I think a *solid* anarchist theory must be understandable. This must also mean that if you naively interpret it, it must make sense. Why? Most people won't read the theory in its full complexity, so even if the full message is good, just the fact that a naive interpretation of the theory is toxic, makes it harder to spread, and attracts bad people.

For example: Stirner. I haven't read him, but I assume that there is something to be gained there. I think it can radical to think of your own needs and seek joy in live. But if the naive version of the theory says: "being an asshole to everyone is based actually," then it's harmful (even if Stirner proposes a union of egoists or whatever).*

An example of a good, solid theory is for me the good old 'power corrupts' principle of anarchism. That no matter who sits on the throne, the problem is the existence of the throne itself. It makes sense, it's empirically validated, leads to good praxis. But also, it's a result of a long and deep tradition of thought (post-structuralism etc.), so if you wanna be a nerd, you can.

So: if a naive oversimplification** of your theory still makes sense, it is a solid theory (that's how I define solid in this context). And I think solid theories should be pursued.

The complement of my thesis I call *generalised anarchism*. That you can take the most superficial anarchist slogan and develop some theory behind it, try thinking why it might be justified, and that's going to lead you to interesting places.

For example: anarchists want to abolish borders. But I find it interesting and productive to also think about the abolition of borders in the context of bio-centrism. If we stop thinking of people as *in environment* and start thinking of ourselves as *a part of the environment*, we gain more empathy and with this we can find new ways of living without hurting the planet. Effectively, this thinking means the abolition of borders between humans and non-humans.

Another example are cops. Anarchists hate officers of the law (cuz they hate the law duh), but in a generalised sense (and this is a popular feminist idea), every sexist/rapist is a cop, because they uphold the patriarchy - even if they are not getting paid. They are a generalised cop.
Similarly, each of us have a cop in our head that police our actions (since we've been raised in an abusive society, we also learned to control others). And we need to kill this cop in order to set ourselves free.

*Note: this is obviously contingent on our culture. A simplification of Stirner could also be: "seek joy for yourself, it is valid" and that would have been maybe more productive -> but it didn't spread.
**Ofc, liberals will always misrepresent our theory. Again, this is contingent, we have to assume no ill-willed interpretations.

#GeneralisedAnarchism
#AnarchistTheory