On the "Anarchist Society"

From: https://medium.com/@NoWing/on-the-anarchist-society-312a0bf90f09

I’ve had the pleasure of talking to anarchists of many stripes and colors. From anarcho-capitalists, to anarcho-communists…From anarcho-primitivists to anarcho-transhumanists. While all of these ideologies claim to be anarchist, I have always noticed something that keeps me from really seeing them as anarchist. To me, these kinds of ideologies seem to have more in common with something like communism, socialism, or capitalism, than actual anarchy. Too many anarchists want to prescribe solutions, and propose ways of living, rather than voluntarily work with others to come up with an egalitarian way of living.

Anarchy is a state of (or desire for) “no rulers” if one looks at the root words. Whether these “rulers” are people, institutions, or ideas, those looking to live in a state of anarchy should always be vigilant of potential rulers. Ideally, as anarchists, we do not want to rule others, and we do not want to be ruled by them. We want to make our own decisions in life, based on our own desires. If this is the case, then why do so many anarchists insist on adhering to blueprints, or pretending that they know just how society should work? Is not coming up with a system, and then expecting others to follow it a form of rulership?

When an anarcho-communist says that we should all unionize our workplaces and run them collectively, that is the opinion of one person….not anarchism. When an anarcho-capitalist says we should abolish the state but keep markets and currency in place, that is again, the opinion of one person…not anarchism. People seem to have this need to focus on an idea that they like, and then attempt to convince others of it. Rather than working together to create a society without rulers, anarchists constantly bicker about which form of anarchy is correct. This is not anarchism, this is attempting to push ideologies onto people.

If anarchists wished to be true to their name, we would realize that we don’t individually have the answers. We would realize that our blueprints are nothing but utopian fantasies. We would realize that anarcho-anything isn’t anarchist at all. To be truly anarchist, would be to be aware of your own desires, while realizing that you are probably going to have to work alongside people who might not share those exact same desires. Anarchy must be a voluntary system for all, and all people will never share the same ideas as to what is to be done.

If we are to be truly anarchist, we should rid ourselves of any preconceived plots or systems. Instead of looking into the vacuum of our own mind, we should look to our neighbors and see the myriad desires all around us. You or I may have what we perceive to be as the perfect blueprint for anarchy in our heads, but all that is irrelevant once it comes time to enact it in the physical world…once other people get involved. Everyone around us is going to have different ideas and different desires, and to attempt to force others into a particular way of living would just end up ruling people as before.

We need to get rid of the rulers in our heads. We need to understand that real anarchy isn’t going to be some preconceived system that just gets put in place. It is going to be the voluntary work of us and those around us. We need to realize that the core of anarchy is going to be what we create with those around us…not the utopias we create in our minds. We need to see capitalism, communism, etc. for the systems of rule that they really are, and be willing to simply create anarchy with those around us.

There are 13 Comments

busy making too much sense, i see.
i don't have a medium account so i'll post my claps here.
for those who don't like this blurb, i like it not because it's a masterpiece of writing,
but because it's short and says things that often get drowned and don't get said often enough.
and because i agree, of course.

Yeah. I sometimes get cast as various types of anarchist when trying to discuss or address specific problems but ultimately, this stuff should be the default, no? For the non-urgent abstract problems, you can offer up some theory but as soon as you start chasing people around with it… HEY! GET BACK HERE AND LET ME BE PRESCRIPTIVE!

Performative contradiction: "My prescription is no prescriptions. My plan is no plan. My big idea is no big ideas."

Anarchy and even anarchism is simply not a societal form thus no prescriptions that scale to society nor a plan for a-or this-society. This has been the case since the likes of Novatore and Martucci laid it all out. Anarchy is asocietal.

but the point is who cares? If you have enough of an issue with contradiction that you are imposing logic on other people around you then become a detective! The universe doesn't make a whole lot of sense from a rationalistic standpoint, sure science has uncovered a good number of things, but there is a good deal that will refuse to be uncovered.

I'm fine with performative contradictions because the world isn't actually a stage.

Meh. I'm not worried about it. It's like saying "it is forbidden to forbid" or carrying a blag flag to attack the logic of flags. Keep a sense of humor and carry on.

The challenge is to live with more spontaneity, which doesn't mean one can't still plan what one is going to eat next week, or to do some future task, I mean to have that ability to live in the Now moment, which is what zen with a small z is all about.
When a certain threshold is reached where a majority of Now consciousnesses exist in a zone there possibly could be a tipping point when the unimaginable happens and for fleeting flashes a temporary anarch society occurs. Like the moment a football team scores, but instead of it being an occasional goal, its scoring continuously because there is no opposition or binary resistance existing in the arena.

The writer tells people what to do, which is not to tell people what to do. It is not authoritarian, apparently, to advocate "anarchism" but very authoritarian to advocate "anarchist-socialism." To try to persuade people of your ideas is apparently the same thing as "telling people what to do." Working together with others is good, unless you have an idea of what the group should do. And so on. Of course Sir Einzige agrees, even though Z has a complex theory of anarchism, what it is and how to achieve it. Personally I don't feel that I have "all the answers" (and I have changed my views more often than I like to admit!) but it strange to glory in knowing nothing and having no idea what to do (because if you have an idea of what to do, you are dictating to others, so you tell others not to have any ideas about what to do).

Oh well Wayne, spontaneous individualists don't have these problems, they have all the answers in the autonomous bundle of walking sovereignty.

All anarchist polyecon schemes need to be implemented and this is where the tell you what to do comes from. Anarchy is fundamentally a power diffusing exit based discourse not a voice or loyalty based discourse(Hirschman). The strategy of libertarians, anarchists and anarchs needs to be driven by a discursive exist strategy.

I have no idea what Z is talking about. Who is Hirschman? Not that I care.

As I wrote recently on this site, I share the view of Errico Malatesta, that after a revolution (the popular overturning of the state and capitalist class) there will be popular experimentation, pluralism, and decentralism. On various social problems and tasks, people will try out different methods of organizing and dealing with them, with no pre-planned orthodoxy. This is not the same thing as what the author is talking about.

Well Wayne, one of the biggest problems you and other leftists like you face is that you still believe in and hope for and count on a “popular overturning of the state and the capitalist class” as some distinct and discrete series of apocalyptic events with a beginning, middle, and perhaps end (which presumably would be the irreversible suppression of the political and economic power of the capitalist class, where it breathes its last collective gasp under the crushing force of the Revolutionary Subject). You can cite Malatesta (his name be praised) all you want about the lack of a pre-planned configuration of a post-revolutionary society, but the trouble with that is that this agnosticism, mixed with the aforementioned apocalypticism, is always going to be greeted with skepticism and derision. As much as it pains me to say, your schemes were more tenable back when you were in the RSL.

no, you don't get it
protests are exciting now
because now they have l a s e r s
there's hope cuz tesla's cybertrukkk is vulnerable to rocks
and when tesla goes all skynet on the good guys TM, that'll be relevant
neo-bonnot gang will hack teslas and they'll do the drive-bys into banks
and uh sarcasm and uh

yo, do you ever think of stuff? thoughts are running out of things to be thunked
it'd be like a uh memory is short and people will start from square one over and over and repeat and then time runs out and it was a run and it ran out but u ran out first so uh you know it'd be like a uh thing

yo the mass critical hyper tipping point final straw neo-camel's back trends bubbles key strategy tactic will be so surprisive and effective and will blow fish out of water in barrel that it'd be a big win victory so absolute and epic all blabber will be redeemed and retroactive ecstasy will be infused into bored corpses

Add new comment