for what its worth, i think that people will not voluntarily create anarchic conditions because of what would be sacrificed in the process. i don't think most of the modern world would exist under anarchic conditions, which is why i am hoping on a collapse of some sort to break us out of the patterns that are ultimately impossible to reproduce anarchically.

At least from a quick google search I saw that the goals of the anarchists in Catalonia was to turn all of Spain anarchist. I obviously thought about it and it seemed too unrealistic. Anarchy wont be able to function over such a vast swathe of land when 9 out of 10 people didn't condone anarchy.

In Ancient Athenae, the ability of the people to govern themselves was considered foundational to democracy, meaning that any eligible citizen could have been chosen by lot to occupy a position of oversight, whether in the Council of 500, ordinary magistracies or jury without any special education or certification. The only position which wasn't subjected to sortition was the generalship, as the only position which was considered to require specific expertise. This system assured that there was never any technocratic monopoly of positions of power by professional experts over amateur laypeople who would not be able to check them because of the educational gap; any mature individual could participate in government without having to undergo difficult, long and expensive training that would set them above the rest in comprehension of a particular subject.

However, that was then. Nowadays, technocratic expertise seems to be the basis of society; all important institutions and infrastructure are staffed and maintained by a select group of educated individuals. This gap in education naturally creates not only a power imbalance between those in the know and those not, but also a group interest in-between people in the know against those not in the know, i.e. guild-like behavior. Even if we were to abolish bourgeoisie, this class of technocrats staffing everything, like judiciaries as professional lawyers and judges, would remain and so would their claim to greater authority over their fields of expertise than some amateurs and laypeople and just like that, we have a technocratic government composed of professional guilds.

How would anarchism prevent this from happening?

Let's say a distant but somewhat local regional commune has fallen to populism and hierarchical ideologies and have established a cult of personality authoritarian state without consulting any of the other regional communes. They've been arming up, constantly spout hostile nationalistic fervor, and are constantly sending agents to other communes to try and poison the well and peoples minds to join/submit to them or encourage them to overthrow those opposed to the idea.

Can a anarchist commune band together with other communes if the majority of its inhabitants agree in the course of action and launch an attack on the rogue element before it has a chance to mestastisize and start outright conquering its neighbors? To nip something in the bud before it establishes a state?

i was listening to a socialist who explicitly supports organizationalism go on last night about how terrible individualist anarchists are for rejecting organizationalism (and they tend to group nihilists, egoists and primitivists under "individualist") and i was wondering how the individualists and collectivists might interact politically

its unlikely that the collective-minded are going to participate as individuals and vice-versa, so how do they meet?

and for the sake of argument, let me give a few made-up demographics:

• 25% of a population belongs to group A
• 15% of a population belongs to group B
• 10% of a population belongs to a large number of other groups
• 50% of a population belongs to no group (individualists)

how can organizations and individuals participate together without giving either side more political weight than the other?

It's used to mean both "supreme power and authority" and "freedom from external control" (e.g. when talking about food sovereignty, digital sovereignty, Indigenous sovereignty (at least when it's anarchists), etc ). What do people feel about this? I can't help but feel it reinforces the narrative that it's either "control or be controlled", which is why a lot of people don't think anarchism is possible

​Ive read a lot of early "big pictur​e​​" theory but have been lost looking for more nitty gritty stuff. Effective methods of organizing groups​, r​estorative justice, mutual aid programs. The actually stuff you DO as an anarchist. These things might get named dropped in something but im looking for concrete strategies on how to do things, various differing ​methods of doing things​​ and their pros and cons. With an ultimate goal of just being a better more effectice​ organizer and co​​mmunity member.

Than​ks​!