|
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
- Prev by Date:
(en) NZ, Aotearoa, AWSM: Polar Blast - The Liberal Illusion: Freedom in the Marketplace (ca, de, it, pt, tr)[machine translation]
- Next by Date:
(en) NZ, Aotearoa, AWSM: Polar Blast - Class, Labour, and the Freedom to Not Be Exploited (ca, de, it, pt, tr)[machine translation]
A-Infos Information Center