/anarcho/ - Anarchism Board

Is New Hampshire the only one? The was supposed to be one in Argentina until the government destroyed the venture.

There are the zapistas in southern mexico, and I'm sure there are more places, but in New Hampshire you are safe unlike these other places.

Problem is that they are libertarians, not anarchists.

I would reccomend alaska for maximum anarcho freedumz

>much of the state has no county level government meaning no property (lol) taxes or building codes
>the low population gives fairly cheap land, making homesteading a very viable option if you dont mind the cold
>medical marijuana
>no state-level gun laws, carry and sell as you please

>>8383
/anarcho/ SHIPPING CONTAINER MEGACOMMUNE/STATE WHEN????

>>8383

Too cold and desolate.

NH isn't as anarchist but it's livable.

>>8436
Have you been to Alaska? Yes, it's cold as fuck, and depending on where you go you could be isolated from much of society, but it is by no means desolate. There is an abundance of natural resources there.

The fishing alone is phenomenal.

>>8402

A commune of shipping containers should be our worst-case scenario plan for the creation of an anarchist community.

We need to create functioning syndicates that can distribute in markets the food grown by our farmers, and same for clothing, rudimentary personal vehicles like bicycles, etc.

The creation of actual syndicates to take over the production of every day goods that were produced under the capitalist system is what's absolutely essential for us to actually fully escape the capitalist megamachine. If we don't have dozens of thriving syndicates covering every sort of aspect of life in a society, than we'll have to rely on outsiders who have jobs in the capitalist economy.

The only way to ensure our land won't be seized at some point down the line is to officially declare secession. If we get a requisite number of supporters clamouring at all the local houses of government for secession, day in and day out, we'll succeed at our secession getting recognized. It has to be official, and recognized by both parties, something that can create a precedent for the creation of innumerable other seceded communities, and eventually, to the end of the state and capitalism.

We could very well not go down the path of trying to meet with government officials and get this secession recognized, and just declare it ourselves. But we have to reach a point where it's generally recognized by both parties that agents of the State are not welcome in the seceded territory.

>>8443
You can do what Rojava did, set up a dummy state to handle all the international requirements and bullshit while having their confederated anarchism on the inside.

>>8443

> If we don't have dozens of thriving syndicates covering every sort of aspect of life in a society, than we'll have to rely on outsiders who have jobs in the capitalist economy.

so basically. it isn't nor can it possibly ever be anarchist. unless every aspect of life in "our" society is controlled by some corporation or other?

>>8345
Im in cali rn, when i finish school im going to NH

>>8444

Right, we need to carve out our own Rojava here in the developed world. It can start with around 150 people or so to get it off the ground, but it eventually needs to get to the bare minimum for replacement fertility, around 500 people. If the Namibia fucktards can gather 150 pledged people in half a year, we can do even better than that, if we advertise consistently on major anarchist sites and at protests and bookfairs and such.


Trying to get general approval of our left-anarchist project under the auspices of the Free State Project would be a good idea. We'd bolster the ranks of the Free Staters, and try to unite them in the cause of secession. Then when New Hampshire secedes, our community can secede from New Hampshire.

Any attempt to secede from the state will be met with bullets and air strikes. Know your opponent and act accordingly.

>>8477

We can discuss the issue of negotiation versus revolution once we actually have a community. Firstly, we need to actually build a community that can provide collectivized alternatives to the capitalist market with regards to things like food and electrical power. It should have around 150 people to start out with, ideally even before we start laying any floorboards. If the Namibia fucktards can get 150 people pledged in around half a year, we can do better than that by far advertising on the major anarchist sites and at bookfairs and protests and such.

150 people to start out with, then up to 500, and eventually 5,000.

>>8478
>negotiating with the state
This is more ridiculous than negotiating with ISIS and the mafia, complete worldwide overthrow of all oppressors is the only way Anarchism can be realized. We will be under attack from everywhere and will need resources that cannot be accrued in one area. Worldwide revolution is the only option, anything else means certain death. Instead of rounding us all up in one area that makes it easy for the states to exterminate us we should be building an inclusive movement that inspires critical thought and collective action, creating more revolutionaries in multiple areas. We don't even have to appear as Anarchists, our ideas don't need labels for they are the logical conclusions of questioning what is and has been. Organize locally.

Remember what happened in Catalonia comrade, the states all came together to suppress us. We fight them all.

>>8479

There can be multiple copycat communities of this original plan, and I think there'll need to be.

I never was insinuating there should only be one community, because we want to be continuously expanding our communities outwards until they're such a huge presence in the national consciousness that the government has to either accept them, or crack down.

I've tried to think up particular strategies that would help us get around that problem of being boxed into one area in the event of a crackdown. Obviously, having dozens of communities would be the best single thing we could do. But we could also all move hundreds of anarchists into a single town, and attempt to take it over. The catch here is that we wouldn't actually succeed, but we would draw attention to an issue that I think the government would be very receptive to: the idea that there are hundreds of thousands of people in any given country that don't want to live under anything remotely similar to the current system, but don't believe they're obligated to move, and who don't even think that any country really fits the ideology that they have. We probably won't be able to get our guys into the local government of the town we move to, but even if we don't, we could protest continually until they see the futility of insisting that 500 or 5,000, or 50,000 people who want to secede, can't be allowed to.

The best strategy would involve settling on uninhabited land. If we want to go down the path of refusing cooperation with the state, we could buy land from a rancher or a large company. But I think there's a very high probability we'll be able to finagle our way into an agreement with the government to set aside some land for us, perhaps a state park that's not bringing in much revenue.

I really have no idea why I'm confident we can actually negotiate with them, and I have my own ideas of certain turns of phrase that we could use in our meetings with the government. But ultimately, we'll have to cross that bridge when we come to it. We'll have to keep at negotiating with them for years, probably.

Once again, this doesn't mean we won't still keep building our communities, and creating new ones, regardless of what happens with the negotiations. People who say our enemies can't be negotiated with if we remain peaceful are giving no more evidence for their claims, than I give for mine.

Once again, there's nothing stopping us from responding to a crackdown if there is one. But it's foolhardy and frankly quite immature to assume there will be one, to such a degree that we have no Plan B for what happens if we can actually get enough people on our side to force a peaceful change.

>>8481
>until they're such a huge presence in the national consciousness that the government has to either accept them, or crack down.
They won't give us the chance to get large, they will remove us as soon as we appear, they will never accept our existence.
>we would draw attention to an issue that I think the government would be very receptive to
They're not acting as human beings, they act as living appendages of the state. The state cannot be reasoned with, it doesn't feel pity or remorse or fear. Suppressing the people isn't futile no matter the cost because in giving up it shows weakness, it will not stop.
>The best strategy would involve settling on uninhabited land.
Our very existence is a threat, we will not be left alone.
>We'll have to keep at negotiating with them for years, probably.
The only negotiating will be done through bloodshed and imprisonment, we have no options. We will be annihilated.
>if we remain peaceful
There can be no peace so long as there are states, there is a constant state of war against the proletariat, we never asked for this war and we have no options other than to fight it or submit to their authority. Countless suffer die from their war, most do not pay attention.
>peaceful change
The only way peaceful change can be achieved is if their legitimacy is removed and there is a threat of aggression against any who seek to subjugate others. Social change under the state does not come without threat of force and when the states very existence is threatened their lackeys will not stop. You cannot remove the states' monopoly on the only legitimate use of force by respecting that monopoly, people have to reclaim their power. Being reluctant to use force is wise but refusing to use it under any circumstances is pandering to a idealistic and utopian outlook. Sometimes you have no choice, I loathe violence but if somebody is forcing me into submission and slavery with the threat of violence and torture I will defend myself. We will never completely remove violence, the best we can do is to remove the circumstances that lead to it's occurrence.

The people of the world are stuck in their mad delusions. There are no humans traumatizing and slaughtering others on a mass scale, they are soldiers protecting themselves by purifying the world of the "other". There are no people being confined and tortured for doing something they disagree with, there are only dirty criminal scum who need to be punished. There is no exploited proletariat, find a master you lazy bum. There are no slaves, they owe a debt that needs to be paid, it is their own fault…. they probably brought it on themselves. These are not people burning on the stake, these are evil demons, filthy witches. How dare you question the king, his authority is that of god, off with your head dissident heretic. Children are fools that are nothing more than their parents property. The homeless cannot build homes, cannot live in empty houses, they're subhumans. Those faggots are mentally ill. The disabled are defected burdens on society and must be either sterilized or "euthanized". Most of the Europeans are barbarians, the native Americans savages. The Jews are coin grabbing harbingers of chaos, the Palestinians dirty dogs. Women have no function other than to create babies, men are aggressive and need to spread their seed. How dare those dirty Negroes step in my shadow.

"Hurry up and say no, before a new repression convinces you that to say no is nonsensical and crazy and that you should accept the hospitality of an asylum.
Hurry up and attack the capital, before a new ideology makes it sacred for you.
Hurry up and refuse work, before a new sophist tells you: Work makes you free." - Alfredo Bonanno

>>8402
I was thinking more of a trailer park type of deal, less central planning required