Want to know what one of the biggest obstacles people have for joining the ranks of Anarchism? It's not brainwashing. It's not propaganda. It's not philosophical differences. The biggest problem is anarchists.
Many anarchists struggle with communication. Most of them come from the logical side of things. It is where I came from, and dignified communication is what I struggled with for a long time.
The unfortunate thing is that logical "communication" is almost always tinged with bitterness and hostility...but it is also an addiction. People get used to trying to logically paint people into corners, and this exercise provides them with an ego high. They want to win, and thus the psychological effects of logic has trumped the stated goal of trying to ascertain truth.
What was it Albert Einstein said on insanity?
"The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results."
Egocentric Messages Turn People Off
Currently, many anarchist's message is too egocentric. It turns people off to the anarchist plight. I can't tell you how many people have complained to me about how insufferable anarchists have become.
Anarchists often act like ideological neophytes rather than philosophical wunderkinds. They insult people. They ridicule people. They rarely try to make personal contact. They call out fallacies in normal, everyday conversations. They attack the person. They make themselves look like dolts, and meanwhile the people they tried to "convince" have solidified their Statist views.
Let me ask a question. If anarchists have truth tucked away neatly within this philosophy, why the acting out? Why the meanness? Why the insecurity? Why the veneer of childishness?
Obviously, Statism will not be repelled or vanquished overnight. This is a large cultural transition that involves a paradigm shift. It will take effort and tact. It will take prudence and dignity to produce freedom.
Co-Creating Anarchism With Compassionate Communication
In my mind, not only can we teach people more efficiently and kindly about anarchism by leveraging compassionate communication...we can actively bring them over to our doctrine by the comfort and peace our words provide.
That means this softer method of communication is not only a strategy to get people involved in our particular brand of anarchism. Whoever we speak with people using this approach, we act as a co-creator in the process of building anarchism.
These non-hostile forms of communication are inextricably woven into the fabric anarchism. These deep connections we form through communication and empathy are inherently anarchistic.
This means we do not even have to employ the off-putting strategy of trying to convince people of our economic biases or moral framework. The economic and moral framework becomes secondary to the compassionate interactions people share with each other---and if they have moral or logical differences, these can then be resolved respectively after everyone has an understanding of the other.
In a previous article, I said,
"That's partly why relational, spiritual, holistic, soft, compassionate, and other non-political and non-legal facets of anarchism have recently cropped up. These forms of anarchism want to bring more people together and bridge economic divides."
Statelessness and Relational Anarchism
This idea scares people, though. They believe that moral dictates must be advocated in order to build anarchistic societies. After all, "anarchism" means "without rulers," which comes across as a moral dictum. However, there is no line drawn in the sand that suggests anarchism must be perpetuated by moralizing to people or claiming philosophical superiority.
Instead, anarchism can be created through directly interacting with people in peaceful and nonviolent ways---in compassionate ways. This is a new perspective, because it moves beyond the urgency to condemn people for accepting Statism, plus it acts as a practical method for creating anarchistic societies in the moment.
However, this is not to say anyone has to shut down the logical side of themselves, or not make "arguments" for anarchism. It's just the relational perspective of the anarchist doctrine has been missing from the equation. Previous anarchists have only referenced it vaguely, and it has only been mentioned within the same vein as a specific anarchist economic ideology.
Times are changing, though...and these new relational perspectives are making waves in the anarchist communities. This is a good thing too, because many anarchists have become more hostile and vitriolic than ever. The time is ripe for relational anarchism.
The loving anarchists are now making headway.
“Before we can forgive one another, we have to understand one another.”― Emma Goldman
Highly rEsteemed my friend. Gotta share this on my wall!
Thank you Sterlin.
I try to keep in mind that most people, regardless of political or religious affiliation usually have more in common than we are taught to believe.
Beginning all interactions from a position of common ground and mutual respect is a recipe for building good relationships. Ultimately, we are all on the same team - and infighting among the population only benefits the ruling elites.
Keep up the thoughtful articles.
upvoted and resteemed
Bingo, if only people would understand this.
SDG
So many anarchists try to "spread" the message by insulting and demeaning anyone who doesn't share their views. Like you said, the insufferable anarchists turn people off.
Finding "converts" through building relationships, acting with compassion and fostering good communities is far more effective, and far more important in creating the type of world we all want in the future.
Great post! Nice to see you back on Steemit.
Thanks a lot, Seth. I got so busy with other projects that I just know got to start posting again. I have always loved Steemit, and I did not want to provide the impression that I Was just cashing out and moving on. Haha!
Thanks for enjoying the post. I intend on bringing more to the fold!
Welcome back @sterlinluxan :)
Sometimes I'd like to think that people are mostly anarchistic. Anyway, nobody actually really care for big gov until the scheduled elections!
Thanks for the warm welcome back, Kevin. This will be a ton of fun.
what form of anarchist are you
Why does that matter?
because I am planning on following you if you don't say ancap.
Don't let labels get in the way of good material my friend!
ancap is an oxymoron
That depends on your definition of capitalism.
private property is hierarchy
This post received a 36% upvote from @randowhale thanks to @ausbitbank! For more information, click here!
Great content buddy. Hope to see you back steemin'. Hit med up @scandinavianlife
Kinda the same:
We also start the conversation with a handicap.
They usually believe we're isolationist individualists who hate co-operation.
If we lack warmth, they're too scared of being left out in the cold, fending for themselves, to see any value in a stateless future.
The only thing I don't get with anarchy is how we would protect ourselves against crime. I am absolutely for a reformation of society, but with no state or state-like-entity there is no one to defend people against strong, ruthless individuals and organisations.
What would we do about violent psychopaths?
We'd stop giving them armies.
The amount of people who would be ruthless and criminal in a society where individual freedom was paramount would be very, very, very small. The vast majority of people are peaceful and capable of existing together. Their will always be conflict no matter what societal system is employed. A vast majority of the violence and hatred you see now is a product of the state. This fuels division in the population and props the current system up. If the state was gone most of the violence would leave with it. Communities would become established and people who were violent or aggressive would not be accepted by the communities and be outsiders. Eventually they would come around on their own to accept the ideas or have to adapt to being outsiders.
I agree. The vast majority just want to be left alone to go about their business unharassed. They would not dream of extorting or perpetrating violence against their fellow man if the state wasn't there to do it in their name
I found this little experiment helped me shake off worries of "so many evil people". I started asking everyone I came in contact with, "What would you do if the government was gone overnight?". There wasn't a single person who said I would go on a killing and looting spree lol. Most people gave a positive response like " yeah no more taxes"..... You do run into the usual issues, muh pension and muh roads, but at least they were positive about the concept.
Try it out where you live. It would be interesting to see the results. I do live in The Democratic Peoples Republic of Canada-stan, I don't know if that would have any bearing on different results or not.
I believe the result would be the same everywhere. People are inherently benevolent, and in their personal lives, most live by the non-aggression principle. Laws don't make people good but obeying 'bad' laws can certainly make people act in a way contrary to their principles and better judgment.
I do agree that this sounds reasonable, but I can't help but think about drug cartels and mafias that exist in our world. Why would malevolent organizations like these not form in an anarchy? And how would we deal with organizations like these without organizing ourselves? And once we organize ourselves... we are no longer really in an anarchy?
I really don't understand how an anarchy is supposed to work. Society and organization seems like a natural biproduct of evolution to me...
Most of the gangs, mafias, and cartels are state enterprises. No state leads to no CIA, MI5, MI6, and so on. Those are your (tax funded) drug cartels, mafias, and gangs. Anarchism wouldn't provide the economic fuel for these people. Banking would look nothing like it does now, money could become sound again and not fiat , and voluntary commerce would be factors choking out that behavior.
I hope you are right and that I am wrong about humanity and human nature. I like your view more than I like my own, but I can't help but suspect that humans are to greedy and to scared of each others differences not to form groups based on ethnicity, religion, ruthlessness towards others in pursuit of power and money and so on. Groups that would eventually lead to organizations and states. Hope I am wrong though.
I was struggling with the concept because i was stuck with the concept that the system had to be so perfect it was Utopian. There will always be conflict no matter what. The amount of conflict would be reduced so dramatically. If people experience true freedom it would be hard for the vast amount of the population to even consider a hierarchal structure of living ever again. Remember good ideas don't require force.
Interesting Post.
well said. thank you sterlin.
Was this the kind of anarchy you were talking about ?
I was just talking about this today. Another Steemer and I were having a discussion on their page about anarchism and I was asking how they planned on going about it or how they would like to see it happen. I am not anti-anarchy, I unschooled my son and we studied it a lot. It seems that there has never been a large-scale success for anarchy though and mainly it seems to be a transitional venue for government. I have been seeking to find someone that will set me straight. Maybe the project Mayhem that I am looking for (figuratively) and I am trying to find a path that I can be a part of. I don't know, I know there is a solution out there. Since you talk about a logical debate, I wonder if you perhaps have an idea how or where religion would fit into the modern anarchist vision? What about leadership during a crisis? I lived in the LA area when Rodney King happened and I remember the traffic when OJ went on the run. It got all clogged up downtown. These are times I wouldn't want to go back to. I haven't seen a plan yet, so when I am seeing what others thing as I find people who are writing on the subject that seem to have a strong opinion and who are lacking that very ego attitude that you mention. :)
This is exactly what I have been struggling with myself. My emotional ivolvment with this topic has been the reason for poorly conveying the benefits of anarchism.
@sterlinluxan Numerous fascinating points. I have been on various anarchy forums and a percentage insist on creating urination anthologies. Be well.
Hi! Have you heard about @krwhale? It is similiar with @randowhale. For your information please click on.