𝚃𝙴𝙳; and so on, though those are more egoist examples.

A few interpersonal examples that come to mind:

As a therapist, the first thing I always do with a new minor client is clarify that they absolutely do not have to participate. I also discuss involuntary committal with new clients, and seek their consent ahead of time to make that decision for them should it come to it, and if they decline then that's that as far as I'm concerned.

I practice relationship anarchy, so I place no restrictions on my partner, and our resources are pooled.

I even avoid exerting authority/power over non-human animals if I can avoid it, including our cat and even insects and such- basically I don't touch them unless they come to me, and I also follow a vegan lifestyle.

No such thing as a dumb question!

Money functions as a points system to facilitate class hierarchy, so I don't believe money should exist. Social democracies are still capitalist.

Some people prefer to distinguish "justified" hierarchies, e.g., hierarchies of expertise (like teacher-student type relationships)- i.e., someone being in charge is okay if it's well justified.

Others however, like myself, prefer to focus on the underlying power dynamics. I don't think society or its institutions should ever be granting anyone power over another person

When I look at these countries you mention, rather than seeing efficient and equal distribution of resources, what I see is a lot of unnecessary mediating factors, embedded in an inherently unjust structure- the state itself. The people there may be relatively happy, but they're not free

yes!

Why?

downvote me harder

My instance doesn't do downvotes

If by viable you mean able to be implemented without enormous problems, I would argue that capitalism isn't viable. I believe anarchism would be better for more people than the status quo, so I'd say it's viable in comparison

Edit: to answer the other part of your question, I practice anarchism in my daily life. Anarchism, to me, is a value more so than a political ideology. I don't believe in hierarchy, so I don't perpetuate hierarchy, and I actively work to dismantle it around me

Personally, I think that, when it comes to "important" stuff, having an individual or group whose opinion you trust based on other aligned values is sufficient.

E.g., if you're not sure how to feel about furries, but you respect the consensus of the queer community, you can look to them to decide how to ensure your actions/words align with your values

This is basically the whole point of electing representatives. It's not your job to have an opinion on every single thing- we hire people with whom our values (ideally) align, and it becomes their job to have all those opinions

This works similarly in elections. Many people don't have the time, energy, and/or capacity to sit down and learn about each proposed amendment/etc, so different groups publish their recommendations

Are you making fun of the US 4B movement?

This doesn't even belong in this community. I think it being posted here makes people who don't read past the headline think they voted for Trump

Edit: I guess some of them did, but I don't recall Trump ever being dishonest about his support for Israel, so I don't see how he "played" them