askchapo

Are you ok with fiction? Ursula K LeGuin’s The Dispossessed is a fictional account of an anarchist society. It’s also a very very good book as I know more than one person who is neither an anarchist nor a communist and they loved it, since LeGuin is such a gifted writer.

As for bureaucracy under anarchism, that's a contentious topic.

For anarcho-communists, it's probably going to be very similar to the examples that a communist will give you.

For syndicalists, the level of organisation or coordination would occur between "workplaces" (I can't use the term factory here for obvious reasons and "unions" can blur some lines that are less than ideal because a syndicalist understanding of their ideal system is not a "unions sitting on top of the political economy/unions sitting at the side" sort of deal like we see today.) There should be larger all-sector unions which represent each industry in a syndicalist society that would coordinate and collaborate with other all-sector unions, so let's say that there's new medical technology which is being implemented in hospitals but it places significant demand on electricity or telecommunications - the all-sector healthcare union would need to communicate this increased demand with the all-sector energy union or all-sector telecommunications union to coordinate building more infrastructure or increasing energy production etc.

For anarcho-primitivists - it's basically going to be tribal. As for healthcare, guess I'll die 🤷

This gets contentious because it's not really considered to be orthodox anarchism but some of the more comprehensive theory on anarchist/anarchist-adjacent bureaucracy is found in Murray Bookchin's Libertarian Municipalism and, by extension, Abdullah Ocalan's Democratic Confederalism (which is what the YPJ and PKK are striving to achieve in Rojava in Syria currently.)

I think the reason why you can ask 10 anarchists what bureaucracy will look like under anarchism and you'll get 11 answers is because in terms of ideology, anarchism is very heterogeneous.

This explains everything, I would argue. Just go to the two videos explaining SwCC and Deng Xiaoping.

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLsCaI-gsA29xVYzFI-kYWLcx2QhowNBCL

We'll plant seeds in fertile fields comrade......and yes I could've worded that better, but I just got off work and have a light buzz going

Chaucer's Mead, the drink of gods

Anarchism is idealist, starting with an abstract principle of anti-hierarchicalism and individualism. It can be, but is not necessarily communist. Anarchists typically desire communism (a stateless and classless society) as an end state, but don't have a clear plan to get there, sense most are against all states for some reason. Scientific socialism or Marxism doesn't start from abstract ideals, it studies the material world using a dialectical understanding to come to its conclusions. It recognizes that states are not abstract oppressive entities. States are monopolies on violence legitimizing and protecting class rule. Historically the ruling class has been the exploiting class. Socialists aim to smash the current state, and make the working class the ruling class, in order to lift up the oppressed and subjugate the oppressors. When class distinctions cease the state will "wither away." Anarchists may use the Marxist method of analysis. Let me know if you have any more questions.

Most anarchists are communist. Communism is an end goal, anarchism and marxism/MLism/maoism/whatever are differences in strategy to reach that goal.