ProdigalFrog

They only liked state's rights when it enabled them to hurt others and line their pockets.

Now that the fed is letting them do that, state's rights can be tossed aside until they need it again.

If you do end up investing, a while back I put together a short guide on how to make it ever so slightly less bad for the environment.

Though with how crazy everything is, it is a bit of a risk to invest into the stock market.

An alternative option might be to invest in a CD with a credit union, which would have a safe guaranteed return, but usually at a lower rate. Alliant (an online only credit union) usually has pretty good CD rates compared to brick and mortar ones.

Perhaps a mixture of both methods would give good results, only investing the percentage into the stock market that you're willing to risk.

They might want to organize into federated groups as an option, for sure. Critically the lack of coercive dominance hierarchies and horizontal power structures is what would make them Anarchist.

I like that one too.

A community deciding on issues collectively and without coercive dominance hierarchies sounds like it'd fit right in there.

I think I should ask at this point what your definition of Anarchism is.

I'm not suggesting voting in a centralized government, but a small community either voting or coming to consensus on matters that directly effect them.

First of all, that’s not what direct democracy means.

That is a misuse of the term, my bad.

but no army is going to hold an impromptu election for a new General as artillery shells are raining down around their ears. When the shooting starts, you stick with the chain of command you have or all hell breaks loose and you get routed.

I thought it would be obvious that 'immediately' wouldn't mean in the context of mid-battle (unless the officer is like, going rogue or something), but in the context of outside of an active battle, where there isn't a huge bureaucracy to go through to remove a bad commander, since that commander is directly responsible to the people who elected him.

I don't think that assessment lines up with historical events. During the Spanish Civil War, the anarchist militias/army were hierarchies, but directly democratic ones, where soldiers would vote on who their commanders would be, commanders would vote on who their generals would be, all with the ability to immediately revoke that power if it was abused or performed badly.

That form of structure was still considered Anarchistic, and historically performed very well with the limited resources they had, and garnering the public respect of even the fascist generals from their capability.

Nester Makhno's Anarchist Army also was extremely effective during the Russian revolution, without which the Soviets wouldn't have been able to beat the White Army (and thus survive to then turn on the Anarchists and attempt to kill them all).

So the examples we have available don't really show Anarchists unable to make quick decisions or lack military might, they usually are defeated by allies (Marxist-leninists) betraying them, lack of foreign logistical aid (since there are no other countries that would ever ally with them, and often outright refused to help), and the opposite, where their enemies are given an abundance of aid from friendly fascist powers.

A state is a hierarchy where the top dictates what you will ultimately be subjected to.

Imagine if rules and laws were directly voted on and decided by the people themselves, instead of by a corporate captured elite. Imagine if you and your community directly elected who would enforce those rules upon themselves, with possibility of immediate removal if they abuse that power or perform badly.

Anarchism is making it to where power is coming from the bottom, not the top, and where the power that does exist is more distributed and decentralized so that it cannot grow into authoritarian centralized power, as always seems occurs in centralized power structures throughout history without fail.

At least with with the Spanish Civil War (not familiar with how the Zapatistas do it, and would have to read a refresher on Rojava's), those military structures were bottom up direct democracies where soldiers voted who their commanders would be, and those commanders voted on who their generals would be, etc, with the option of immediate removal.

So even there, there was not a top down hierarchical structure, and historically they performed quite well militarily and logistically with the few resources they had available (and before the Soviets did their classic stabby stab move).

Trillium Notes is a great open-source alternative that doesn't have the odd bullet point nature of log-seq.

Updated and revised printable version available here in PDF form: https://seattleiww.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/how-to-fire-your-boss-2022.pdf