{just be a good slave, they mean, and conform to the slave morality}

Anarchy ≠ non conformity

*Correction:

Anarchists are not conforming to the necessary obedience to maintain authoritarian / hierarchical relationships throughout society — free people in an unfree society. Anarchist is not the same as “non-conformist”. If you are a non-conformist, that’s in relation to what? That is a missing piece. You couldn’t be a non-conformist in relation to nothing unless you’re metaphysically too complicated for this conversation anyway. A straight up “non conformist” makes as much sense as saying you’re “anti”…..(but, anti-what?) This confusion is like something babyboomer dad doesn’t understand about the emo hipster teenager: “Johnny said he’s ‘not conforming’ anymore… I just don’t get him, Suzanne. {fake audience laughs}”

You have personal alignments with other people / ideas / beings / projects. That is probably your “community” maybe even your “job” somewhat if you’ve got to work for someone else to live, and you got to make friends somehow right? The difference is anarchists don’t recognize any outside authority, only their alignments with others. That’s combined with a strong critique of all forms of authoritarianism: bureaucratic, capitalistic, representative, democratic, racial, hierarchical identity, the earth’s resources, etc). Solidarity is what makes what you do “common” “collective” “a commune” etc. No solidarity, no anarchy. When the TV says “anarchy” it means “people are not obeying!!!” and somehow the more solidarity, the more it appears as disorder from the point of view of living in (obedient, orderly, banality of evil) society. Those are my definitions.