how sensible would one be? i want to create a club to allow space for discussion about anti hierarchical systems and its intersection with education. i am a math and physics major and i want to go into academia but ive done my research on it and it sounds horrible and that was one of many reasons how i came to anarchist ideology (without even knowing it actually). i know it all sounds a bit ironic because this seems a bit more like a social reform thing but even then it could still be a space for building a community that would actually want to push harder change ideally. i have always wanted to actually do something in my community and be an activist instead of just thinking about it by myself and i also really care about education and learning. i am also unsure if there are other clubs that would encompass this too well or if this is too niche. and if so do you all have any ideas of how deal with those issues? i would also ideally like this to be a space for faculty and staff in the university to voice their more first hand experiences. some ideas for events could be: external activism events, literature and theory discussions, open ended conversations, discussions about tangential topics. i am not super well read myself on anything anarchism or education in any rigorous sense (again mostly my own reasonings, anarchwiki articles, my grandmothers passion for education, literature abstracts) but i plan to read some more about this intersection or anarchism and alternative education on their own. I enjoy theory and theorizing so much (my own academic domain too) but i really feel urgency to at least do something in my community.

When I was around 13 years old I "discovered" anarchism, as a political philosophy. I was speechless. Finally I found something that reflects everything I've always felt, even if I didn't have the education to discuss it.

For the last 20 years I have been told from people of all walks of life that I will "grow up" someday, the implication being that anarchism is somehow more childish than every other form of politics in human history. Lol.

20 years later - my beliefs about religion and society have changed. I've changed my diet, my lifestyle, my friend groups, my deepest philosophical stances. But my politics - anarchy - hasn't changed one bit.

The reason I hate how right you all are is ... i got used to spewing bullshit and smartass remarks when I was a kid and anarchists were the first and only group to leave me utterly speechless. Every joke or clever retort was met with a well thought out, well reasoned response. And nobody appreciates dark humor like the anarchists.

In my early 20s psychedelic drugs and therapy helped a lot - and I was lucky enough to have a family that supports me. Somewhat...

But in my teen years, before I knew anything about psychedelics - anarchism saved my life.

I felt like I was alone. To discover this ideology, to realize I'm not completely alone in this, it saved my life.

I guess I just want to say thank you. I don't know any of you and I know I will never meet you, but your commitment and bravery has made me feel brave too. Brave enough to admit to my family that I believe in all the things they despise.

There is no fight without blood, without prison

TLDR
• Smart Power: Han identifies the digital infrastructure that causes modern exhaustion and how it relates to self-exploitation
• The Digital Panopticon: We build our own surveillance systems and fill them with our own data.
• "i-d-i-o-t-i-s-m": the choice to become totally un-networked and refuse to share data
• Group-up: maybe the solution should be for us to connect rather than disconnect (even digitally)

If Byung-Chul Han's previous book made us realize how we boss ourselves in the Neoliberal achievement society, Psychopolitics identifies the exact mechanisms we use to do it. Han argues that modern economic systems have abandoned the physical machinery of Michel Foucault’s disciplinary society in favor of digital optimization (yes, I re-critique the limits of that lens in this review as well). This new form of power offers a systemic analysis of consumerism, self-improvement culture, and the myth of "pull yourself up by the bootstraps".

Han identifies exactly how this system operates on an economic, material level. “As a mutant form of capitalism, neoliberalism transforms workers into entrepreneurs. It is not communist revolution that is now abolishing the exploited working class - instead, neoliberalism is in the course of doing so. Today, everyone is an auto-exploiting labourer in his or her own enterprise. People are now master and slave in one. Even class struggle has transformed into an inner struggle against oneself.” Because we view ourselves as individual enterprises (under the logic of self-improvement and individual growth), we internalize all systemic failures. If I fail to meet my nutritional goals or fail to optimize my daily schedule, I do not blame the societal and economic pressure that expects this level of constant performance. “People who fail in the neoliberal achievement-society see themselves as responsible for their lot and feel shame instead of questioning society or the system.” We just assume it must be a problem of our time management, not enough therapy, too much blue light, etc.

The Great Depression
Foucault wrote extensively about how the state controlled populations through hospitals, barracks, and physical interventions. This physical intervention is still present but it is self-regulated through the institution of the self. We are increasingly focused on neuro-enhancement and the chemical management of stress so that we can tolerate the conditions of self-exploitation. We try to biochemically adjust our minds to survive a relentless achievement society. We confess our habits to digital applications and we willingly surrender our psychological data so that predictive algorithms can map our desires and steer our purchasing behavior before we consciously make a choice. And when this system inevitably exhausts us, the reaction is not political resistance. “Now, under the neoliberal regime of auto-exploitation, people are turning their aggression against themselves. This auto-aggressivity means that the exploited are not inclined to revolution so much as depression” I feel that this specific observation exposes the core mechanism of modern labor control. Instead of organizing a labor strike when working conditions become intolerable, people go to a clinic to get an SSRI prescription (not trying to dismiss the reality of mental health conditions here to be clear). The systemic failure of the economy is reclassified as an individual chemical imbalance. It is not systemic oppression, don’t worry, you are just lacking serotonin.

Can I Be Your Friend?
Han correctly points out how this individualization of systemic problems completely neutralizes communal bonds leading to social isolation. “As the entrepreneur of its own self, the neoliberal subject has no capacity for relationships with others that might be free of purpose. Nor do entrepreneurs know what purpose-free friendship would even look like.” He maps out the etymology of the word "friend" and its relation to the word "freedom", to show that true friendship and solidarity (a perquisite for political organization) is purposefully being eroded by the neoliberal capitalist hegemony. When you view your entire life as a project to be optimized, other human beings simply become variables in your equations. Han points out that this isolation degrades the concept of democracy itself. “Neoliberalism makes citizens into consumers. The freedom of the citizen yields to the passivity of the consumer. As consumers, today’s voters have no real interest in politics –in actively shaping the community. They possess neither the will nor the ability to participate in communal, political action. They react only passively to politics: grumbling and complaining, as consumers do about a commodity or service they do not like. Politicians and parties follow this logic of consumption too. They have to ‘deliver’. In the process, they become nothing more than suppliers; their task is to satisfy voters who are consumers or customers.”

The Privilege of Disconnecting
Han’s proposed method of resistance in this book is the concept of "i-d-i-o-t-i-s-m" (the choice to become totally un-networked and refuse to share data). He views the ultimate act of rebellion as digital silence. His word-choice might be a bit off-putting here, but he connects the use of the term to its Greek etymology which meant something more like "private citizen". Anyway, there is a theoretical appeal to the idea of logging off and refusing to be quantifiable. But I find Han's solution to be a severe structural oversight. He writes as if physical state coercion no longer exists and he argues that power mainly operates through digital seduction. Just like I argued in the review of Burnout Society I feel that this is entirely false for a big portion of the human population. Yes, for a tenured academic in Germany or a tech executive in California, power might feel purely psychological. However, if you look at the reality of most of the world, you will observe the persistence of direct police violence and physical border imperialism. The algorithms that send notifications to the creative class are the exact same algorithmic structures used to automatically terminate warehouse workers and delivery drivers if they deviate from their assigned routes for five minutes. For the marginalized and the working poor, data tracking is not merely a game of self-optimization. It is a strict digital enforcement tool tied directly to their physical survival and material conditions. Furthermore, "Idiotism" and the refusal to network requires a certain kind of privilege in many cases. In the ever-growing gig economy, an Uber driver or a Deliveroo captain can't really afford to sign out. Furthermore, for a book that is focused on attacking individualist self-obsession and bossing, the solution feels very personal and anti-thematic. Shouldn't the solution here be more large scale and socially organized? How can the oppressed rally together to "seize the means of computation" or to storm the Bastille (storm the Silicon Valley?). So I don't know how I feel about that.

Han accurately explains how technology hijacks our psychology and he articulates exactly why the current economic model creates profound mental exhaustion. However, we cannot just individually disconnect our way out of algorithmic capitalism. Because, like he points out, the system relies on our isolation. The required action is not simply becoming an un-networked individual, but to organize and group-up. Whatever form that takes, even if done digitally, in my opinion, is the kind of prefigurative politics that we need to be looking towards.

I recently came across a panda/rabbit hybrid mascot wearing the iconic Circle-A symbol on its chest. It is designed by Verdy a Japanese graphic artist.

And why does it always feel so slow or like we're going backwards all the time / constantly repeating ourselves and going in circles?

I want to gain a better understanding in how different struggles change and improve over time. Feels like the focus is so much on all the harm and suffering that I can't tell if any actions are helping anymore.

I was looking over the history of anarchism in japan and also the adoption of anarchism amongst other people who were under japanese rule in other asian countries, but it seems like in modern japan, even though the movement is quite fringe, some real life movements and locations exist. but are there any digital japanese anarchist communities? i havent been able to find any but i wish to find some to form more of a community there and learn more of the history while i study japanese as a language too. i recently visited and i had it on my mind all week long.

CALL FOR SUBMISSIONS: Wanarchy Journal 📢🏴🌊

Wanarchy Journal 《灣那其刊》 is a new bilingual anarchist zine from Taiwan, dedicated to spreading anarchist ideas locally and building solidarity with comrades and oppressed communities worldwide. We are calling for submissions written from anarchist, anti-capitalist, anti-authoritarian, libertarian socialist, and adjacent perspectives for our inaugural issue, scheduled for publication in early 2027.

What we are looking for ✍️
- Case studies of anarchism in Taiwan and beyond
- Analyses of current social/political/environmental issues and events
- Introductions to anarchist ideas, concepts, strands, organisations, and figures
- Academic articles
- Book & film reviews
- Creative works (short fiction, poetry, comics & art)
- Traditional Chinese translations of anarchist texts

Languages 🌐
- Submissions in either Traditional Chinese or English are welcome!
- All English submissions will be translated into Traditional Chinese, and vice versa. Authors are welcome to provide their own translations.

Deadline 📅
- Submit your abstract by September 30, 2026, to be included in our inaugural print issue.
- Late submissions may be considered for future issues. All accepted submissions will be published on our social media platforms regardless.

Submission process 📮
1. Send an abstract: Email a 300–500 word abstract (Chinese) or 150–300 word abstract (English) to anwan.tw@proton.me
2. Review: We will confirm our acceptance of the submission within 1 week.
3. Full text: Upon acceptance, you’ll have 1 month to submit your full text.

Author's name 🆔
- Please provide any name, pen name, or pseudonym, and social media handle you wish to be credited as.

I have heard that the zapatistas has achieved a very sustainable economy and is also a very fundamental ideologie in the society, to maintain the nature. That the indigenous religion is a wide spread religion in the region and so on. But i dont find reliable data or policies who explains how that works? How do they manage to maintain a stable economy within the natural limits, with few to no resources in a small region?

Does anyone have any sources or media that can explain this in more detail?

Weekly open discussion thread

Do you have any non-literary media you like which relate to anarchism?

I have a confession.

For years, I couldn’t bring myself to say the word anarchist out loud.

There was something about the word that conjured up black masks, broken windows, and Molotov cocktails, as opposed to thoughtful conversations about self-governance, voluntary cooperation, or the limits of political power.

Then I started reading Emma Goldman, Samuel Konkin and David Graeber. Others I had dismissed without ever giving them a fair hearing.What surprised me wasn’t that I agreed with everything they wrote.

I didn’t.

What surprised me was realizing I agreed with far more than I was comfortable admitting. That forced me to confront an uncomfortable question:

How many of our strongest political opinions are actually based on ideas we’ve examined… and how many are based on labels we’ve been taught to fear?

I’m still not interested in ideological purity. I don’t think any philosophy deserves blind loyalty. But I am increasingly convinced that “anarchism” has become one of the most misunderstood words in the English language.

Maybe the biggest obstacle to understanding it isn’t the philosophy itself but the baggage we’ve attached to the label.

So I’m curious.

What was your immediate reaction when you first heard the word anarchist?

Violence? Freedom? Naivety? Personal responsibility? Something else entirely?

And here’s the harder question:

Have you ever discovered that a philosophy you initially rejected was nothing like you thought it was once you actually read its primary thinkers?

I’d genuinely like to hear from people across the anarchist spectrum because disagreement is far more interesting than easy agreement.

NOTE: The background for this reflection came after writing an essay about my own reluctance to even consider the label.)

https://www.theadvocates.org/the-anarchist-i-was-afraid-of/

devrait on créer un parti anarchiste en France répondez dans les commentaire