This sort of organisation is anti-hierarchical, adaptable and flexible to change. We don’t need monolithic foundational organisational structures but small adhoc organisation that meets its needs and can end when needed.

I agree that they’re not needed, but I do think that long-term organizations are more useful than ad hoc ones.

I think we’ve been down this path before, just wanted to say, you know, it’s important that people who disagree with anarchists learn that that doesn’t mean that anarchy is impossible or even the least desirable outcome. Anarchism (in the political-philosophical sense) is preferable to a great many states of society - our current one not least of all - and more non-anarchists should come around to that.

I think sometimes people forget to have degrees of disagreement, especially when they’re confronted with something out of our current society’s Overton window, like anarchism. “It’s not optimal” doesn’t have to be “It’s not possible” or “It’s not desirable, compared to numerous other positions we could end up in”. But instead many land directly on “The way I believe in is the only way possible and desirable” because that’s the thinking that current society normalizes in us.

And fuck, if that’s true for any of our ideologies, statistically speaking, most of us are fucked, because we can’t all be the only correct ones when we all have contradicting positions.

A little left pluralism from non-anarchists could go a long way.

You really have no idea how the world works.