I find it difficult to explain to people what anarchism means and what it stands for especially to people who know nothing about anarchism and equate it with chaos and an individualist opposition to authority as if we are simply people who have a problem with authority or don't like to be bossed about/told what to do and so probably have something wrong with ourselves.
Its difficult to know where to start, when we have a completely different outlook of the world from the mainstream, and when we need to unravel the mainstream views just to present anarchism as a coherent well thought out alternative to them.
When I am asked what is anarchism, usually I start with the very basics, 'anarchists oppose the government, they oppose capitalism, authority, hierarchy' etc, but that doesn't tell people a lot and just leads to more questions. I then have to try and explain why anarchists oppose government including democratically elected governments - which for someone completely new to the idea of anarchism is a bit of an odd concept, and I also have to explain why anarchists view inequality and private property as bad things - which again can be an odd concept leading them to ask questions such as why they shouldn't be allowed to own their own things or why its wrong for them to have more stuff than someone else if they've earned it.
And even if I manage to explain all this they might still reject the idea with the same sort of tired arguments that we here all the time such as it being impractical, idealistic, utopian, unworkable, against human nature.
So where should I start, whats a good, quick way of explaining what anarchism means and expressing an anarchist outlook on things?
You’re right this is a
You’re right this is a problem.
If you start with ‘the basics’ it is easy to sound like an idealist flying a mad political kite. Better, I think, to try an explain anarcho-communism as a practical answer to the problems of capitalism and introduce the more ‘philosophical’ ideas later. It is easier to grasp the idea of direct democracy as opposed to parliamentary democracy with its professional politicians.
Of course it depends who you are talking to and remember to listen to the objections raised as new ideas take some time to digest. Don’t be afraid to say that you’ll have to think about points raised – it’s a conversation not a lecture!
Try not to take the moral high ground, and sound like a religious nut, argue that we need not live in fear, as the material conditions exist to allow everyone a decent life.
Hope this helps.
When people come at me with
When people come at me with idealist or utopian accusations, and tell me that anarchist revolution is unlikely, I always try to make the case that, be that as it may, anarchism is necessary to our long term survival as a species. I don't try to do it in an evangelical sort of way, but through identifying exact structural issues in ways uncontroversial to them, and attempting to show how anarchism is the only political formation that would address these issues adequately.
Also, largely what Aud Bold said about remembering who you are talking to; what you say should depend on what present political affiliations the person your trying to convince has. This can help you direct where you start the dialogue. If, for example, you have someone who is deeply opposed to the police and the police state, you come in at it by a critique of illegitimate authority and gently expand your analysis beyond the state and into capital. If, for example, you are speaking with someone who is deeply suspicious or opposed to capitalist economic organization, you start from there and move into talking about power relations that pervade the whole social sphere.
Or something. It's not easy. And usually, even if you can gently get someone on board, as soon as you mention the word "anarchism" you are liable to losing them. Then you have to disperse all the bullshit surrounding that word in the popular lexicon, and go into the history of the tradition's theory and practice and how it is extremely relevant.
Hi I think anarchism is very
Hi I think anarchism is very simple. All it means is people working together in their best interests and ensuring that we all work together for the benefit of us all..
Perhaps with some people it's
Perhaps with some people it's more effective to describe anarchism in positive rather than negative terms, i.e. what it's in favour of rather than opposed to.
E.g. "Anarchism is about governance through cooperation as equals and fair distribution of wealth" rather than "Anarchism is against capitalism and the state".
I mean, personally I like the latter description but I'm sympathetic that it may leave many people wondering what it offers instead.
I think to most people a
I think to most people a critique of capitalism or the state is the last thing you ought to bring up. I have better success with people when i ask open ended questions about what would make things better, always sticking to the positives. For example i would say; "have you ever wanted more free time?" or "do you wish that things could be somehow different so that you did not have to worry about bills and money?". Follow this up this up with how this can be different and give a basic outline of what anarchism is as early as possible. I would say "a completely different way of organizing a society,to understand it you must first forget everything about the way things are presently for a moment" and "anarchism is about a society where people free associate to what ever end the choose, to the extent that they want to, and the kinds of organizing that are possible to that end", I would then give examples, discuss social possessions and what that means, explain why this meets the original selling points, ect.
Always keep it plain and simple. Don't get into too much detail unless they ask for it. be honest, and do not omit anything controversial. Always go back to your selling point about anarchism, and why it would benefit them. make sure your facts are accurate and relevent.
if you do get as far as a general outline of the society you wish to create, and outline how anarchism would solve them, then discuss how to get there.
Detailed analysis and criticism is an after thought, for people who are already interested.
That's my approach, i hope this helps. and also Auld-bod comment is very good!
Also my name is awful here
Also my name is awful here i'm thinking about changing it
anarchist-psycho wrote: Also
anarchist-psycho
Post a request here comrade!
http://libcom.org/forums/feedback-content/name-change-request-02102007?page=1#comment-572518
Best thread for the thinking
Best thread for the thinking man at the moment scallywag :-)
Probably the best way of explaining what I think anarchism means is to tell you what I believe in, and what I don't believe in obviously.
So I consider myself to be an anarchist. By that I mean a working class revolutionary who believes in a different kind of society to what we have at the moment. I said revolutionary because I don't believe in politicians, politics or their parliament. I believe in the power of ordinary people like us, and I think when we get the chance, as we have at certain times in the past, we are more than able to manage ourselves by organising our neighbourhoods and workplaces to reflect our needs. Our needs not the managers or bosses.
The idea that we can do this and look after us all better than the capitalists and the state, the bosses and the managers, scares the shit out of them. So that's why they accuse us anarchists of being terrorists and everything else. It's because they are afraid of ordinary working class people like us who want a fair and just society where we all have the opportunity to create and share instead of just destroying. Despite the hundred odd years of capitalist and state propaganda anarchists believe that most people are happiest when they consider themselves to be free of politicians, their institutions and the workplace as it is organised at the moment.
I've discovered from
I've discovered from discussing with my own friends for years that I can get far by critiquing capitalism, and many friends will agree with me but then shrug and say, "well it's the best system we have," or some other thought-terminating cliche.
But I've found that there are two major ideological stumbling blocks that I apparently have no good response for. I just can't seem to change anyone's mind with regards to these two things.
1. Why would anyone work or invent new things if there's no chance of profiting and becoming rich?
2. People are morons and if you let them decide everything for themselves without highly educated people running things then the world will descend into chaos.
Now I've read enough to have some standard responses to these two points, but nevertheless, I don't seem to have convinced anyone. Most of my friends will agree that capitalism has negative side effects, but they also believe that it rewards hard work and that "no system is perfect".
Regardless of what they say,
Regardless of what they say, it seems most folk are in love with capitalism. They repeat its mantra of the virtue of hard work, making initial judgement of people based on what they do. They lust after it's excesses and fear loss of the privilege they believe it has bestowed upon them, no matter how little it is. Trying to persuade people is pointless unless they display a genuine desire to find out what anarchism is about and have enough humility and open mindedness to let go of their current thinking at least a little bit.
It's a very frustrating thing to do, even with those that are really ready to engage but I feel compelled to do it, after all, I came to believe in lib com through exactly that process.
1. I think you're making a
1. I think you're making a good point here because 'work' is what we do under a capitalist system. Within an anarchist society I would want to 'add' or 'cooperate' with other people. I would want to do this because it makes me feel good in myself.
2. You only have to look at the chaos we live in now to realise that working class people, you and me, are the people who run and keep this capitalist society together. And it's us who can bring it down and replace it with something much better. Something that meets our needs not theirs.
spaceman spiff
While being positive it's
While being positive it's important to stress what Anarchism isn't ie;Individualism,liaise faire,lifestylism,liberalism,punk etc.
Emphasise that it's the ultimate expression of Communism and is opposed to constituted authority not all authorityIts about removing violence from human relationships and allowing humanity to progress without profit and capital and the racism,sexism,war etc that elites use to protect their class rule.Ultimately it envisages a world of equality through horizontal and egalitarian relationships and accountable structures where people are empowered to become full participants and advance intellectually and collectively to their full potential not just automatons and wage slaves like today.
As far people equating it
As far people equating it with chaos is concerned, I think it would be useful to point out to people that 'anarchy' is used in the sense of freedom, not chaos. Then it would be necessary to point out that it does not refer to the freedoms that presently exist but to a future freedom; not the freedom to sell our labour power to the highest bidder, not freedom of speech enshrined in law, not the freedom to consume in exchange for money; but absolute freedom without any constraints.
freemind, I like what you right, although if I may advise I would recommend a space after each punctuation mark just to make it easier to read. I am not sure about one point you make:
This is true of the period of transformation between capitalist and communist society but not true once anarchy is achieved.
But, 'accountable structures where people are empowered to become full participants' , smacks of democracy, a bourgeois institution.
Hi Whirlwind! Re;Smacking of
Hi Whirlwind!
Re;Smacking of Democracy etc I think you should think of the original context and not the cooped bourgeois one.Anarchists were originally called Federalists amongst other things pre 1872 but that doesn't make them reactionary because the term has been inverted by the State.
Constituted authority means hierarchy,church,monarchy,state power etc not the authority of a certain subject or knowledge possessed by someone.
Thanks for the advice on punctuation although it is Sunday morning lol
Yes, freemind, you are
Yes, freemind, you are probably right about the democratic process freed of all it's connection with political power. I suppose I just have never experienced it, only read about it in books about events (ie Paris Commune) in the distant past. The content is more important than the form, which applies to writing, as to democracy.