This was originally written for and published on a different website (“Ask an Anarchist”) which has now been incorporated into the NAC site. The views expressed are just one person’s opinion and may not represent what people in NAC believe now. This post was written by A.

Alex asks:

“Can you be an anarchist and a patriot? Like in the sense of you love your country or home and you would do anything for it but having the absence of government?”

To be an anarchist, you cannot be a patriot as you may know it. I hesitate to even call it patriotism. Your love and pride of your community/geographical area and the extent to which you act upon that love/pride should be something you are careful with. If you consider yourself a patriot, I think you should ask yourself  (at least) these questions:

• As a patriot, are you hoping to further your community’s interests/goals? If so, what are these interests/goals?
• Does your patriotic agenda infringe on the rights of other individuals or communities?
• Does it restrict their access to social goods or natural resources based on their own association with the subject of your patriotism?
• Does it align you with the state, the ruling class, or other oppressive entities which seek to maintain and benefit from the state and inequitable societal conditions?

For example, the USA uses the military to push forth its own agenda. However, widespread imperialism and violence in the name of profit is always at the expense of others. The victims of such an agenda likely have more in common with the working class men and women sent to war than those who have sent them and those sent to war rarely see the ‘profits’ of these wars.They are encouraged to participate, anyway, as their patriotic duty. This is an example where patriotism is a form of social control, used to manufacture loyalty to a nation state while the furthering of their agenda encroaches on the rights of others.

To anarchists, maintaining freedom of association (the right to leave or join groups freely) is important. In the ideal world, multitudes of communities, including political ones would exist. And indisputably, patriotism is political. The hope is that no group or individual will infringe on the rights of others or their access to resources in the name of patriotism.

If your patriotism leads to you defending privileges/interests associated with you and your compatriots but your pride and love denies access or rights to strangers for no other reason than their lack of association, you would be in conflict with anarchist ideals- at least in conflict with those of the communal anarchist.

This was originally written for and published on a different website (“Ask an Anarchist”) which has now been incorporated into the NAC site. The views expressed are just one person’s opinion and may not represent what people in NAC believe now. This post was written by Z.

Lois asks

Do anarchists vote?

Generally, Anarchists are against voting. For a number of reasons:

On principle, it provides legitimacy to the government and the system.

Anarchists don’t believe there should be rulers who decide things for others. Representative democracies try to solve this by allowing the people to choose who makes the decisions. But voting is still choosing the rulers, it just feels nicer.

Participating in that system by voting provides it with legitimacy and approval. It allows those in government to say “See? The system works. The people are voting”.

Voting pacifies the people.

Voting gives people the illusion that the rulers are representing them, are working for them, or that the government is them (“A government of the people, by the people, and for the people”). When in reality it is clear that most politicians represent corporate “persons” more than their living, breathing constituents.

And for many people voting is the only legitimate way to engage in the system. And governments like it that way because it is a release valve for discontent: “Oh something is wrong? Don’t change the system, just change the people. It’s the [Republican’s, Democrat’s, Fill-in-the-blank-party-here] fault! Just vote for us!”

“For non-corporate human citizens there’s a ‘Democracy Theme Park’ where we can pull levers on voting machines and talk into microphones at hearings. But don’t worry, they’re not connected to anything and nobody’s listening except us”. – Jane Ann Morris

It doesn’t change much either way

Beyond the theory and the principle, I think the main reasons Anarchists don’t vote is because we don’t see it change much and we don’t see much of a difference between candidates.

When your politics are so different than the main parties, the candidates look more and more similar. Do you want the left wing or right wing of the Capitalist Party?

It’s like voting between two Republicans or two Democrats. Imagine choosing between McCain and Romney for President. Yes, you could find some differences. And I bet in a campaign they would seem huge and important. But really, the differences are small. So why spend a lot of energy choosing?

Alternate answer from A.K. Applegate:

Yes! And also no! Anarchists have historically had a variety of views about whether or not one should vote. Some say you might as well because it only takes five minutes and there’s at least a slight chance you will advance our goals of a world based on liberty, equality, ecology, and solidarity. Others say that voting means you’re consenting to this intolerable system and if you wish to maintain your moral integrity, you can’t take part willingly in the state’s legitimizing procedures at all.

The one point almost all anarchists agree on is that the state and the capitalist class will never let us vote away their power. Our dreams cannot fit in their ballot boxes and voting is, at best, only going to win small reforms; at worst, it siphons away energy and attention from efforts that can really change things: direct action and revolution. Emma Goldman said, “If voting did anything, they’d make it illegal.” Every two years we have a national election in the United States and things always seem to go the same way they’ve always gone, the elites do whatever they want and urgent reforms that solid majorities of the population want never materialize. It’s not that anarchists oppose democracy, far from it; it’s that we think the electoral “democracies” in the world aren’t real, and participating in them is a waste of time.

So what do you do on election day? Whatever the fuck you want, whatever you think will help and can still sleep at night after doing. The important thing is what you do every other day besides election day. Are you waiting for the next election, or are you getting people together to force change, whether the powers that be like it or not?

What do you think? Do you vote? Why or why not? Let us know in the comments!

This was originally written for and published on a different website (“Ask an Anarchist”) which has now been incorporated into the NAC site. The views expressed are just one person’s opinion and may not represent what people in NAC believe now. This post was written by J.

Revolutionary acts often takes forms you may not expect. You don’t have to start a spontaneous thousand-person march or liberate academic journal articles for the public to freely access. Living a revolutionary life can start with choosing where you lay your head at night.

What’s the highest number of housemates you’ve had at any one time? Three? Six? What about 12?

At our communal house we have 12 housemates. We call the house The Academy, because it’s where we’re all learning about life.

Here are three ways that communal living is revolutionary:

#1 Decision Making

Quiet hours are decided by consensus, so the late night socialites and the early birds are all happy. (Writing in the mountain-area says: “We invite you to be quieter… like this landscape.”)

There’s a lot of decisions to make when you’re living with 12 people. Who is going to do each chore? How much do rooms cost? Do we want to have a big potluck gathering this weekend? How do we create more bonding time for housemates? When should the common spaces quiet down? Do we want to invite a particular person to live with us or not? And the most common question of all: How do we keep the kitchen clean?

How do we keep things moving with so many voices? Perhaps one “benevolent dictator” could decide everything, then no one would have to expend much energy. Or perhaps we could all vote on topics, and the majority would get their way, and the minority would just deal with it.

What works best for us is to use a consensus decision making model, where we strive for unanimous agreement, and settle for an overwhelming majority in agreement. When someone has an idea that might effect the whole house, they make a proposal, we hear concerns, and adjust the proposal until we reach consensus. The objective is to give everyone an opportunity for their voice and opinions to be a part of the decisions we make. When people are in open, respectful communication with one another, it’s a far more pleasant space to live in.

We all moved into this house by our own free will, and we all work together to keep it clean, comfortable, and playful. There’s no need for us to surrender some of our power over to a “leader” who directs us. What would it be like to live in a society where this were the case everywhere? Where people freely associated for their mutual benefit, and no person was able to wield power over another person.

#2 Community-centered

The fruits of a food liberation operation from a nearby dumpster.

The United States has a proudly individual-centered culture. There is an understandable appeal to having individual rights and access to any item whenever you want it. But, is this “me focused” attitude creating the most vibrant, thriving world possible?

When you live in a community, your focus begins to shift from “what’s good for me” to “what is good for us?” Each person shares an interest in the well-being of everyone in the house. If someone hears about an offer for free compost, they pass it along because even though they don’t garden, they eat the food we grow. When we are in abundance, especially after liberating food from nearby dumpsters, we share the abundance with everyone.

In this culture, we are scarce on examples of what it looks like to give attention to the needs of a community as well as ourselves. When we live communally, we have the opportunity to practice this on a daily basis.

#3 Mutual Aid
In our community, we share resources and share the work. We purchase food as a group and share in the shopping. We cook food together and share the meals. We all clean the house, and there is less to clean because the work is spread out. A few housemates have offered to have their vehicle be the “community car,” so now there are fewer vehicles on the road, and we still have access to one if we really need it. And it’s common for housemates to offer up beds that aren’t in use to visitors and friends.

Sharing shopping and food makes life more simple and easy for everyone.

We don’t need a dozen refrigerators, a dozen sets of kitchenware, a dozen shovels, or a dozen copies of a book. We just need one, and we all share, saving everyone money, reducing waste, and building more interdependency.

By cooperating on a small scale, we are demonstrating our vision of a society built around mutual aid, where each person helps others and receives help from them, and everyone benefits.

Community is Revolutionary
Living a revolutionary life is all about challenging the existing power structures and creating something new. Living in a community house is a revolutionary act for that very reason. Out with the old, in with the new. Community houses won’t create a thriving world on their own, but each house is a beacon of light, sharing an inspiring vision of what it looks like to focus on “we” instead of “me.”

There are all kinds of options for communal living: rent a bigger apartment/house than you’re used to, move in to a co-op house, or share rooms in the place you already have. Each additional person is a new person to learn from and another contributor to the creation of vibrant community.

How could/does communal living benefit you and your loved ones? Let us know in the comments.

This was originally written for and published on a different website (“Ask an Anarchist”) which has now been incorporated into the NAC site. The views expressed are just one person’s opinion and may not represent what people in NAC believe now. This post was written by Z.

We received the first question for this blog! Here goes:

My question is, in Anarchy, how are large and small scale decisions made? How are significant disagreements adjudicated?  What happens if people are unable to come to a consensus (or a group blocks consensus)? – Ted

Thanks so much for the question Ted! This is an important question that gets to the heart of what is unique about anarchy. There’s a lot to unpack there, so I’m going to answer it in multiple posts, starting with decision-making.

Well, what’s wrong with the current system?

I’m sure many people could give a list of things that are wrong with the current US political system: lobbying rules, money in politics, corporate personhood, widening political divide, corrupt media, obstructionist republicans, and the list goes on. (For simplicity, I’m only talking about the US and only politics. Many decisions are made outside of politics, in corporate boardrooms for example, that citizens have zero say in.) Some people would say that once we fix some of these problems the political system would work again. They believe the system is fundamentally good, but currently broken.

But what if the system isn’t broken? What if it is designed to work this way? In a system based on hierarchy, where some people have more power than others, aren’t corruption and political tricks the eventual outcome? In a capitalist system based on the accumulation of wealth by the few, can’t we expect that the rich will have far greater influence over politics than the poor? Even if you could fix some of these symptoms (no small task in itself), wouldn’t corporations and politicians just find new holes to exploit? (or even reopen old ones!).

“In a system where people compete for wealth and the power that comes with it, the ones who are the most ruthless in their pursuit are the ones who end up with the most of both. Thus the capitalist system encourages deceit, exploitation, and cutthroat competition, and rewards those who go to those lengths by giving them the most power and the greatest say in what goes on in society.” – CrimethInc

Instead of constantly trying to correct a system pointed in the wrong direction (“Well yes pure capitalism is awful, we just need to regulate it more”), let’s start with a new system pointed in the right direction! A system that is inherently fair, just, and ensures the most freedom for everyone! Why start with something we don’t want and then try to water it down?

Hierarchy, capitalism, and nation-states have all had a good run. Throughout human history they have been tried in many different ways. And thousands of years later they still fail catastrophically in terms of equality, justice, and freedom. How much longer do we keep trying to fix the broken system before we throw it out and try something new?

“An oppressive system cannot be reformed, it must be entirely cast aside” – Nelson Mandela

So how would decisions be made in anarchy?

The easiest and the most accurate answer is also the most frustrating: No one knows, and no one can know. Anarchy does not lay out specific processes for how society would run because deciding things beforehand is another form of control and hierarchy. Those living in an anarchist society would decide for themselves how they want to make decisions. This means the decision-making system could evolve over time to meet the needs of the community.

“Real freedom means creating the choices you choose between” – CrimethInc

I know that’s not very satisfactory. Unfortunately there is no easy answer, so let’s answer it together: In your highest vision for society, how would you want decisions to be made? Seriously think about it. It’s easy to accept or critique other systems, but it is much more engaging to try and come up with a new one from scratch.

Examples

Thankfully, some people have put forth new ideas, so you can see what an anarchist society might look like.

In the novel The Dispossessed, Ursula K. Le Guin imagines an anarchist society with very little structure: people see what needs to be done and they do it. There is a council that discusses the issues facing society, and suggests possible resolutions. However, because there is no central authority and no way to enforce any decisions, they are really only suggestions. Everyone does what they think is best, and if there are problems, they work it out with each other.

“Is it not the most brutal imposition for one set of people to make laws that another set is coerced by force to obey?” – Emma Goldman

Another model I’ve heard of is called Participism. It describes cascading levels of councils where decisions are made: There’d be one for a neighborhood, then one for a city, then a larger region, and a larger region, etc. with each one making decisions for that area. However, to maintain direct democracy and local control, local councils would have the most say over what happens in their area and could veto decisions by higher councils (the opposite of current democracy, where the larger levels trump the local will). Council members could be recalled at any time by the people they represent, and there would be very strict term limits so no one could gain too much power. This model provides a structure similar to current models of representative democracy, while addressing some of the problems with centralizing power.

What would you want?

I’m sure there are many more examples and many more models out there. What’s great is that all of them could be valid representations of anarchy! It depends on what we as a community want, and what works. A flexible form of decision-making would enable society to focus on what works best for the problems facing people now and in the future, instead of maintaining arbitrary laws or processes designed to address the problems of past.

Have you heard of any other societal decision making models? And more importantly, what would you want to live with? Share them in the comments or email us!

I hope this satisfied the question Ted (If not, let us know)! We’ll answer the other questions soon!

This was originally written for and published on a different website (“Ask an Anarchist”) which has now been incorporated into the NAC site. The views expressed are just one person’s opinion and may not represent what people in NAC believe now. This post was written by Z.

When I imagine an Anarchist society, one of the main things I notice is that everything is freely shared by everyone and there is no private property.

Some people get very concerned at the idea of no private property. People like their stuff and they wouldn’t want to lose it. I think some people imagine that without private property they’d be living in the forest without any possessions, scrounging for food with only the clothes on their back.

But there is an important difference between ownership and use. People can use things without owning them. And what we really want is to use things.

Scarcity models of property

What if you could have full use of all of your current clothes, but when you weren’t using them, someone else was wearing them? Would the experience of wearing a shirt be any different if someone else wore it?

The problem is that society has taught us to see everything in terms of scarcity. We think that there is not enough to go around. And so, if we want to use something, we have to own it and not let anyone else use it, so that we can use it when we want.

But it doesn’t have to be this way. If we could set aside the scarcity model and embrace the abundance model, we would realize that there is enough to go around. We don’t need to stop others from using things in order to enjoy them ourselves.

“Property is Theft” – Proudhon

The Experiment

I’ve been experimenting with giving up property. It started by sharing “my” bike with a roommate when his bike was stolen. I only needed it occasionally and it usually just worked out. Sometimes we’d both want to use it and we’d work out a schedule. It worked very well and was very simple!

Since then, I’ve announced to the people I live with (there are 11 of them) that they can use anything that is “mine”, including the room I live in, whenever they want. So far, people haven’t taken advantage of the offer very much because we are so well trained not to use other people’s things. But sometimes people use the room when they want to go somewhere else to study or something.

I also have been trying to not use “possessive language,” which basically means avoiding the words “my” and “have”. It’s not as hard as it sounds and it helps shift how I think about the things I use.

“My” laptop

Honestly, the hardest thing to think about not being “mine” was the laptop. I use it so much and I have a very strong connection to it. So the thought of losing it was a big barrier to starting the experiment.

But then I realized that I wasn’t losing it. If I don’t own it, it doesn’t mean that someone else does. I could still use it, and so could anyone else. And if I needed to use it, it’d be a simple conversation about when they’d be done. That wouldn’t be so bad.

I’ve found it to be quite freeing. It’s a relief to not be tied down to things. I don’t have to worry about other people using them. They are just things that I use.

“The things you own end up owning you” – Fight Club

An Invitation

Now, I’d like to invite you to give up your possessions too! You wouldn’t have to give up all of them. Maybe start out with a few things. Offer to let other people use them whenever they want (bigger things like bikes or cars are good for this). You can pay attention to how you speak and try not to use possessive language!

This was originally written for and published on a different website (“Ask an Anarchist”) which has now been incorporated into the NAC site. The views expressed are just one person’s opinion and may not represent what people in NAC believe now. This post was written by Z.

When I was first getting into organizing and activism, I heard a classic analogy, the “Baby in the River Story,” that drives home the importance of organizing goal-based campaigns to create long lasting policy changes instead of service-only or education-only campaigns that could never end. It usually goes something like this:

Imagine you are walking along a river, having a nice stroll. Suddenly, you notice that there is a baby floating hazardously down the river! Oh no! You immediately jump into the river and save the baby! You return to the shore, but before you can go find the parents of the baby, you notice another baby in the river! And another further up! And another, and another!
So you head up stream, saving babies as you go, trying to find where all these babies are coming from. Before long you find a bridge, where there is a person throwing babies into the river. What are you to do?

Should you gather your friends and spend all day every day fishing babies out of the river?
Should you post flyers around town, make documentaries, and have teach-ins to spread the word and educate people about the river baby problem?
Or should you go up and actually stop the person from throwing more babies in the river?”

Since hearing this story I’ve always asked myself if what I’m doing is really going to the heart of the issue and solving the problem at the source. But as I’ve learned more about the intersections of systems of oppression and how most problems are themselves symptoms of larger and larger issues, I realized that there is an important part that is missing from the Baby in the River story:

“Why are they throwing babies in the river?”

If every issue is someone throwing babies into a river, then there are thousands of rivers and thousands of babies that need saving. And for every baby-thrower we stop, there is another one to take their place.

Current Society

In our current society we have a lot of problems: racism, patriarchy, bigotry, poverty, healthcare, houselessness, pollution, climate destabilization, I could go on and on. These all have individual solutions, and there are great people working on all of them.

But what is causing all of these? What are the sources of the sources?

Many have answered “Corporate Influence.” I would definitely agree that this is a common thread for many of them, but does this really explain it all? Aren’t corporations just doing what they are supposed to do in a capitalistic society: Make more money. Is it their fault that they are too good at it?

When the system is based on self-interest, greed, the concentration of wealth, and constant growth, should we surprised when that is what we get? No matter how many regulations we put on capitalism, this is the direction it will always be striving for, with ruthless efficiency.

Anarchy

Instead, of using an economic system that condoned slavery, why don’t we create a system with the values that we actually want? Why don’t we work together to create a system based on freedom, equality, and community? A system where we don’t have to regulate it to restrain its destructive drive, because it doesn’t have one? What would that look like? What would you want it to look like?

Anarchy doesn’t have specific answers to all these questions, because it doesn’t do much good to replace one rigid system with another. Anarchy answers with principles such as equality, freedom, and mutual aid, and leaves the specifics up to everyone to decide. Anarchy challenges all of us to stop giving away our power to an elite minority and to come up with our own answers.

So why are there so many people throwing babies into the river? and how do we stop it? I don’t know. I think there are a lot of answers, and I’m excited to continue exploring them with you.

This was originally written for and published on a different website (“Ask an Anarchist”) which has now been incorporated into the NAC site. The views expressed are just one person’s opinion and may not represent what people in NAC believe now. This post was written by Z.

“I am an Anarchist”

Despite talking and reading about Anarchism for months and talking about it with everyone I know, it took a long time to actually feel comfortable saying “I’m an Anarchist”. The word “Anarchist” has been bred into our culture to conjure up images of chaos, destruction, and terrorism, and it is still a powerful image.

A Vision of Anarchy

Over the course of the last year I’ve come to understand a very different vision of Anarchy: A society based on mutual aid, sharing, collaboration, and freedom. A world that values people so much that everyone has their basic needs taken care of so that they are free to follow their passions. A people who are empowered to solve problems as a community.

Though it is easier to describe Anarchy by what it is not: Anarchy is a society without rulers.

And so of course those rulers would have you believe that a world without them would lead to chaos, destruction, and ruin.

To be sure, this is not a utopia, there would still be problems. There would probably still be injustice, inequality, and suffering, but I believe there would be much less of it, because no one would gain from the misery of others.

Learning about Anarchism made me see the world clearer. Like someone getting glasses for the first time, the true causes of injustice that had previously been shadows came into sharp focus. I started to question many of the fundamental beliefs I held about society, government, and property. It made me rethink my contribution to social justice, and the life goals I had set for myself.

The Purpose of Ask an Anarchist

When I was researching, the online resources about Anarchy that I found were few and far between, scattered, and disorganized. I found either blogs that assumed I was already a strong Anarchist, or just pages and pages of articles and books without a clear starting point. Since I see the first step toward an Anarchist Society is that people at least know what Anarchy actually is, I want this to be a simple, accessible, and fun blog that could serve as an Introduction to Anarchism. It’s also a great way for me (and maybe others?) to further explore these ideas by writing them down and hearing feedback.

Throughout the course of this blog we will be exploring some of the basic ideas of Anarchism (as I understand them), following along with the learning I am still doing, answering some frequently asked questions about Anarchy, and anything else we want.

This is only a starting point, I have lots of really exciting ideas and I’ll be fleshing out more parts of the blog as we go! And I’d love to hear what drew you to the blog, and what you’re interested in learning about / talking about!