Introductions. And annoyance over breakfast. Please help!

Hi Mina!

You could say there would be organisation in an anarchist society, and it probably wouldn't be acceptable for people to be really anti-social. But it's not like we know how everything could be, there are genuine challenges and we would presumably discover and experiment with new ways of keeping society functioning. Of course you, and none of us, have all the answers and The Anarchist FAQ has stuff on these kinds of issues: http://infoshop.org/page/AnarchistFAQSectionI

But when you focus on anarchism as a future way society could be organised I have found it basically impossible to 'convert' people to anarchism, and that's not surprising really. If someone comes up to me and tells me in the abstract about some totally different thing to what I've known before, that has no real relevance to my daily life and problems, I'm unlikely to be converted by what they say (and I'm pretty into abstract stuff). Also, like you say, you - and none of us - has all the answers, so if it's described as anything close to a blueprint it's not going to sound fool proof. Even if they were converted, which'd be great, that's not the most important thing. More people thinking anarchism would be a better way to organise society doesn't inevitably mean people will take action towards that, or that the action they take will be effective. Based on how it's been when I've talked to people, talking loads about 'anarchism' or obviously political things doesn't actually change people's minds - however polished your argument. I'd guess that talking about things that actually affect your mates lives, like jobs or whatever, might be a better way to talk to them about an anarchist approach to things, I don't know.

Hi, don´t know if this will help but here's the most common arguments I hear or use (depending on which) when discussing anarchism. They are all simple to understand and useful since when people don't understand the terms in which your speaking in lots of times they just quiet down as not to seem stupid so this might help you get some peace:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quis_custodiet_ipsos_custodes%3F
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_tradition
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

ha, yeah the whole 'being x' but living under capitalism thing. I sometimes think about that, I think thats just a bit of a semantics thing.

Toms, I don't understand your post? Are you proposing Anarchists just patronize their interlocutors out of any real debate? Thats useful sometimes when your talking to a complete numskull in the pub, but its a bit disingenuous to do it with your mates. However I do think you should be careful with what words you use. I prefer the term Libertarian Communist (for practical and theoretical reasons), but I am usually met with a discussion rather than a knee-jerk reaction to 'anarchism' we are often confronted with.

You know I find it easy to get people into it slower, don't expect them to be converted to the far left as soon as they hear it (I know I wasn't), but encourage your friends to slowly politicize, what mons suggested is also linked to this. You need to link it to their lives. When they come home moaning about the boss, you need to show them why it would be better to not have a boss . This links nicely to the next point, i think its worth pointing out that anarchists/libertarian communists don't claim that leaders will have the answers, answers will be the results of meetings right? I don't think its a cop-out to not have all the answers to everything. You could flip it back on them too and say 'look, I'm not claiming to be your leader, thats a contradiction of what I believe in, I'm asking how we can answers these questions together, without becoming trapped in the exploitative social structures we have currently build around ourselves'.

If your friends are talking about policing, here in Britain right now the debate concerning the amount of people who have died in their custody is gradually growing momentum. Throw some facts, see how they can justify the deaths of innocent people in police 'care' just so your friends don't have to worry about the (statistically low) phantasmic fear of being killed themselves.

One quite simple way to answer people who ask 'how would anarchism actually work' is to give them examples of the kind of organising that you as an anarchist think is compatible with your politics. Real life examples of actually functioning institutions, movements and regions may be both more persuasive and easier to explain than some abstract blueprint. Examples might include Ukraine during the Russian Revolution, the Industrial Workers of the World, Anarchist Spain, some of the old 19th century working class friendly societies, a local community group (if you know any suitable ones).

Also, most people have experience of being fucked over by capitalism, doing jobs they don't like doing stuff that they think is of no value or worse. Talk about that first.

I think this is the most important point of all, and the corollary to it is that neither do capitalists.

When people start saying "what would you do about crime," well the answer is in part "we have a bunch of theories going back a century or more" but it's also "we have no real idea how the ending of capitalism would affect crime levels or how communities would end up dealing with it.

"We think it would reduce because there would be no poverty forcing people to desperation, no power-relations to encourage envy and feelings of inferiority/superiority, fewer societal hangups making people feel shameful etc etc, the sorts of things which actually cause crime or encourage people to lash out and victimise others.

"But no-one's Nostradamus, not even Nostradamus - and especially not capitalists, who have had two centuries and made zero progress (in fact prisons are more crowded than ever before).

"Unlike capitalists we have an idea of how to mitigate the problem, which takes the form of destroying capital. But we're not designing utopia, we're offering an improved societal model."

That sorta thing.

I think a good way of approaching it when people ask "how will anarchism work" is first to flip the ground and ask "does capitalism work?" Pointing out things like 100,000 people die from hunger and preventable diseases everyday, 1 billion people starving when we create an excess of food, widespread homelessness with much more widespread empty homes, mass unemployment while people with jobs work excessive hours, etc.

Of course an anarchist/libcom society will have problems - but they will (hopefully) be much smaller problems than capitalist society