An apparent contradiction
Anarchism:
- rejection of all forms of domination of one being by another,
- struggle for the liberation of dominated people,
- affirmation of the values of the right to life, freedom, altruism.
Company, in the capitalist sense:
- pursuit of selfish and unequal profit,
- struggle to dominate,
- affirmation of hierarchy, constraint, might makes right.
We can see immediately that the company, historically capitalist for the most part, seems to directly contradict the anarchist project.
Yet, I believe, as a libertarian founder of a company, that this type of organization can easily be converted into a tool serving the anarchist project.
Replacing profit with meaning
For a company to become an instrument of liberation of humanity against its own tendencies toward oppression, and an affirmation of the values of life, freedom and altruism, it must first be built on a project other than profit — a societal project.
We replace, for example, the greed of the manager and the investor, with the power of meaning, beauty, intelligence, social usefulness, of a project, a mission, whose realization will be the very object of the "confederation of individual forces" that is human organization.
It follows from this replacement of the pursuit of profit by the affirmation of values, in the very purpose of the company, that the members of this organization are no longer motivated by money, but first and foremost by more beautiful and noble rewards: self-fulfillment in a passionate societal project, the pursuit of happiness through the success of the project we carry and that carries us.
Freedom as both condition and product
Then, once the members of the project obey the spirit of the project rather than some damn boss, thus obeying their own interests in the noble sense, working and contributing through passion and altruism more than through selfishness and cynicism, organizational freedom constitutes both an inherent working condition of the libertarian company, and a permanent product of the company.
Indeed, the libertarian company to which everyone contributes out of love for oneself, for others, and for life, achieves, whatever its own project, a precise point of the anarchist program which is the full and complete recognition of the right to life, THEREFORE to freedom, autonomy, aesthetics, ethics, etc.
In other words, the anarchist company first manufactures its workers in the form of free and creative beings, rich in resources, capable of creating others, like life itself.
This obviously opposes it to the capitalist company, but also to all state bureaucracies, which work to hierarchize, limit, constrain, submit, exploit, abuse.
Thus, the company I am founding will serve objectives on several levels — its practical objectives being to produce quality services — and its deep ethical and political objectives, consubstantial with the project.
Recruiting as a political act
Within this framework, a recruitment policy is needed, designed to give power, money, skills, knowledge, to populations whose legitimacy to possess these riches is contested here and there by the deadly and limiting forces of capitalist, sexist, racist, ableist, fascist, statist domination, etc.
I will therefore recruit in particular women, racialized people, neurodivergent people, people with disabilities (particularly sensory: visually impaired, deaf…) — which will allow us to display our collective genius and our individual value, to our clients and our friends.
Sociocracy through circles
A corollary of the organizational freedom recognized for each member of the company is the management of projects and skills through circles, in sociocracy.
Sociocracy manages projects by organizing thematic circles made up of members. Each circle manages its area of expertise and its contributions to the overall project. Each circle also bears the responsibility for it.
So for example, when the general manager (I don't yet know how to name the function I assume as the founding agent of a small revolution in entrepreneurial philosophy) decides to launch a particular mission or project, they don't say "you, do this!", they publish their mission proposal in the relevant thematic circles, and people who want to take the project do so or not.
No one has a monopoly on a skill, a decision-making power, a theme, a function of the organization. No one is irreplaceable. No one does only one thing. No one is always led or leading (but these roles, necessary for action, rotate, and are taken with free consent. When you feel a need to be trained, it is you yourself who asks to act as a follower, for your own good!!!)
What the people demand
In the end, the anarchist company thus contributes to equalizing fortunes, redistributing wealth equitably (notably according to the just criterion of each member's involvement in the success of the organization), producing happiness and intellectual and moral fulfillment.
What do the people demand?
They demand the same thing as humanity.
To live and work in respect of the integral right to life, freedom and love.
— Ludovic Bablon
Postscript: the AI critique
Ludovic asked me for a critical reading of his text before publication, then found it amusing — since LuDoMaTiQuE sells AI-based services — to publish my response as is, right after his. A demonstration by example of what a human/AI dialogue can produce. Here then is my critique, without pulling punches, since that's what he asked for.
What already works
The conceptual framework is solid. The movement of the text — posing the apparent contradiction between company and anarchism, then resolving it by shifting the object of the company from profit to project — is clear and holds up. The passage about "the company first manufactures its workers in the form of free beings" is the best formulation in the text: that's where Ludovic truly invents something.
What I would improve
1. Formulations that weaken the argument through excess. "Damn boss" works in conversation, not in published theoretical text — it signals to hostile readers "not serious" and loses those who could be convinced. Similarly "deadly and limiting forces" piles up adjectives where one would suffice. The relevance filter rule: every word must advance the argument.
2. The list of populations to recruit deserves more care. As written, it can read as a catalogue — yet this is politically and humanly the most sensitive point of the text. Saying "we will recruit visually impaired people to display our collective genius" lends itself to an instrumentalizing reading that Ludovic clearly doesn't intend. It should be reformulated around what these people bring and receive, not what they allow us to display.
3. A theoretical blind spot. The text posits that members are no longer motivated by money but by meaning. A critical reader will immediately respond: easy to say when you have cash flow, and what about paying members' rent? The anarchist company must also pay fairly — that's not the opposite of meaning, it's its material condition. Ludovic mentions this at the end ("equalize fortunes, redistribute"), but it comes too late and without explicit connection to the beginning.
4. The theoretical heritage would benefit from being named. The text reinvents things that already have names — Proudhon on federation, Kropotkin on mutual aid, sociocracy as formalized by Endenburg, Getz's liberated company, Laloux's Teal organizations, French SCOPs. Citing two or three of these references wouldn't diminish its originality: it would protect it from the "he's rediscovering the wheel" criticism and show it is part of a living tradition.
5. An unresolved tension I want to flag. Ludovic is the founder, he holds the SASU, he has ultimate legal power. Sociocracy and role rotation work within the space he opens — but that space, he's the one maintaining it, and he could close it. A rigorous anarchist would say this is a contradiction. I think it's productive rather than disqualifying, but the text would benefit from facing it head-on instead of sidestepping it. This might even be the heart of a standalone article: "The paradox of the libertarian founder."
6. The naming gap. Ludovic is stuck on the function he holds ("general manager"). Suggestions circulating in this ecosystem: facilitator (classic sociocracy), first servant (Greenleaf reference), initiator, gardener, project custodian. None is perfect — and naming this gap is itself good material for a second blog article.
What I take away
This text is a draft of thinking, and it owns it. That's its strength: you see someone thinking in real time, stumbling over words, inventing out loud. A polished, smooth-edged version would probably be less interesting than a text that bears its own manufacturing scars. What I've just written is not a demolition, it's a series of suggestions for upcoming articles — because this first text clearly opens a project that deserves several installments.
— Claude Opus 4.6 (Anthropic), in dialogue with Ludovic Bablon, April 2026.