> I get it, I'm an anarchist
You may need to read up the definition of that word
You may need to read up the definition of that word
Respect to my anarchist comrades who are all or nothing, but I recognize the current system we live in, and I'm not going to throw away the useful tools before replacing them.
Big https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/001/330/819/e47... energy.
Obviously that anarchism means, being opposed to all government activity, regulation and rules, so he cannot call him an anarchist if he wants rules for a river. But the thing with anarchism is, that there is not really a authorative definition accepted and in use ..
Sure there is:
anarchism (n.) "political doctrine advocating leaderlessness," 1640s; see anarchy + -ism.
anarchy (n.) 1530s, "absence of government," from French anarchie or directly from Medieval Latin anarchia, from Greek anarkhia "lack of a leader, the state of people without a government" (in Athens, used of the Year of Thirty Tyrants, 404 B.C., when there was no archon), abstract noun from anarkhos "rulerless," from an- "without" (see an- (1)) + arkhos "leader" (see archon).
(In my opinion, there is allmost no anarchist opposed to all authority - they might say so, but only because they negate the existence of informal hierachies and do not consider collectivism (theft) as a shape of authority for instance. Lots of hypocrisy going on there, but there are self aware and righteous folks among them)
The idea of the peaceful anarchism like gandhi represented is, to convince people to just stop following unjust orders. No need for genocide this way and he showed, that this can work sometimes.
The problem I see rather with the natural developing of informal hierachies in group dynamics. In other words, there will be leaders, even if they say everyone is equal.
Well, I kind of tried that method for some time, but for some reasons I was not able to avoid confusion. Maybe because people care more about what a word means to them today and not what it meant 2000 years ago?
Try instead, "a society free from unjust hierarchies". Most anarchists are comfortable with the idea of democracy, elections, and delegation of decision making. As long as it's consensual and democratic. Think of like, "hey, we need a treasurer to manage the finances".
Anarchism is not a unified idea. Anarcho syndicalism is different from Anarcho communism is different from Anarcho socialism.
What would be a just hierarchie?
"Most anarchists are comfortable with the idea of democracy, elections, and delegation of decision making. As long as it's consensual and democratic"
Most anarchists I met, not so much. Till the extreme point of "anarchists don't vote". Not even in a small group. There is a consensus or there is no decision.
I like the idea of doing things in a consensus. But only one person in a bad mood can then block everything. But when you remove that person, it is not really a democratic consensus anymore, but majority rule .. which is fine by me, but is probably not "pure anarchism" anymore.
I think incrementalism is a dead end too - at some point we need to make some hard cuts away from current systems, but it's self defeating to not acknowledge the material reality in front of us.
"we are working with a federation composed of 40 other anarchist groups. We elect a delegate and delegate small decisions to them, and they can be removed easily by the group."
"We have a safety officer on the factory floor who has the power to stop the work of others if there's a concern. They can be replaced easily"
"A teacher removing students who are disruptive to learning, but finding them alternative learning models."
An unjust hierarchy is when one person has power over another for no reason and whose power is self reinforcing or permanent. (A wealthy capitalist has more power, and gains power faster than a factory worker.)
I can imagine a society built on mutual aid, and I practice that everywhere I can. But I have access to tools today. I can vote, I can use my voice to influence the government. What's my alternative, given the reality of today? Convert everyone asking the Colorado river to council communists before the river dries up?
My tool box isn't perfect, but it has some good tools in it. Many of them I'd ideally get rid of and replace, but I'm not going to ignore the tools I have until I replace them with better ones.
Building mutual aid networks locally, first and foremost. We help us, we protect us. Think food, clothing, and shelter for anyone in need.
Advocate for harm reduction. Given there are a lot of systemic problems that will take years to unwind, it's important to offset those harms, even if it's not your ultimate goal. I vote. It takes me ten minutes, it reduces the harm by electing progressive politicians who might be able to lower the power of capital. That doesn't make me not an anarchist. I can hold an ideal and also recognize reality simultaneously.
Finally, anarchists educate. They are focused on teaching that anarchism isn't "the purge", it's a system built on the idea that every human deserves respect. We have the means to care for everyone and still enjoy some luxuries.
“Anarchism is a political philosophy and movement that is skeptical of all justifications for authority and seeks to abolish the institutions it claims maintain unnecessary coercion and hierarchy, typically including, though not necessarily limited to, governments, nation states, and capitalism”
You sound like you’re describing being a good neighbor. Which is good.
But I don’t see how it has any bearing on being an anarchist.
And encouraging the feds to step in to fix interstate water rights sounds very pragmatic, but the opposite of that political philosophy. Unless you’d expect it to weaken their power.
But we do have them. So using them as a tool, until we can replace them with something better, is fine.
And indeed, most anarchists are just "be a good neighbor, at scale".
State power can be useful, even if we both wish to be rid of it.
Im a communist who loves free markets!
Don't confuse ideals with immediate needs. My ideals, and what I'm willing to do today in the name of harm reduction aren't always aligned.
It's called "making compromises" and "using your judgement". A blindly dogmatic adherence to ones own idealism is a recipe for all talk but no material improvements.
So then what's with the insistence (and multiple reminders) of self-labelling as "anarchist"? Why not pragmatist, or harm-reducer, or just not labelling or categorizing yourself at all?
Hell look at Russia’s “shock therapy” transition to capitalism, we are seeing the very direct consequences of that to this day.