I guess similarly, how do you actually deal with the "Individual people are not actually naturally equal in their capacities", problem?
Are these even questions that people who are Anarchists care about, or what?
I'm genuinely not trying to start a "thing" here, these are just questions that I feel like I've honestly just never got substantive answers on regarding Left-Anarchist political philosophy.
Speaking from over 5 years of organizing in an anarchist milieu.
It is essential to recognize that informal power structures are the precursor and basis of formal power structures. Any anarchist will need to take this into account to be even minimally effective, and would help the praxis of any communist too.
The best general strategy for responding to this is to encourage horizontalism in practice: as soon as you notice that you have a substantially higher level of skill in some area, teach others to bring them up; if you notice that you are a social connector that people coalesce around, pull the strings to connect the less-connected with each other. Have a good sense of how much input is "your fair share" and when to step aside and let someone else take the spotlight. But you can't do this unless you've developed trust in numerous people.
There is a social terrain that's largely defined by clumps. IMO it's always been this way and always will be. I don't really have an answer to it getting to the point where you can call it cliques, but it's much less hazardous if you don't have the potential for one clique to take control of the single/central dominant hub.
That sounds like it would work in a small circle, but how would this play out on a hypothetical large anarchist territory? Would you have some sort of watchdog institutions?
deleted by creator
How do you deal with people that live in an anarchist territory but don't subscribe to an anarchist ideology?
It seems to me anarchism can only truly work when everybody is a dedicated anarchist, which is IMO unreasonable to expect right after a revolution.
deleted by creator
Sure, but how does the revolution get done without political repression of other ideologies? And if you think that's necessary how would exactly an anarchist revolution be different than a marxist one?
deleted by creator
Marxists recognize that the prevalence and dominance of ideologies is heavily influenced by material conditions.
The anarchist contribution to this is suggesting that reactionary ideologies are not very stable, take a lot of resources and logistics to uphold, and could be disrupted more easily.
Expropriated capitalists are not much of a threat; you can't raise an army without capital. I will concede that foreign powers are still a threat that anarchists have not come up with as solid of an answer to.
I'm gonna invoke the bees again.
Of course it isn't a solution that you put in place and the format takes care of everything; you need people to become accustomed to the horizontal power structure.
@space_comrade
deleted by creator
In a large territory you're talking about macro-social trends, and I don't know if "demagoguery", "interpersonal prejudice", and "social cliques" have the same implications in that context.
This is a fair answer.