Mutualism isn’t a fuzzy compromise between individualism and socialism


It’s the belief that either is meaningless without the other.

Individualism without it’s context within social relationships is just narcissism.

Socialism without maintaining the sovereign, unique, and complex interests of individuals is just subordination.


(Source: un--man)

"Anarchism is not a romantic fable but the hardheaded realization, based on five thousand years of experience, that we cannot entrust the management of our lives to kings, priests, politicians, generals, and county commissioners."

— Edward Abbey. (via anarchyagogo)

It’s been a while and there are a few newer things on here. Also, I’ve gotten a few new followers since this went up last. This is my wordpress. Feel free to comment on any pieces in my ask.


anarchism work, y’all. 

here’s an interview with an evolutionary biologist who wrote a book about community development that defends anti-authoritarian ways of organizing. 

(via xmaurinex-deactivated20140326)

Tags: anarchism


One of the biggest arguments I hear against anarchist or communist or general revolutionary thought is that humans are not trustworthy. “Oh people are ignorant, and naturally greedy and naturally want to take advantage of people,” they’ll say.

"People are just violent, dominating creatures," many argue. They agree with Hobbes in his postulation that the life of man is "nasty, brutish and short" among other things. 

Let’s assume these people are correct for a minute. 

So, you’re going to tell me that people are naturally this way?


Then why on earth would you elect one of those kinds of creatures, give them uncontrollable power and allow them to rule the masses?

Oldest Tumblr Anarchist?


Who is it?  Who’s over 30 here?

(Besides me.)

I believe thinksquad is a touch over 30.

(Source: )

Wouldn’t Communism negate the value of money?


If anyone is guaranteed to have ~$100 at the end of the month, whether they consume or produce or not, there is no need for money. It’s just like when everyone is rich, nobody is rich and when everyone is upper class, nobody is upper class.
Another legitimate question, course.

In pure communism (as I would argue to be nearly synonymous with anarchism) yes, this would be the case. As you said, if everyone has the same amount of money, then money becomes irrelevant. It is merely a middle man between man, his labor, and the fruits of said labor. It is an arbitrary value that attempts to classify the importance of a certain position in society or economics which of course is silly because no position can be factually be proven to be any more or less important than any other. It is entirely subjective. We should be able to realize that without ANY position of society, society would not function properly. Thus, they are all equally important. Or rather, if a position can be removed without consequence to society at large, then that position is pointless to begin with. 

Be careful however when you say “whether they consume or produce or not." In a true communist economy, this would never happen for many reasons:

First and foremost is the the societal rhetoric surrounding the idea of labor. People would see an importance in their work and all work would be valued. This is mostly because jobs would not be labeled with monetary and social importance. For instance, no one really wants to be a garbage man or work at McDonalds because it is not good money, it is not viewed as important and employees are viewed as social failures. This would have to change. 

Second, societies would be much more locally oriented and inward looking politically. People would be immediately and actively engaged. This goes very closely with the importance of the education process surrounding the stigma carried by certain jobs - that there would be none. People would view all jobs as important and be willing to do that which best suits their skill and interest level.

Really, the entire goal of communism, especially in this modern age, is to pull people away from the governmental dependency and bring them back to more actively engaged lifestyles; thus making people harder working, giving them immediate control over their own lives, and increasing the overall standard of living on a global level. 

(via autumn-and-eve-deactivated20120)

Why anarcho-capitalism, isn’t


If anarchism’s goal is a society free of hierarchy, how can you then set up an economic system that thrives on class-based oppression? In capitalism, there will always be an upper class and a lower class, and therefore it defeats the point of anarchism.

I like you. How do I not know you?

(via autumn-and-eve-deactivated20120)

The only way I learned about the American government is by studying anarchy

(Source: genderanime)

"Oh judge! Your damn laws! The good people don’t need them, and the bad people don’t obey them."

— Ammon Hennacy (via liberationfrequency)