Coming from that position it's very easy to insult misjudge and insult people who are actually anarchists. I've read through parts of AFAQ. I really like watching Andrewism-s videos. And do spend a large portion of my free time to wondering how anarchic structures could exist, the challenges they face and solutions there could be.
I don't actually reject class analysis. I just think there are more constructive ways of looking at the world.
It's wild that people seem so hung up on that sentence. Of course anarchists oppose class and archists, and need to worry about resources. The point is that it's not something that should be the focus. By focusing only on the things you are against you feed antagonism and tribalism. I find it much more productive to focus on the constructive things.
That is the point of the sentence: "Anarchy isn't about all of these things that are defined in opposition. But this thing that is constructive"
Getting people involved. Creating spaces where anarchic relations are the norm, and letting these spaces naturally grow, split and transform. What I'm talking about isn't a single political system that people follow but rather a different way to approach everyday interactions with each other. It's not "we need to take over factories and farms and start establishing collective production and ownership". It's "we need to create anarchic connections with the people who work in the farms and factories and build relationships to exchange resources among ourselves without money". I don't advocate for the destruction of the state because the path I want to take to anarchism ignores the state entirely. (or at least until they start shooting at me).
That's not what anarchism is. It's just what I currently think of when discussing anarchism. Anarchism is nothing more than opposition to authority. And while there are common beliefs there is no single understanding of what exactly that means or looks like.
The reason it seems utopian is because our current society rewards selfishness and greed, so it feels like a society that doesn't seem to regulate them is missing something. Anarchism regulates them by using social pressure.
Of course anarchists "do class analysis" and want to abolish capitalism. But that's just because those are examples of oppression in our everyday lives. What I mean is that it is secondary to the actual goal of creating anarchic spaces which will could eventually replace both class and capitalism. Class analysis really isn't useful for that because the only thing it offers is a vague "The bourgeoisie are the enemy". Until someone points a gun at me or punches me I don't have any enemies.
And like I said this is just my version of anarchism. A combination of Pluralism, Pacifism, Apolity and being sooo fucking tired of the endless discussions that lead nowhere.
Oh I absolutely could spend a lot of mental effort trying to explain "marxism bad" (It would actually be Vanguardism bad, marxism ancient) but I just don't care enough. I have no interest in being antagonistic (except maybe for a couple of quips), cause it's not going to change anything.
Production and distribution (henceforth economy) is necessary there isn't a magical grace period where people stop needing food. For any anarchist system to work they need to have an economy. The anarchist systems that exist right now solve this by relying on donations and members having jobs. As more and more anarchist systems start popping up (although this is probably never going to happen) this would transform to a more independent/self-sustaining system. But what that system looks like doesn't really matter, because whatever it is will be determined by the ones who make it.
This is the ultimate difference between anarchism and everything else, and the reason why I think so many people bounce off it. Anarchism requires belief in people. That whatever system they come up with will work and compliment others who will be able to build their own systems: Economic, social or political.
Anarchy is a process of creating social structures that defy oppression, control and manipulation, and believing that these structures will be able to solve the problems they face. It's not just about economy but about the connections people form. When I look at communists I see only economic analysis: Class, Production, Ownership. Concepts which are secondary to the thing that actually matters: eliminating oppression and exploitation, not just economic, but also social and political.
Here's another analysis for you: Anarchism is about creating social structures and improve the lives of those in these structures. There is no end goal or concrete structure to these structures. They change and adapt as the people within them change, leave or enter.
Anarchy is not about resources or class or opposing archists. But about creating spaces and communities in which people can safely exist as themselves. About creating social structures that are based on mutual aid and human connection instead of ability or need. Anarchy isn't about making a single system that everyone follows. It's about creating many overlapping systems doing many overlapping things. Different cells are not some distinct group of people with their own flags and names where you need to apply to join. It's just a name for a group of people that have something in common. The same person will belong to different cells as every cell represents some part of society. They cannot form states because a state needs to have polity and anarchists should reject polity wherever possible.
But that's just how I see it. other anarchists will disagree and that is the most anarchist thing ever.
Yeah. It's incredible how stupid some comments can be when you're tired and not really paying attention to the words you say. Lesson learnt: Always re-read every word in your post.
Accidentally read Ancap as Ancom. Shouldn't post when Tired.
Decided to have a go myself:
Or a vertical one:
And a NB one:
Ok. I think I'm done.
My logic was simply: I need a buffer that is only initialised once no matter how many times the function is called. statics are initialised at program start so they seemed like a good fit. and since I wasn't planning for the function to me called multiple times simultaneously it seemed like the UB didn't matter. (which I think was correct)
Not because of me. I always appreciate having more input on my ideas, so thank you for posting this here.