Decisions are made on the lowest level possible so you don’t go through all the layers normally. But not getting anything done is a common cliche about anarchist organization, including from people who’ve been there.

Still, closed contemporary examples are Rojava and Zapatistas. In Rojava, for example, they have councils of ethnic minorities so when the main council makes racist policies, the minority council can intervene.

True, that’s also a form of anarchism

It’s not one big council but a confederation of councils. I like the idea of fractal democracy. Like a huge river branching into smaller ones and when you zoom in, these smaller ones branch again and again. You have councils on many levels, each making decisions, delegating to the next level and being recallable from below.

I have never heard the term minarchist. Many anarchists say, we need structures against the building of hierarchies, like avoiding knowledge hierarchies by doing skillshares.

Natural authorities are a different topic. I think Kropotkin was an example of a leader who was accepted because everyone agreed with him. Once he said something people didn’t like, they rejected him as a leader. You can call this a hierarchy if you like. I wouldn’t because he couldn’t coerce his followers but this is pure terminology.

The council isn’t elected. It’s open for everyone to join in all decisions. It might delegate some tasks, even smaller decisions, but it can always recall them.

So in your scenario, the council would delegate the power to sell the factory to a group of people which is very unlikely. Now this group of people who are trusted by everyone would decide to sell the factory which might happen. But the council would most certainly recall them from this decision making power the never should have given away in the first place.

Maybe I should have stressed more that a council is really open for everyone to join. It’s not an elected parliament or something

Let’s take the most “conservative” form of anarchism: anarchosyndicalism. Every factory is organized in councils, confederated both with the import or mining council and the consumer council. Now a capitalist comes and asks how much this factory costs. Do you think the council will tell them a price or to fuck off?

Anarchism is anti capitalist in nature since capitalism entails hierarchies

The irony is that the amount of coordination needed to protect anarchism would no longer be called anarchism

This is a common misunderstanding. While there are anti organisationist anarchists, others dream of a world while spanning confederation based on voluntary cooperation and mutual aid. Anarchism in general isn’t the absence of organization but the absence of hierarchy and domination (therefore isn’t anticapitalist in nature)

Yes, because anarchism is against all hierarchies and the class system is a form of hierarchy. Instead, decisions should me made collectively, for example in councils open for everyone

Nobody ever called me Lu before 🥺

Thanks for clarification

So your more like 37½ or something. I’m not even disappointed at this point

I once learned that Norwegians have a word for that. It’s something like permasorium (provisorium being a temporary solution) and I try to introduce it into German because German does not have a word for it.

Are you exactly 37? In that case happy birthday! Or was that just another of your devious lies?

I wouldn’t be so sure. Maybe they also lied to their spouse about driving to the hospital

No, you got it wrong. Autism exists since like forever. It’s the diagnosis that caused Pluto.

You see the time of day by looking at the sun. No magical thinking involved. It’s the time of night that are made up. 3pm is totally legit, 3am it a social construct

The Germans have a word for this: Homophonieflucht (flight of homophones). It means that when you have two words that sound the same, one will eventually be avoided to prevent misunderstandings. One example I have in mind is that the German word Strauß means ostrich and it used to also had the now archaic meaning of “fight” I only heard of in this historical linguistics class. It doesn’t mean fight anymore to avoid misunderstandings.

I wasn’t aware of the social implications this effect can have tho.

Thinking about it, it totally makes sense and has in inherent logic, even tho it’s not intuitive

I think it’s intended as “not only when” because it would make sense to have an “if empty” case but the way it is, it doesn’t make sense