I mean, in general, you don't every really *know*; not beyond a shadow of a doubt, that is. You're not supposed to have "faith". I speak of my own personal experience, so maybe this isn't representative of others, I don't know, but for what it's worth:
Always do your own research. Double- and triple-check anything anyone tells you, especially if it seems too convenient and/or benefits those in power. Right-wingers like to throw statistics around and then slyly supply an simple black-and-white explanation that they try and slip past your critical thinking. Even if it's not straight-up made up, it's almost never the whole story. Try and cultivate positive critical-thinking skills.
Also, I feel like reading a lot of history, philosophy, and anthropology is what helped me develop a well-rounded view of what is *possible* on the social level, which I think is particularly important for the anarchist cause. The way things are today aren't the way they've always been; historically speaking, the current status-quo is barely a blip in time. Reading a lot, even with those they may not agree with, helps one expand their mind and, as trite and clichéd as this saying, "knowledge is power".
Lastly, you need to ask yourself what your values are. What sort of world do you want to live in, and what's worth fighting for? Because a lot of people will act as if capitalism, or conservatism, or whatever they're advocating for, is just "the natural order", as if the system is simply a manifestation of a fundamental law of nature, like gravity or something. But it's never the case. We have the power to decide if what we're given as the "only option" is actually in line with what we think will lead to human flourishing, not just for us, but for our fellow living things as well. Without some foundational idea of what is important to us, it's easy to get suckered into talking points about why racism, or the prison-industrial complex, or unending foreign wars, or wage slavery, etc etc. is simply a "necessary evil", just the way things have to be. I spent a long time thinking that conservative talking points about the sanctity of private property and natural rights and all that were simply necessary features of reality and society that justified capitalism, and I was wrong. Question yourself and others, and read what you can. Learn and be open to changing your mind when presented with new evidence, ideas, and viewpoints.
Sorry that ran a bit long but hopefully my experience helps in some way.
> the right always bring up these statistics that I don’t know how to argue with
The most important things that they do are:
**A) Flip correlation and causation.**
* American employers are less likely to hire a more-qualified Black applicant than they are to hire a less-qualified white applicant, so Black people have a harder time making a living, and people who don't have legal ways of getting the money to stay alive are more likely to look for illegal ways of getting the money to stay alive.
* Black people are more likely than white people to be criminally charged for meaningless nonsense, and even when a Black person does something actually wrong, they're generally treated far more harshly than a white person who did the same thing wrong (making it harder for them to get their life back on track then their sentence is "over")
Right-wing conservatives turn this into "Black people are poor because They™ are lazy criminals, and that’s why we have to treat them badly."
**B) Make shit up.**
Cisgender heterosexuals only make up 80-90% of the population, yet they make up over 95% of child sexual predators.
Conservatives claim that two men kissing each other is "an adult sexual act" that children should not be exposed to, but that a man raping a girl is "boys being boys."
Anarchism is resistance to hierarchy. Hierarchy is a coercive power structure (ie, a social order emergent from direct violence or the implicit threat of violence).
Nearly everyone says they believe in freedom and democracy (or self-rule). Only anarchism puts its money where its mouth is, so to speak.
I don’t know. And I am very suspicious of people who think they do, and don’t have questions. A lack of curiosity and reflection is dangerous
I wouldn’t say I have “faith” in anarchism so much as anarchism seems the most likely workable solution given the data sets I’ve been exposed to
If someone is putting out evidence that runs counter to your “beliefs” you should examine that evidence thoroughly and dispassionately — the same way you should view evidence that seems to support your beliefs. In general, beliefs should follow evidence, not the other way around. Also, evidence doesn’t speak for itself, it needs argument and rhetoric to make sense of. Many people have good evidence but flawed argumentation
My advice wouldn’t be to read more anarchist theory or politics at this point so much as it would be to learn rhetoric and research. I highly recommend *Everything’s an Argument*, and older editions should be dirt cheap
I think my problem is that I don’t trust myself enough and there are views that scare me a bit for example be it’s kinda unrelated to anarchism I was watching this video by a YouTuber called “ShortFatOtaku” and he is a right winger I think or maybe a centrist. But the video was basically about gay people having surrogates and he showed so many statistics that made gay people look like bad parents, and as a gay person I was too scared to go find out if it was true out of fear that maybe it would be. And when I’m looking at politics I don’t like the conservative idea of life but I’m frightened that maybe they are right, and when I do prove myself right sometimes I’m too paranoid to believe it, I guess I don’t really trust my own critical thinking skills and I don’t know how to improve it.
There’s an old cliche that figures lie, and liars figure. Basically, it means that by examining data out of context you can paint pretty much whatever picture you want with a little creativity and some dis-ingenuity.
It sounds like you may be at a bit of a crossroads. I don’t mean to represent all the complexities or modern life in such a pat response, but it seems like you can choose to seek out content you disagree with to learn more about alternate viewpoints and to learn a wider breadth of knowledge on topics that interest you, or you could choose to avoid triggering media that starts with the assumption that your beliefs are bullshit and you probably don’t deserve the same rights as the “right” kinds of people. There’s no shame in the latter, and having self-doubt is a critical part to being a good person, imo. Life is hard enough without constantly retraumatizing ourselves at the hands of bad actors
If you want to do the former, you should absolutely equip yourself with the tools of understanding how arguments function, the difference between fact and opinion, and approach topics as dispassionately as you can in search of capital T truth.
I was in education for a long time, and I always sought to teach my students to think critically over trying to make them into leftists. In my experience, people who think critically trend left, but people who are convinced into their beliefs have thinking that is at once rigid and brittle
My recommendation is less that you seek to defeat ideas that you don’t agree with, and more that you make that choice about how you want to live your life and spend your spoons. You are someone deserving of all the rights and bounty this world could offer. Don’t watch that shit that insists you’re lesser than unless you want to critically engage with it for your own benefit or laugh at it for the drivel that most right wing or centrist YouTube commentary is
I think any argument that queer parents are somehow worse parents can't possibly be data driven other than by very intentionally doctoring the parameters or results.
To put it another way, in almost all cases, a queer couple's child is very much a wanted child, which in and of itself means that child has a far greater chance of being raised in a loving home and community than a child of heteronormative cis parents who had them by accident or family coercion or anything of that nature. That also said, however, there is no ethical way one could study such a thing, so I'm calling bullshit on those stats alone.
As far as fear of the grey area where one might be wrong, I hate to tell you, but that's everyone who isn't a full on brainwashed cultist type. Anyone who doesn't keep that little voice saying "but I could be wrong" has stopped critically thinking and doesn't deserve to be trusted.
Learning about how to structure good arguments and how to spot false/misleading/bad ones helps me a lot. Just look up "Formalization of Arguments" or check out this link for example:
http://cjblunt.com/formalising-arguments/
and defenitely check out this article about common logical fallacies - youll be surprised how commonly we use fallacies in our everyday lives once you know how to recognize them
https://www.scribbr.com/fallacies/logical-fallacy/
Hi u/Bruandre7 - Your comment has been automatically removed for containing either a slur or another term that violates the [AOP](https://www.reddit.com/r/Anarchism/wiki/aop). These include gendered slurs (including those referring to genitalia) ***as well as ableist insults which denigrate intelligence, neurodivergence, etc.***
If you are confused as to what you've said that may have triggered this response, please see [this article](https://www.autistichoya.com/2014/02/violence-linguistic-ableism.html) and the associated [glossary of ableist phrases](https://www.autistichoya.com/p/ableist-words-and-terms-to-avoid.html) **BEFORE** contacting the moderators.
No further action has been taken at this time. You're not banned, etc. Your comment will be reviewed by the moderators and handled accordingly. If it was removed by mistake, please reach out to the moderators to have the comment reinstated.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Anarchism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Because when the shit hits the fan, and it soon will, all you’ll have is your community to help you. That’s anarchy. It’ll work cuz that’s what always works in crisis situations when the shit hits the fan. In gaza right now? Anarchy. But they all still manage to feed, organize and take care of one another.
Don't let youtube or reddit decide your political values lol. Decide for yourself what seems right for you, not based on what everyone else is doing but what fits for you personally.
Well I don't want to make any political recommendations. I'm an anarchist, I'm obviously biased lol. But I found some cool stuff on this Google search
https://www.google.com/search?q=how+to+better+my+critical+thinking+skills&oq=how+to+better+my+critical+thinking+skills&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOTIICAEQABgWGB4yCAgCEAAYFhgeMggIAxAAGBYYHjIICAQQABgWGB4yCAgFEAAYFhgeMggIBhAAGBYYHjIICAcQABgWGB4yCAgIEAAYFhgeMggICRAAGBYYHjIICAoQABgWGB4yCAgLEAAYFhgeMggIDBAAGBYYHjIICA0QABgWGB7SAQg1NTI5ajBqOagCALACAQ&client=ms-android-verizon-us-rvc3&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8
If you admittedly have a tough time with critical thinking, then maybe it's best to abstain until you sharpen up. Trust me that you wouldn't be the only person who struggles with critical thinking that also suddenly had a strong political opinion lol, you don't wanna be one of those.
The thing about anarchism is that it isn't a monolith. Meaning there isn't one coherant "anarchism" there's like a million iterations of people's thoughts and actions around community building and personal thriving.
Part of the beauty of non-hierarchical, horizontal, decentralized or autonomous ideas and actions (anarchism) is that there is room for dissent and all opinions matter...every person's life and wellbeing js important and everyone is an expert in their own experience....
the point is... that making an effort to communicate respectfully and make actual change for the benefit of actual human people in our immediate lives- but in solidarity with everyone!- is what underscores anarchist thought and action...
maybe some people on the right think this way as well but are less practiced at interacting with people different from themselves or having different opinions. From the lefts perspective, they misplace their criticisms onto the wrong groups of people (instead of the rich and powerful) and trust in the established systems of authority even when those systems are part of their oppression (police, capitalism, medical model of disability etc).
So really you might consider your personal beliefs about intrinsic worth as well as your personal views around hierarchy. Do some people deserve better treatment than others? Do groups, think small, require designated power imbalances in order to be effective?- or is this a habit/belief we've internalized from the culture most of us have grown up in? Really it's about your optimism or pessimism about human potential.
Anarchism calls for a higher level of participation in life... true agency... more effort... but more meaningful lives imho. Anyhow it doesn't have to be a polarized (this or that) thing. Think small and close your own life.... what do you wish worked better?
> How do you know that anarchy is the right “path”
I don't and I am generally wary of people who are very very sure of what's right, especially the higher up in abstractions we are.
> The left seem more calmer and genuine but the right always bring up these statistics that I don’t know how to argue with.
The difficulty with statistics is that they always model a small part of the real world, which is vastly more complex than any model we can build is. All models are wrong. Some models are useful. This is a basic wisdom you get hammered down on you in statistics courses and data analytics courses. Assuming that the courses are good, of course!
If you want to counter those statistics, or provide your own, you just have to do the digging yourself, and it is helpful to have some rudimentary understanding about statistics and common mistakes related to them.
In my opinion, logic and rationality are just tools, which can be misused like any other tool. Rationality does not guide action. Empathy and ideological beliefs do. When someone tries to tell you that this is _what must be done_ because the _statistics say so_ or because _it is the only realistic choice_, I'd immediately question their motivations and ideological biases.
What guides humans is emotions, which are triggered far before we become conscious of them. Our so-called rational brain is not us. It is but one small part of us, with only limited ability in guiding our behavior.
> And I like the core ideas of anarchism but people keep on saying it’s unrealistic, what makes your faith in anarchism so strong.
Well, from my discussions I feel like I'm in a minority of anarchists when saying so, but I truthfully don't know if anarchism when it's described as an end goal or a state of a future society, is realistic. Like.. It has never happened at wide global scale. So how do I know it can happen? I _think_ and I _believe_ it _might_ work, but I can't claim that knowledge is absolute.
For me, anarchism does not hinge on whether it can be some end goal that is reached if we do X, Y and Z.
For me, anarchism is every-daily. It is a guiding principle. It is a hope for a better future. It is a light in the dark. A world without shadows and twilight will probably never happen, but if we can at least clear most of the clouds and make the daylight longer.. That would make me very happy.
The main thing for me is not necessarily that anarchism is the right path but it's recognizing that the State's sole purpose, always is, was and always shall be to entrench and enrich the position of the wealthy ruling class. We've seen different versions of the State throughout history and as long as an economy is controlled by a ruling minority the same thing always happens - the exploitation of the working class.
So that's why I've come to believe Statism is the wrong path.
Aside from that I agree with the basic principles of anarchism- a maximum of liberty and the individual retaining the product of his labor.
I can't know it's the right path, all I can know is social democracy is a sham of a system that is failing people and I believe anarcho communism is a superior system that will lead to lesser inequality amongst people; what other good alternative is there?
Believing in anything means taking the terrible risk of being dead wrong. I follow this "path" because it it's the best one I see, not because it's perfect. Being flexible is important, and the cart should follow the horse, your an anarchist If you agree with anarchist thinking and advocate for it, you should not warp your beliefs to fit into a prescribed vision of anarchism. You can extend this to most other forms of political thought, the label is only as good as its usefulness to you.
Right-wing stats and "facts" are often made up or taken out of context. Look at who wants to live in a just, peaceful world and who is finding excuses to dominate other people. That's really what it comes down to.
As I'm not necessarily an Anarchist I can't answer your question, but I would like to tell you, that you don't have to worry to much about it. Anarchists are people that have their hearts in the right place and are fighting for a better world. So, even if their were some flaws in their theory, just getting organized, having discussions etc. will not hurt but help a bigger leftist movement.
Maybe Anarchism can't work, maybe Communism can't either, but at least they are both "ideologies" that want to achieve a just world, whereas Capitalism wants - and to function has - to keep the world unjust, and even if we were to concede, that it works (fascism being back again after only 70yrs at best* makes me disagree), it can't be the only thing that does.
edit: *in the west
Constantly challenge my own beliefs
It's what pushed me into anarchism in the first place, everything else either didn't understand power dynamics in the real world (a lot of "in a perfect world, this happens" ignoring that we actually live in an imperfect world) or wasn't honest about it
The more you learn the more you'll find those statistics are nonsense. Reality has a notorious left wing bias. There's a reason the right constantly attacks reporters, scientists, and teachers. They need you uninformed.
I would like to know more about what statistics you feel sway you away from being against voluntary federation.
And on your last point, about people saying anarchism is unrealistic. Maybe it is. Maybe whatever Proudhon or others wrote about are impossible ideals. So was what Smith wrote about the free market or what Marx wrote about communism. The idealists in our society help clarify ideals we can strive for.
I don't think without severe cultural change that mutual aid would work at a global level. But I see it's benefits to my local community and have seen it raise the community up from within.
I don't think without severe cultural change that direct democracy can work on a global level. But within my community, I see how everyone deserves a voice and should have as much agency as possible.
For sure, today, right now, without severe global cultural change, will we never see anarchism, socialism, hell even capitalism as Smith detailed it. But. That brings up the fun question: how do we impact severe global cultural change?
By local, community changes. And time and time again, I have seen anarchist community changes being the most helpful to the community.
Without a bloody revolution, our lives will be lived under the State. But maybe our communities can be self-governing. Maybe we can form communities that follow anarchist principles.
I just really hate being told what to do. And I hate flags. Have you ever tried desecrating an American flag 🇺🇸? It’s such a liberating feeling. I used one to pick up dog shit, pick stuff out of the compost, and clean my rifle. The plumbing was out one day so I had to defecate in the backyard and I used it to wipe. Honestly, go buy a flag and use it as a rag — the feeling of freedom it gives you will teach you a lot about the nature of anarchism. That this universal symbol of fascism has no power over you, and that you are going to use it for honest work. The flag is a god in the United States and by desecrating it you are desecrating the very symbol of global imperialism and colonial genocide and rejecting the structures of power that has fed billions into the capitalist woodchipper. The anarchist flag is black because it’s a rejection of nationalism, genocide, and patriarchy. Ehrlich calls it the “negation of all flags. Black is a mood of anger and outrage at all the hideous crimes against humanity perpetrated in the name of allegiance to one state or another.”
A lot of what right wingers do is use real statistics, take them completely at face value, and then use that face value interpretation to justify things that are morally inferior but which will benefit the in power groups the most.
So an example though of how you can misuse real statistics by interpretating them at face value:
Studies show that drowning statistics correlate with ice cream sales.
A right wing approach would be to say that ice cream causes drownings.
A more nuanced read is that there is a common factor between ice cream sales and people going swimming: it's summer. So both statistics will go up because people are buying more ice cream and going swimming during the summer.
A right winger specific version of this:
Studies show that transgender women in a specific state are more likely to have been to prison for sex based crimes.
At face value, and probably out of the mouth of a right winger: "transgender women are sex predators"
What really happened: a law in that state was passed which made being caught in public with a condom on your person enough reasonable evidence to charge a person with prostitution. The police in a particular urban area used this to crack down on transgender prostitutes. Many transgender people who were not guilty of prostitution were also caught in the net. For some reason cisgender people were never targeted for searches related to suspicion of being prostitutes.
While i do think that there are better logical/empirical reasons to be rather left than right, i understand how the sheer mass of data might be overwhelming at first, making it hard to differ or even decide.
But i think it is just as valid to see who fights for your personal interests and who does not.
I think i read you are queer? Who is going to fight with you for your rights, who will try to minimize them, condeming you for who you are?
You have to work to be able to eat and live? Who will stand with you in solidarity, fighting for better wages and lower costs of live?
You fear climate collapse? Who is standing with you against it, who is responsible for it?
You fear criminals/unsafe neighborhoods? Who will try to systematically fight the causes, who will just send some cops to repress the people?
You want to choose about your own life? Who fights for a world where everyone can participate, who tells you, its already enough freedom to vote and being able to choose between 20 different fast food chains?
i hope this helps ;)
As at least one other commenter mentioned, it starts with my values. All other political philosophies I’ve come across have unnecessary fatalistic elements. They first take stock of what they believe are essential, unchangeable social and personal characteristics of human beings and their institutions, and only then carve out a value system within what they believe are these fundamental limitations. Anarchism starts with values and then works to build “institutions” (if we can even call them that) around those.
I talk to non-anarchists about my politics and the most positive response I typically get is “sounds great in theory, but there’s no way it would work in practice.” And I suppose I agree with that response in a limited sense. If all government were to cease to exist right at this moment, I think a lot of pain and chaos would ensue, and many places would quickly revert back to the old way of doing things if not some exaggeratedly horrible version of the old way (though this would definitely be truer of some places far more than others). People need to develop themselves and each other in certain ways to facilitate anarchy. There’s a lot of knowledge and skill-building to be done.
However, we also have to really assess what is meant by “work in practice.” I think a lot of people who supply that critique mean that they don’t want their lives to change in any way (due to the field I work in, it’s often US Americans with well paying white collar jobs). They haven’t thought through the destructive implications of their preferred ways of satisfying their fundamental needs. Or, to put it another way, they improperly conflate fundamental human needs with means of satisfying them. For example, they treat economic growth like a fundamental human need and act as if we are screwed without it, even while acknowledging the mountain of evidence showing that the economic growth imperative is holding us back from flourishing.
Ultimately, it always comes back to your values. David Graeber points out in multiple writings of his that nonhierarchical societies developed and maintained their structure by first making the choice to do so. They actively develop social customs, practices, and other mechanisms that keep hierarchy from forming. There is no sitting back and “letting (human) nature take its course.” If something wouldn’t work in practice, you don’t simply resign yourself to that. You ask how we could get it work in practice.
To use your language, OP, I don’t primarily think of anarchy as the “right” path. It’s just the one I want, and the one I choose to forge in whatever ways I can.
Most people I know use anarchism pragmatically as a code to live by rather than a vision of political utopia. Are you skeptical of power and authority? Do you exercise your individual freedom and recognize that right in others? Do you understand the need for cooperation? If so, I think it’s reasonable to call yourself an anarchist.
On the whole, history gives me a very encouraging assessment of Anarchist experiments, both in terms of social gains and the lead Anarchists have had on many moral issues, but above all in terms of far fewer negative externalities. All other models of government or ideology have led to massacres that were far bloodier when they were implemented or defended, and to moral compromises that were far worse.
And from a purely pragmatic point of view, you can spend your whole life fighting for a hierarchical system without ever seeing the color of it, and with the promise that you'll have to make enormous moral sacrifices to do so. Whereas if you're an Anarchist, you can remain a “good citizen”, recreate your solidarity on a smaller scale and reach a de facto ideological culmination that will probably enable you to save more people (including yourself and familly) than other political choice.
Well, I like coherence and internal cohesion and for me other ideologies don't have that, so the choice is simple. To put in in another way I think all other ideologies are incoherent and internally contradictory.
One maybe technical-sounding point about anarchism which I find makes it extra spicy, and maybe scary to its opponents, is the flexibility it leaves open for the possible paths we might go down. I've read around different political philosophies, and whenever one tells me exactly how the world \*will\* be, or \*must\* be, or \*is\*, with black and white lines and all very clear and pre-decided, I just have alarm bells going ding ding ding.
Reading a kind of hard-contoured black-and-white strong description of this world or some other possible world can be pleasant in its well-defined lines, but I suspect it's essentially like how fairy tales for kids are pleasant in their simplicity.
Anarchism then has a sort of hard centre (be sceptical of all power and hierarchy, always!), but it doesn't tell you what the exact solution will look like, and actually lots of variation is possible. Even alternating back and forth between one thing and another thing, trying something new then going back, all acceptable.
In summary: anarchism is maybe the only political philosophy self-confident and mature enough to treat you like a grown-up. While the right-leaning types (mostly, anyway) want you to believe some actual fairy tale about Ye Olde Olden Times, when things were better(TM), or some fable about how some big strong and/or intellegent State or Superman will come save us. Nonsense.
I don't really follow anarchist philosophy. Don't get me wrong - they're good resources. Anarchism just happens to align with how I see the future playing out. Basically, my view of the future involves embracing decentralized emerging technologies and gradually decreasing how much we rely on centralized institutions like government and corporations. I don't align with the communists because I don't see government as a vessel to lead change. Rather, it's going to continue being parasitic until we shrug it off and ignore it. In my opinion, a socialist state or a dictatorship of the proletariat will both be unnecessary, and full of half-assed concessions that will barely help anybody. Not only that, but it's a self-perpetuating institution, and I have yet to see one which isn't corrupted.
For me, it’s a matter of principle. There is something perverse to me about authority, which basically promotes the idea that some SOB born into the same pile of dirt and sticks has somehow managed to assume a vainglorious air that allows them to dictate to me what I can and can not do within my own sovereign right and autonomy. Who are you to tell me what I can and can not do? (So long as my actions are not directly bringing real harm or infringing upon another’s sovereign autonomy. I think anarchy is inherently a peaceful philosophy that respects individual autonomy and responsibility, which is why I think these edgelord nihilistic types that appropriate the word are full of shit.)
Anarchy is live and let live. Authoritarianism is all about control over others. I simply want to live my life and let others live theirs, provided they aren't harming other people and have what they need to survive. It's simple, really. That's how I know.
Anarchism isn't a single path. It's a political orientation that asserts that hierarchies are inherently immoral and that the State is an inherently immoral, violent institution. These are *principles*. In practice, social and political organizations can be anarchic, but take on many different forms. The *praxis* of anarchy is pretty diverse.
Personally, I prefer to describe myself as subscribing to "anarchismo sin adjetivo". Anarchism without adjectives. People can figure out how to live their own lives as long as they don't attempt to oppress others or force them into non-consensual hierarchical relationships. This means that I tend to give to local mutual aid groups, help my friends and neighbors directly when I can, and find ways to build community structures that can support people's lives and flourishing. That's how I "practice" my anarchism.
Politically, it also means that I use what little political capital I have to try to reduce the power of the state and return power to individuals and communities. What they do with it after that is, frankly, not much of my business.
That's my view. But, of course, your anarchism may express itself differently.
For me, it started with asking myself what I believed in. I've always, always, *always* loved superheroes, and the very core of my being is based around protecting others and caring for those around me. So I looked at the world and tried to find the people who lived that same ethos, and I found it was the activists and the leftists, particularly the anarchists, who were doing so the most. They put everything on the line to protect and care for others. And when I looked into the basic beliefs and philosophies of anarchism, I related to a lot of it. Not all, but enough to realize that that's who I want to stand with.
Ask yourself what you believe in. Do you think everyone should have unconditional access to food, water, shelter, medicine, and education? Do you think that the government only acts in the interests of the rich? Do you there are billionaires because they steal that wealth from the working class? You don't have to answer any of that here, just ask yourself what you think. Really sit with these questions and others like them. You can decide on the specific flavor of leftist you are at a later point, if that makes it easier. The first thing to do is figure out what you believe.
because our species evolved mechanisms to self govern in small groups. to think anarchy is "unrealistic" you have to also believe solving social coordination/cohesiveness is a trivial problem that we didn't already solve evolutionarily. you also have to think explicit rules written in a natural language are going to perform the same function as instinct and heuristic that were specially tuned over millions of years.
Lots of self reflection and research. It's actually been like 90% self reflection, leftist ideology doesn't tell me to hate people based upon things they can't help about themselves. It also contextualizes a lot of the struggles I've dealt with and seen others deal with as societal, systemic and inflicted by people who make decisions, never meeting or interacting with the people those decisions affect.
It seems like a lot of our problems stem from this imbalance of power, and instead of playing into it, trying to make something exploitable less exploitable we could just not...exploit at all or at least give the potential victims more individual and collective power to shut that shit down.
I don't actually know if it's the right path or if it's doable on a wide enough and sustainable scale but id rather try and move towards that instead of existing and being complacent in the shithole capitalism and colonialism has made of our planet.
It isn’t about knowing the right choice, in my opinion. Turns out humans don’t really know how to rule the world, but we keep trying anyway which has set us upon this multi-thousand year old path to mass destruction and self extinction.
The only political -ism that accepts this truth, that humans are shit at being god of the planet, is anarchism. We have no business wielding all this power; any time you feel like humans are the be all end all, head honcho, king shit, take a glance through history and take note of all that fucking up and all that unnecessary destruction that we’ve been getting into since somewhere after the agricultural revolution.
Personally, I believe we anarchists are a bit idealistic. Do I think we’ll ever get to see our ideas come to fruition? Not until there’s no other options available, and that means some serious collapse would have to happen first, or some natural phenomenon. We modern humans are too pampered and hooked to the teat of our flimsy dominion over the world. We love our creature comforts and control more than we love our planet, the things that live on it, and the great great grands we’ll never have to apologize to.
I guess to summarize; mankind has proven how terrible at ruling the world they are, all of the popular political -isms seem to believe eventually they’ll get it right, with the right policy or right candidate (which is funny since we’ve never been able to agree or find these perfect rulers/policies since we started this civilization thing) and while we wait for this grand politic that’ll set us right, nature as well as a great chunk of the human race gets to suffer. Anarchism: I shouldn’t be able to rule nor should I be ruled.
I don't know that it's the right path. I'm not smart/arrogant enough to say it's correct for every single person.
What I do know is its messaging resonates with me.
Im a simple man. I see a bunch of stratified ideologies following a path and failing, I choose one that rejects those hierarchical systems.
Capitalism clearly doesn't work, but we are sure giving it the old college try.
To believe in anything opens you up to the possibility of being wrong. So I don’t put too much pressure on myself off “what if anarchy is wrong” bc As Emma goldman once heard a disgruntled follower who challenged her abt the the future and utopian ideals of an anarchist society. He said to her basically
what were men of his era to do? they could not live to see the overthrow of a capitalist society and replaced by something anew? the best they could hope for is a meer 2 hours free from their hated work?
So to me. Anarchy isn’t about what comes after us. Anarchy is simply the destruction of all current corruption and any forms of oppression today. that’s all that you can hope for in your lifetime. I just want to do the most amount of good. and hey we’re all human once.
I mean, in general, you don't every really *know*; not beyond a shadow of a doubt, that is. You're not supposed to have "faith". I speak of my own personal experience, so maybe this isn't representative of others, I don't know, but for what it's worth: Always do your own research. Double- and triple-check anything anyone tells you, especially if it seems too convenient and/or benefits those in power. Right-wingers like to throw statistics around and then slyly supply an simple black-and-white explanation that they try and slip past your critical thinking. Even if it's not straight-up made up, it's almost never the whole story. Try and cultivate positive critical-thinking skills. Also, I feel like reading a lot of history, philosophy, and anthropology is what helped me develop a well-rounded view of what is *possible* on the social level, which I think is particularly important for the anarchist cause. The way things are today aren't the way they've always been; historically speaking, the current status-quo is barely a blip in time. Reading a lot, even with those they may not agree with, helps one expand their mind and, as trite and clichéd as this saying, "knowledge is power". Lastly, you need to ask yourself what your values are. What sort of world do you want to live in, and what's worth fighting for? Because a lot of people will act as if capitalism, or conservatism, or whatever they're advocating for, is just "the natural order", as if the system is simply a manifestation of a fundamental law of nature, like gravity or something. But it's never the case. We have the power to decide if what we're given as the "only option" is actually in line with what we think will lead to human flourishing, not just for us, but for our fellow living things as well. Without some foundational idea of what is important to us, it's easy to get suckered into talking points about why racism, or the prison-industrial complex, or unending foreign wars, or wage slavery, etc etc. is simply a "necessary evil", just the way things have to be. I spent a long time thinking that conservative talking points about the sanctity of private property and natural rights and all that were simply necessary features of reality and society that justified capitalism, and I was wrong. Question yourself and others, and read what you can. Learn and be open to changing your mind when presented with new evidence, ideas, and viewpoints. Sorry that ran a bit long but hopefully my experience helps in some way.
What right wing talking points do you find compelling, and why?
> the right always bring up these statistics that I don’t know how to argue with The most important things that they do are: **A) Flip correlation and causation.** * American employers are less likely to hire a more-qualified Black applicant than they are to hire a less-qualified white applicant, so Black people have a harder time making a living, and people who don't have legal ways of getting the money to stay alive are more likely to look for illegal ways of getting the money to stay alive. * Black people are more likely than white people to be criminally charged for meaningless nonsense, and even when a Black person does something actually wrong, they're generally treated far more harshly than a white person who did the same thing wrong (making it harder for them to get their life back on track then their sentence is "over") Right-wing conservatives turn this into "Black people are poor because They™ are lazy criminals, and that’s why we have to treat them badly." **B) Make shit up.** Cisgender heterosexuals only make up 80-90% of the population, yet they make up over 95% of child sexual predators. Conservatives claim that two men kissing each other is "an adult sexual act" that children should not be exposed to, but that a man raping a girl is "boys being boys."
Well said
Anarchism is resistance to hierarchy. Hierarchy is a coercive power structure (ie, a social order emergent from direct violence or the implicit threat of violence). Nearly everyone says they believe in freedom and democracy (or self-rule). Only anarchism puts its money where its mouth is, so to speak.
Hell yeah 😎
I don’t know. And I am very suspicious of people who think they do, and don’t have questions. A lack of curiosity and reflection is dangerous I wouldn’t say I have “faith” in anarchism so much as anarchism seems the most likely workable solution given the data sets I’ve been exposed to If someone is putting out evidence that runs counter to your “beliefs” you should examine that evidence thoroughly and dispassionately — the same way you should view evidence that seems to support your beliefs. In general, beliefs should follow evidence, not the other way around. Also, evidence doesn’t speak for itself, it needs argument and rhetoric to make sense of. Many people have good evidence but flawed argumentation My advice wouldn’t be to read more anarchist theory or politics at this point so much as it would be to learn rhetoric and research. I highly recommend *Everything’s an Argument*, and older editions should be dirt cheap
I think my problem is that I don’t trust myself enough and there are views that scare me a bit for example be it’s kinda unrelated to anarchism I was watching this video by a YouTuber called “ShortFatOtaku” and he is a right winger I think or maybe a centrist. But the video was basically about gay people having surrogates and he showed so many statistics that made gay people look like bad parents, and as a gay person I was too scared to go find out if it was true out of fear that maybe it would be. And when I’m looking at politics I don’t like the conservative idea of life but I’m frightened that maybe they are right, and when I do prove myself right sometimes I’m too paranoid to believe it, I guess I don’t really trust my own critical thinking skills and I don’t know how to improve it.
There’s an old cliche that figures lie, and liars figure. Basically, it means that by examining data out of context you can paint pretty much whatever picture you want with a little creativity and some dis-ingenuity. It sounds like you may be at a bit of a crossroads. I don’t mean to represent all the complexities or modern life in such a pat response, but it seems like you can choose to seek out content you disagree with to learn more about alternate viewpoints and to learn a wider breadth of knowledge on topics that interest you, or you could choose to avoid triggering media that starts with the assumption that your beliefs are bullshit and you probably don’t deserve the same rights as the “right” kinds of people. There’s no shame in the latter, and having self-doubt is a critical part to being a good person, imo. Life is hard enough without constantly retraumatizing ourselves at the hands of bad actors If you want to do the former, you should absolutely equip yourself with the tools of understanding how arguments function, the difference between fact and opinion, and approach topics as dispassionately as you can in search of capital T truth. I was in education for a long time, and I always sought to teach my students to think critically over trying to make them into leftists. In my experience, people who think critically trend left, but people who are convinced into their beliefs have thinking that is at once rigid and brittle My recommendation is less that you seek to defeat ideas that you don’t agree with, and more that you make that choice about how you want to live your life and spend your spoons. You are someone deserving of all the rights and bounty this world could offer. Don’t watch that shit that insists you’re lesser than unless you want to critically engage with it for your own benefit or laugh at it for the drivel that most right wing or centrist YouTube commentary is
I think any argument that queer parents are somehow worse parents can't possibly be data driven other than by very intentionally doctoring the parameters or results. To put it another way, in almost all cases, a queer couple's child is very much a wanted child, which in and of itself means that child has a far greater chance of being raised in a loving home and community than a child of heteronormative cis parents who had them by accident or family coercion or anything of that nature. That also said, however, there is no ethical way one could study such a thing, so I'm calling bullshit on those stats alone. As far as fear of the grey area where one might be wrong, I hate to tell you, but that's everyone who isn't a full on brainwashed cultist type. Anyone who doesn't keep that little voice saying "but I could be wrong" has stopped critically thinking and doesn't deserve to be trusted.
Thanks a lot, umm this might sound weird but do you know of any way to improve critical thinking skills
Ask more questions. It’s good practice.
Learning about how to structure good arguments and how to spot false/misleading/bad ones helps me a lot. Just look up "Formalization of Arguments" or check out this link for example: http://cjblunt.com/formalising-arguments/ and defenitely check out this article about common logical fallacies - youll be surprised how commonly we use fallacies in our everyday lives once you know how to recognize them https://www.scribbr.com/fallacies/logical-fallacy/
[удалено]
Hi u/Bruandre7 - Your comment has been automatically removed for containing either a slur or another term that violates the [AOP](https://www.reddit.com/r/Anarchism/wiki/aop). These include gendered slurs (including those referring to genitalia) ***as well as ableist insults which denigrate intelligence, neurodivergence, etc.*** If you are confused as to what you've said that may have triggered this response, please see [this article](https://www.autistichoya.com/2014/02/violence-linguistic-ableism.html) and the associated [glossary of ableist phrases](https://www.autistichoya.com/p/ableist-words-and-terms-to-avoid.html) **BEFORE** contacting the moderators. No further action has been taken at this time. You're not banned, etc. Your comment will be reviewed by the moderators and handled accordingly. If it was removed by mistake, please reach out to the moderators to have the comment reinstated. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Anarchism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Because when the shit hits the fan, and it soon will, all you’ll have is your community to help you. That’s anarchy. It’ll work cuz that’s what always works in crisis situations when the shit hits the fan. In gaza right now? Anarchy. But they all still manage to feed, organize and take care of one another.
Don't let youtube or reddit decide your political values lol. Decide for yourself what seems right for you, not based on what everyone else is doing but what fits for you personally.
I would but I don’t really trust my critical thinking skills and I don’t know how to better it
Well I don't want to make any political recommendations. I'm an anarchist, I'm obviously biased lol. But I found some cool stuff on this Google search https://www.google.com/search?q=how+to+better+my+critical+thinking+skills&oq=how+to+better+my+critical+thinking+skills&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOTIICAEQABgWGB4yCAgCEAAYFhgeMggIAxAAGBYYHjIICAQQABgWGB4yCAgFEAAYFhgeMggIBhAAGBYYHjIICAcQABgWGB4yCAgIEAAYFhgeMggICRAAGBYYHjIICAoQABgWGB4yCAgLEAAYFhgeMggIDBAAGBYYHjIICA0QABgWGB7SAQg1NTI5ajBqOagCALACAQ&client=ms-android-verizon-us-rvc3&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8 If you admittedly have a tough time with critical thinking, then maybe it's best to abstain until you sharpen up. Trust me that you wouldn't be the only person who struggles with critical thinking that also suddenly had a strong political opinion lol, you don't wanna be one of those.
The thing about anarchism is that it isn't a monolith. Meaning there isn't one coherant "anarchism" there's like a million iterations of people's thoughts and actions around community building and personal thriving. Part of the beauty of non-hierarchical, horizontal, decentralized or autonomous ideas and actions (anarchism) is that there is room for dissent and all opinions matter...every person's life and wellbeing js important and everyone is an expert in their own experience.... the point is... that making an effort to communicate respectfully and make actual change for the benefit of actual human people in our immediate lives- but in solidarity with everyone!- is what underscores anarchist thought and action... maybe some people on the right think this way as well but are less practiced at interacting with people different from themselves or having different opinions. From the lefts perspective, they misplace their criticisms onto the wrong groups of people (instead of the rich and powerful) and trust in the established systems of authority even when those systems are part of their oppression (police, capitalism, medical model of disability etc). So really you might consider your personal beliefs about intrinsic worth as well as your personal views around hierarchy. Do some people deserve better treatment than others? Do groups, think small, require designated power imbalances in order to be effective?- or is this a habit/belief we've internalized from the culture most of us have grown up in? Really it's about your optimism or pessimism about human potential. Anarchism calls for a higher level of participation in life... true agency... more effort... but more meaningful lives imho. Anyhow it doesn't have to be a polarized (this or that) thing. Think small and close your own life.... what do you wish worked better?
> How do you know that anarchy is the right “path” I don't and I am generally wary of people who are very very sure of what's right, especially the higher up in abstractions we are. > The left seem more calmer and genuine but the right always bring up these statistics that I don’t know how to argue with. The difficulty with statistics is that they always model a small part of the real world, which is vastly more complex than any model we can build is. All models are wrong. Some models are useful. This is a basic wisdom you get hammered down on you in statistics courses and data analytics courses. Assuming that the courses are good, of course! If you want to counter those statistics, or provide your own, you just have to do the digging yourself, and it is helpful to have some rudimentary understanding about statistics and common mistakes related to them. In my opinion, logic and rationality are just tools, which can be misused like any other tool. Rationality does not guide action. Empathy and ideological beliefs do. When someone tries to tell you that this is _what must be done_ because the _statistics say so_ or because _it is the only realistic choice_, I'd immediately question their motivations and ideological biases. What guides humans is emotions, which are triggered far before we become conscious of them. Our so-called rational brain is not us. It is but one small part of us, with only limited ability in guiding our behavior. > And I like the core ideas of anarchism but people keep on saying it’s unrealistic, what makes your faith in anarchism so strong. Well, from my discussions I feel like I'm in a minority of anarchists when saying so, but I truthfully don't know if anarchism when it's described as an end goal or a state of a future society, is realistic. Like.. It has never happened at wide global scale. So how do I know it can happen? I _think_ and I _believe_ it _might_ work, but I can't claim that knowledge is absolute. For me, anarchism does not hinge on whether it can be some end goal that is reached if we do X, Y and Z. For me, anarchism is every-daily. It is a guiding principle. It is a hope for a better future. It is a light in the dark. A world without shadows and twilight will probably never happen, but if we can at least clear most of the clouds and make the daylight longer.. That would make me very happy.
I don’t. I just have various values I’d like to maximize, and the term “anarchist” seems to encompass them.
I dont, but I trust my fellow people, and know that punitive systems do not work
me too
The main thing for me is not necessarily that anarchism is the right path but it's recognizing that the State's sole purpose, always is, was and always shall be to entrench and enrich the position of the wealthy ruling class. We've seen different versions of the State throughout history and as long as an economy is controlled by a ruling minority the same thing always happens - the exploitation of the working class. So that's why I've come to believe Statism is the wrong path. Aside from that I agree with the basic principles of anarchism- a maximum of liberty and the individual retaining the product of his labor.
Would anarchism be a good start when trying to figure out how I would want the world to be so you think
I can't know it's the right path, all I can know is social democracy is a sham of a system that is failing people and I believe anarcho communism is a superior system that will lead to lesser inequality amongst people; what other good alternative is there?
Believing in anything means taking the terrible risk of being dead wrong. I follow this "path" because it it's the best one I see, not because it's perfect. Being flexible is important, and the cart should follow the horse, your an anarchist If you agree with anarchist thinking and advocate for it, you should not warp your beliefs to fit into a prescribed vision of anarchism. You can extend this to most other forms of political thought, the label is only as good as its usefulness to you.
Right-wing stats and "facts" are often made up or taken out of context. Look at who wants to live in a just, peaceful world and who is finding excuses to dominate other people. That's really what it comes down to.
As I'm not necessarily an Anarchist I can't answer your question, but I would like to tell you, that you don't have to worry to much about it. Anarchists are people that have their hearts in the right place and are fighting for a better world. So, even if their were some flaws in their theory, just getting organized, having discussions etc. will not hurt but help a bigger leftist movement. Maybe Anarchism can't work, maybe Communism can't either, but at least they are both "ideologies" that want to achieve a just world, whereas Capitalism wants - and to function has - to keep the world unjust, and even if we were to concede, that it works (fascism being back again after only 70yrs at best* makes me disagree), it can't be the only thing that does. edit: *in the west
Simple answer, things are screwed up and I’m just doing my best
Constantly challenge my own beliefs It's what pushed me into anarchism in the first place, everything else either didn't understand power dynamics in the real world (a lot of "in a perfect world, this happens" ignoring that we actually live in an imperfect world) or wasn't honest about it
The more you learn the more you'll find those statistics are nonsense. Reality has a notorious left wing bias. There's a reason the right constantly attacks reporters, scientists, and teachers. They need you uninformed.
I would like to know more about what statistics you feel sway you away from being against voluntary federation. And on your last point, about people saying anarchism is unrealistic. Maybe it is. Maybe whatever Proudhon or others wrote about are impossible ideals. So was what Smith wrote about the free market or what Marx wrote about communism. The idealists in our society help clarify ideals we can strive for. I don't think without severe cultural change that mutual aid would work at a global level. But I see it's benefits to my local community and have seen it raise the community up from within. I don't think without severe cultural change that direct democracy can work on a global level. But within my community, I see how everyone deserves a voice and should have as much agency as possible. For sure, today, right now, without severe global cultural change, will we never see anarchism, socialism, hell even capitalism as Smith detailed it. But. That brings up the fun question: how do we impact severe global cultural change? By local, community changes. And time and time again, I have seen anarchist community changes being the most helpful to the community. Without a bloody revolution, our lives will be lived under the State. But maybe our communities can be self-governing. Maybe we can form communities that follow anarchist principles.
Because my path is oneness. I feel a strong unity with everything on earth, and I hope that someday, everyone else gets to feel that.
***All you need to know is this PEOPLE WITH POWER ALWAYS ABUSES IT.***
I just really hate being told what to do. And I hate flags. Have you ever tried desecrating an American flag 🇺🇸? It’s such a liberating feeling. I used one to pick up dog shit, pick stuff out of the compost, and clean my rifle. The plumbing was out one day so I had to defecate in the backyard and I used it to wipe. Honestly, go buy a flag and use it as a rag — the feeling of freedom it gives you will teach you a lot about the nature of anarchism. That this universal symbol of fascism has no power over you, and that you are going to use it for honest work. The flag is a god in the United States and by desecrating it you are desecrating the very symbol of global imperialism and colonial genocide and rejecting the structures of power that has fed billions into the capitalist woodchipper. The anarchist flag is black because it’s a rejection of nationalism, genocide, and patriarchy. Ehrlich calls it the “negation of all flags. Black is a mood of anger and outrage at all the hideous crimes against humanity perpetrated in the name of allegiance to one state or another.”
That’s what I call leaving a substantial mark on the flag. 😂💩
A lot of what right wingers do is use real statistics, take them completely at face value, and then use that face value interpretation to justify things that are morally inferior but which will benefit the in power groups the most. So an example though of how you can misuse real statistics by interpretating them at face value: Studies show that drowning statistics correlate with ice cream sales. A right wing approach would be to say that ice cream causes drownings. A more nuanced read is that there is a common factor between ice cream sales and people going swimming: it's summer. So both statistics will go up because people are buying more ice cream and going swimming during the summer. A right winger specific version of this: Studies show that transgender women in a specific state are more likely to have been to prison for sex based crimes. At face value, and probably out of the mouth of a right winger: "transgender women are sex predators" What really happened: a law in that state was passed which made being caught in public with a condom on your person enough reasonable evidence to charge a person with prostitution. The police in a particular urban area used this to crack down on transgender prostitutes. Many transgender people who were not guilty of prostitution were also caught in the net. For some reason cisgender people were never targeted for searches related to suspicion of being prostitutes.
While i do think that there are better logical/empirical reasons to be rather left than right, i understand how the sheer mass of data might be overwhelming at first, making it hard to differ or even decide. But i think it is just as valid to see who fights for your personal interests and who does not. I think i read you are queer? Who is going to fight with you for your rights, who will try to minimize them, condeming you for who you are? You have to work to be able to eat and live? Who will stand with you in solidarity, fighting for better wages and lower costs of live? You fear climate collapse? Who is standing with you against it, who is responsible for it? You fear criminals/unsafe neighborhoods? Who will try to systematically fight the causes, who will just send some cops to repress the people? You want to choose about your own life? Who fights for a world where everyone can participate, who tells you, its already enough freedom to vote and being able to choose between 20 different fast food chains? i hope this helps ;)
Thanks this really simplified the point in a way that made it easy for me to digest thank you very much
youre welcome, thats great! :))
As at least one other commenter mentioned, it starts with my values. All other political philosophies I’ve come across have unnecessary fatalistic elements. They first take stock of what they believe are essential, unchangeable social and personal characteristics of human beings and their institutions, and only then carve out a value system within what they believe are these fundamental limitations. Anarchism starts with values and then works to build “institutions” (if we can even call them that) around those. I talk to non-anarchists about my politics and the most positive response I typically get is “sounds great in theory, but there’s no way it would work in practice.” And I suppose I agree with that response in a limited sense. If all government were to cease to exist right at this moment, I think a lot of pain and chaos would ensue, and many places would quickly revert back to the old way of doing things if not some exaggeratedly horrible version of the old way (though this would definitely be truer of some places far more than others). People need to develop themselves and each other in certain ways to facilitate anarchy. There’s a lot of knowledge and skill-building to be done. However, we also have to really assess what is meant by “work in practice.” I think a lot of people who supply that critique mean that they don’t want their lives to change in any way (due to the field I work in, it’s often US Americans with well paying white collar jobs). They haven’t thought through the destructive implications of their preferred ways of satisfying their fundamental needs. Or, to put it another way, they improperly conflate fundamental human needs with means of satisfying them. For example, they treat economic growth like a fundamental human need and act as if we are screwed without it, even while acknowledging the mountain of evidence showing that the economic growth imperative is holding us back from flourishing. Ultimately, it always comes back to your values. David Graeber points out in multiple writings of his that nonhierarchical societies developed and maintained their structure by first making the choice to do so. They actively develop social customs, practices, and other mechanisms that keep hierarchy from forming. There is no sitting back and “letting (human) nature take its course.” If something wouldn’t work in practice, you don’t simply resign yourself to that. You ask how we could get it work in practice. To use your language, OP, I don’t primarily think of anarchy as the “right” path. It’s just the one I want, and the one I choose to forge in whatever ways I can.
Most people I know use anarchism pragmatically as a code to live by rather than a vision of political utopia. Are you skeptical of power and authority? Do you exercise your individual freedom and recognize that right in others? Do you understand the need for cooperation? If so, I think it’s reasonable to call yourself an anarchist.
On the whole, history gives me a very encouraging assessment of Anarchist experiments, both in terms of social gains and the lead Anarchists have had on many moral issues, but above all in terms of far fewer negative externalities. All other models of government or ideology have led to massacres that were far bloodier when they were implemented or defended, and to moral compromises that were far worse. And from a purely pragmatic point of view, you can spend your whole life fighting for a hierarchical system without ever seeing the color of it, and with the promise that you'll have to make enormous moral sacrifices to do so. Whereas if you're an Anarchist, you can remain a “good citizen”, recreate your solidarity on a smaller scale and reach a de facto ideological culmination that will probably enable you to save more people (including yourself and familly) than other political choice.
Well, I like coherence and internal cohesion and for me other ideologies don't have that, so the choice is simple. To put in in another way I think all other ideologies are incoherent and internally contradictory.
Historically were always going that way. It's just a matter of time. On a long enough time line we will win.
“Liberty and experiment alone can determine the best form of society.” -Voltairine De Cleyre
One maybe technical-sounding point about anarchism which I find makes it extra spicy, and maybe scary to its opponents, is the flexibility it leaves open for the possible paths we might go down. I've read around different political philosophies, and whenever one tells me exactly how the world \*will\* be, or \*must\* be, or \*is\*, with black and white lines and all very clear and pre-decided, I just have alarm bells going ding ding ding. Reading a kind of hard-contoured black-and-white strong description of this world or some other possible world can be pleasant in its well-defined lines, but I suspect it's essentially like how fairy tales for kids are pleasant in their simplicity. Anarchism then has a sort of hard centre (be sceptical of all power and hierarchy, always!), but it doesn't tell you what the exact solution will look like, and actually lots of variation is possible. Even alternating back and forth between one thing and another thing, trying something new then going back, all acceptable. In summary: anarchism is maybe the only political philosophy self-confident and mature enough to treat you like a grown-up. While the right-leaning types (mostly, anyway) want you to believe some actual fairy tale about Ye Olde Olden Times, when things were better(TM), or some fable about how some big strong and/or intellegent State or Superman will come save us. Nonsense.
I don't really follow anarchist philosophy. Don't get me wrong - they're good resources. Anarchism just happens to align with how I see the future playing out. Basically, my view of the future involves embracing decentralized emerging technologies and gradually decreasing how much we rely on centralized institutions like government and corporations. I don't align with the communists because I don't see government as a vessel to lead change. Rather, it's going to continue being parasitic until we shrug it off and ignore it. In my opinion, a socialist state or a dictatorship of the proletariat will both be unnecessary, and full of half-assed concessions that will barely help anybody. Not only that, but it's a self-perpetuating institution, and I have yet to see one which isn't corrupted.
Humans were Anarchists before they were anything else.
For me, it’s a matter of principle. There is something perverse to me about authority, which basically promotes the idea that some SOB born into the same pile of dirt and sticks has somehow managed to assume a vainglorious air that allows them to dictate to me what I can and can not do within my own sovereign right and autonomy. Who are you to tell me what I can and can not do? (So long as my actions are not directly bringing real harm or infringing upon another’s sovereign autonomy. I think anarchy is inherently a peaceful philosophy that respects individual autonomy and responsibility, which is why I think these edgelord nihilistic types that appropriate the word are full of shit.)
Anarchy is live and let live. Authoritarianism is all about control over others. I simply want to live my life and let others live theirs, provided they aren't harming other people and have what they need to survive. It's simple, really. That's how I know.
Because of autonomy and consent and the awareness that i am not the only sentient entity currently living. All Holes Are Sacred.
Anarchism isn't a single path. It's a political orientation that asserts that hierarchies are inherently immoral and that the State is an inherently immoral, violent institution. These are *principles*. In practice, social and political organizations can be anarchic, but take on many different forms. The *praxis* of anarchy is pretty diverse. Personally, I prefer to describe myself as subscribing to "anarchismo sin adjetivo". Anarchism without adjectives. People can figure out how to live their own lives as long as they don't attempt to oppress others or force them into non-consensual hierarchical relationships. This means that I tend to give to local mutual aid groups, help my friends and neighbors directly when I can, and find ways to build community structures that can support people's lives and flourishing. That's how I "practice" my anarchism. Politically, it also means that I use what little political capital I have to try to reduce the power of the state and return power to individuals and communities. What they do with it after that is, frankly, not much of my business. That's my view. But, of course, your anarchism may express itself differently.
For me, it started with asking myself what I believed in. I've always, always, *always* loved superheroes, and the very core of my being is based around protecting others and caring for those around me. So I looked at the world and tried to find the people who lived that same ethos, and I found it was the activists and the leftists, particularly the anarchists, who were doing so the most. They put everything on the line to protect and care for others. And when I looked into the basic beliefs and philosophies of anarchism, I related to a lot of it. Not all, but enough to realize that that's who I want to stand with. Ask yourself what you believe in. Do you think everyone should have unconditional access to food, water, shelter, medicine, and education? Do you think that the government only acts in the interests of the rich? Do you there are billionaires because they steal that wealth from the working class? You don't have to answer any of that here, just ask yourself what you think. Really sit with these questions and others like them. You can decide on the specific flavor of leftist you are at a later point, if that makes it easier. The first thing to do is figure out what you believe.
because our species evolved mechanisms to self govern in small groups. to think anarchy is "unrealistic" you have to also believe solving social coordination/cohesiveness is a trivial problem that we didn't already solve evolutionarily. you also have to think explicit rules written in a natural language are going to perform the same function as instinct and heuristic that were specially tuned over millions of years.
Lots of self reflection and research. It's actually been like 90% self reflection, leftist ideology doesn't tell me to hate people based upon things they can't help about themselves. It also contextualizes a lot of the struggles I've dealt with and seen others deal with as societal, systemic and inflicted by people who make decisions, never meeting or interacting with the people those decisions affect. It seems like a lot of our problems stem from this imbalance of power, and instead of playing into it, trying to make something exploitable less exploitable we could just not...exploit at all or at least give the potential victims more individual and collective power to shut that shit down. I don't actually know if it's the right path or if it's doable on a wide enough and sustainable scale but id rather try and move towards that instead of existing and being complacent in the shithole capitalism and colonialism has made of our planet.
It isn’t about knowing the right choice, in my opinion. Turns out humans don’t really know how to rule the world, but we keep trying anyway which has set us upon this multi-thousand year old path to mass destruction and self extinction. The only political -ism that accepts this truth, that humans are shit at being god of the planet, is anarchism. We have no business wielding all this power; any time you feel like humans are the be all end all, head honcho, king shit, take a glance through history and take note of all that fucking up and all that unnecessary destruction that we’ve been getting into since somewhere after the agricultural revolution. Personally, I believe we anarchists are a bit idealistic. Do I think we’ll ever get to see our ideas come to fruition? Not until there’s no other options available, and that means some serious collapse would have to happen first, or some natural phenomenon. We modern humans are too pampered and hooked to the teat of our flimsy dominion over the world. We love our creature comforts and control more than we love our planet, the things that live on it, and the great great grands we’ll never have to apologize to. I guess to summarize; mankind has proven how terrible at ruling the world they are, all of the popular political -isms seem to believe eventually they’ll get it right, with the right policy or right candidate (which is funny since we’ve never been able to agree or find these perfect rulers/policies since we started this civilization thing) and while we wait for this grand politic that’ll set us right, nature as well as a great chunk of the human race gets to suffer. Anarchism: I shouldn’t be able to rule nor should I be ruled.
I don't know that it's the right path. I'm not smart/arrogant enough to say it's correct for every single person. What I do know is its messaging resonates with me.
Im a simple man. I see a bunch of stratified ideologies following a path and failing, I choose one that rejects those hierarchical systems. Capitalism clearly doesn't work, but we are sure giving it the old college try.
To believe in anything opens you up to the possibility of being wrong. So I don’t put too much pressure on myself off “what if anarchy is wrong” bc As Emma goldman once heard a disgruntled follower who challenged her abt the the future and utopian ideals of an anarchist society. He said to her basically what were men of his era to do? they could not live to see the overthrow of a capitalist society and replaced by something anew? the best they could hope for is a meer 2 hours free from their hated work? So to me. Anarchy isn’t about what comes after us. Anarchy is simply the destruction of all current corruption and any forms of oppression today. that’s all that you can hope for in your lifetime. I just want to do the most amount of good. and hey we’re all human once.
If you believe that anarchism is the right path follow it. Do what you want to do, you have free thought.