There are many disagreeing takes on everything from folks who identify as anarchist, but “no government” doesn’t mean “nothing the government does should be done at all.”

Instead the idea is to foster organization of society such that relationships of domination are minimized. Some frame this as the development of a much more active and empowered “civil society” of negotiation, production, and problem solving that, in its approach, is fundamentally at odds with and hampered by the authority-oriented organizational model of government.

And the notion of direct action emphasizes the difference between petitioning representatives to change the world on one hand, with taking up responsibility for action and organization yourself on the other.

I think what they mean by hands on is most likely direct action. That would include going to protests and participating in projects of mutual aid.

From my very limited understanding, anarchism can mean many things depending on your ideology and the context of conversation. When I mentioned it being more pragmatic and hands on, I meant in the sense of things like mutual aid or direct action. Instead of waiting for institutions to take the reins on social issues, you and a few buddies just do it instead. People are hungry? Then feed them. Homeless? Build shelters. That sort of thing.

There’s also the idea of anarchism being less an ideology, and more a mode of activism. Challenging hierarchies to justify their existence and when they can’t, working to dismantle them. I came across this talk by Noam Chomsky about anarchism that kind of made it click for me. That’s about all I’m willing to say because I could be wrong or misinformed about these things; but that’s where I was coming from.

how exactly do you think thats “hands on”?

It’s really simple… the whole idea behind anarchism (and all libertarian socialist thought, for that matter) is to put the power of decision and action back into the hands of communities and not a bunch of far-removed and unaccountable political racketeers (which is essentially how anarchists view “formal” political establishments - and they are entirely correct in this view)

Or is this one of those things where people have invented new definitions

No. Nothing new about it… the meaning behind the term “socialism” (for instance) has always referred to a condition where the workers own the means of production. The big split in the left happened because Marxists believed the state could represent the workers - the Bakuninist anarchists believed the state would simply form a new “political elite” and simply become the new elite repressing the working class. This happened long before the Russian revolution… and subsequent events proved the anarchist side correct beyond a shadow of a doubt.

I think anarchism is more about removing hierarchies, including gender roles and man’s domination of nature.

The issue is that a governing body is pretty much always formed after some time. Murray Bookchin was an anarchist for a while, before creating a new idea of communalism.

It’s essentially the idea of hyper localization, and democratic self-governing of small communities. The communities then delegate an individual to discuss larger issues with neighboring communities.

Bookchin also analyzed previous anarchist rebellions to see how they failed and why. He identified one of the largest contributing factors was that once the previous government’s politicians were overthrown, the anarchists refused to “take power” and preferred to do nothing.

While the anarchists did anarchy things, capitalists went right back into positions of power unchallenged. Which is why Bookchin was no longer in supportof anarchism and developed a new philosophy. Which is actually being tested right now in Rojava.

Chomsky is considered an anarchist but does talk about justified/unjustified hierarchies.

Please See rule number 4 of this community and if this was really a naive question than please educate yourself about the very basics of Anarchism before posting in this community.

Oh and despite all its failings the USSR never claimed to be communist.

Many of the early anarchists weren’t looking to “no government” as the ideal, but rather a different kind of government. One where any authority that exists is granted by those over whom it is exercised. An example would be a federation of local village and neighborhood governments. Every official is chosen directly by the people they will serve, not appointed from above by someone whose authority comes from something like their birth, wealth level, popularity with people outside the community, and so on.

This was in the context of a world that was still ruled by royalty and nobility, with a developing bourgeoise capitalist elite alongside them. They would agree with the socialists (and were mostly allied with them until the Bolshevik betrayal) about dealing with noble and capitalist elites, but disagree about replacing them with a centralized top-down party elite lead bureaucracy.

How the fuck is it NOT hands on if there’s no government in the way? Whose hands do you think we’re talking about?