Incremental_anarchist

In the letter he attached, he concluded with something vague that I think could be hinting at announcing a new third party or him moving to an existing third party. I like that Jason Hickel and Shaun have pointed out this could be the moment to start the difficult fight of replacing dems with a different party, and tbh demsocs might be the ones to do it. I'm obviously not a fan of over , but if the party is (more) resilient to capitalist interests (and the FBI doesn't stop him) then it could lead to meaningful socialist policy changes.

Discourse is the de facto standard for what you're asking for, and has a LOT of customization and plugins community.

Yes, I think I'm definitely in alignment with you and the hexbear community at large on what our goals shold be now.

I'm not totally sure I fall in the realm of anarchist, because I typically still want voting and some form of organizing, I just don't like the power structure and needless abstraction of representatives. I typically describe an ideal form of society as one composed of many small communities, that are sufficiently small for consensus democracies to be effective. That is, every rule is workshopped until it has unanimous support. So there are still rules, but through discussion and compromise, everyone supports every rule they follow. Travel and migration should be freely allowed, so people can find communities they are politically compatible with (perhaps by finding someone to trade houses with or asking to move in with someone). For projects that require scale to be reasonable, such as a form of currency for trading or a rail line or something, these communities can form coalitions, where decisions still require unanimity from a larger amount of people now, but only on the policies relevant to the coalition.

The point is, the above still follows what I think the spirit of anarchism is: spreading power as thinly as possible, treating individuals as equals and preventing them from being subjugated by another.

I don't think that what I described would be allowed to exist today due to imperialism, but I see it as an ideal that can be achieved eventually, as the contradictions of capital inevitably lead to a more equal and just society. That is, since socialism/communism are more stable than capitalism, eventually a society such as I described shouldn't have to be strong enough (militaristically nor controlling information) to defend itself against imperialism, and can then just peacefully exist.

I think he's had enough bad takes to be worth avoiding. Tbh I feel like all YT commentary channels are worth culling

I consider myself pretty anti-authoritarian myself, and thought that's what anarchism was as well. The whole point in my mind of anarchy is to find small communities that can typically mostly agree on issues, and they then vote democratically (either direct democracy or something like consensus democracy to help against majority rule). So there's still rules, just no power structure. Is that an accurate representation of anarchism? And how would that compare to anti-authoritarianism?