A - I n f o s

a multi-lingual news service by, for, and about anarchists **
News in all languages
Last 40 posts (Homepage) Last two weeks' posts Our archives of old posts

The last 100 posts, according to language
Greek_ 中文 Chinese_ Castellano_ Catalan_ Deutsch_ Nederlands_ English_ Français_ Italiano_ Polski_ Português_ Russkyi_ Suomi_ Svenska_ Türkçe_ _The.Supplement

The First Few Lines of The Last 10 posts in:
Castellano_ Deutsch_ Nederlands_ English_ Français_ Italiano_ Polski_ Português_ Russkyi_ Suomi_ Svenska_ Türkçe_
First few lines of all posts of last 24 hours | of past 30 days | of 2002 | of 2003 | of 2004 | of 2005 | of 2006 | of 2007 | of 2008 | of 2009 | of 2010 | of 2011 | of 2012 | of 2013 | of 2014 | of 2015 | of 2016 | of 2017 | of 2018 | of 2019 | of 2020 | of 2021 | of 2022 | of 2023 | of 2024 | of 2025 | of 2026

Syndication Of A-Infos - including RDF - How to Syndicate A-Infos
Subscribe to the a-infos newsgroups

(en) NZ, Aotearoa, AWSM: Polar Blast - Freedom and Solidarity: Why They Are Not Opposites (ca, de, it, pt, tr)[machine translation]

Date Wed, 27 May 2026 08:02:13 +0300


Perhaps the most persistent mischaracterisation of anarcho-communist freedom is the claim that it is in tension with solidarity, community, and collective obligation, that to fully embrace freedom is to embrace a kind of self-interested individualism that leaves no room for genuine care and mutual responsibility. This mischaracterisation comes from both the right (which claims that any collective obligation infringes on individual liberty) and from a certain authoritarian left (which claims that freedom must be subordinated to collective discipline in the service of revolutionary goals).
The anarcho-communist answer to both is that this supposed tension is illusory, that it depends on a thin, impoverished conception of freedom that anarcho-communists reject. When freedom is understood as the negative freedom of the isolated individual, then yes, collective obligation appears as its enemy. Every tax, every social norm, every demand of solidarity represents a constraint on what the individual would otherwise do. But when freedom is understood in the richer, social sense that the anarcho-communist tradition has developed, as the real capacity for self-determination and flourishing, which can only be achieved in conditions of genuine equality and mutual support, then solidarity is not the enemy of freedom but its very condition of possibility.
Kropotkin's argument in Mutual Aid is relevant here again. The evidence of both natural and human history suggests that solidarity is not an imposition on free individuals but an expression of deeply human tendencies toward cooperation, care, and collective support. People help each other and communities sustain each other. In conditions where the coercive structures of the state and capital are not distorting social life, human beings organise themselves through networks of mutual aid that combine genuine freedom of association with robust collective provision. The free commune of Kropotkin's imagination is not a place where individuals pursue private interest without interference, but it is a place where people freely choose to contribute to collective wellbeing because they understand that their own flourishing depends on and is expressed through the flourishing of their community.
This understanding is captured in the anarcho-communist insistence on free association, the principle that collective life should be organised through the voluntary coming-together of free people rather than through the coercive imposition of authority. Free association does not mean that people are bound by nothing, that they can withdraw from any commitment the moment it becomes inconvenient. It means that the bonds of collective life are created through genuine consent and genuine solidarity, not through the threat of state violence or economic compulsion.
A community organised on the basis of free association may well make demands of its members, such as contributions of labour, and respect for collective decisions, but these demands are legitimate precisely because they emerge from free agreement rather than from domination, and they can be renegotiated, challenged, and transformed through the same processes of free association that created them.
Solidarity, in this sense, is not the enemy of freedom but its fullest expression. To freely choose to stand with others, to contribute to collective wellbeing, to organise one's life around relations of mutual care and support, this is not a limitation on freedom but an exercise of it. The person who is free only in the sense of having no obligations to others is not more free than the person embedded in a community of genuine solidarity, they are poorer, more isolated, more vulnerable, and ultimately less capable of the kind of self-determination that full freedom requires.

https://thepolarblast.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/to-be-free-together.pd
_________________________________________
A - I N F O S N E W S S E R V I C E
By, For, and About Anarchists
Send news reports to A-infos-en mailing list
A-infos-en@ainfos.ca
Subscribe/Unsubscribe https://ainfos.ca/mailman/listinfo/a-infos-en
Archive: http://ainfos.ca/en
A-Infos Information Center