That’s not what anarchism is. It’s just what I currently think of when discussing anarchism. Anarchism is nothing more than opposition to authority. And while there are common beliefs there is no single understanding of what exactly that means or looks like.
The reason it seems utopian is because our current society rewards selfishness and greed, so it feels like a society that doesn’t seem to regulate them is missing something. Anarchism regulates them by using social pressure.
Anarchism regulates them by using social pressure.
That’s what all post-capitalist forms of socioeconomic organization aim to do anyways, so it is a necessary step
I was referring to this part of your comment:
As more and more anarchist systems start popping up (although this is probably never going to happen) this would transform to a more independent/self-sustaining system. But what that system looks like doesn’t really matter, because whatever it is will be determined by the ones who make it.
I don’t want to speak on whether anarchism as a concept is possible or not—it can be depending on material realities—I’m more speaking to your concept of “that system will be established if and when more anarchies pop up (which you’re skeptical of yourself)”. So my question is this:
What’s to be done in the interim? You’ve acknowledged that multiple anarchic communes are highly unlikely to spring up anytime soon, so how do you get there?
Getting people involved. Creating spaces where anarchic relations are the norm, and letting these spaces naturally grow, split and transform. What I’m talking about isn’t a single political system that people follow but rather a different way to approach everyday interactions with each other. It’s not “we need to take over factories and farms and start establishing collective production and ownership”. It’s “we need to create anarchic connections with the people who work in the farms and factories and build relationships to exchange resources among ourselves without money”. I don’t advocate for the destruction of the state because the path I want to take to anarchism ignores the state entirely. (or at least until they start shooting at me).
That’s not what anarchism is. It’s just what I currently think of when discussing anarchism. Anarchism is nothing more than opposition to authority. And while there are common beliefs there is no single understanding of what exactly that means or looks like.
The reason it seems utopian is because our current society rewards selfishness and greed, so it feels like a society that doesn’t seem to regulate them is missing something. Anarchism regulates them by using social pressure.
That’s what all post-capitalist forms of socioeconomic organization aim to do anyways, so it is a necessary step
I was referring to this part of your comment:
I don’t want to speak on whether anarchism as a concept is possible or not—it can be depending on material realities—I’m more speaking to your concept of “that system will be established if and when more anarchies pop up (which you’re skeptical of yourself)”. So my question is this:
What’s to be done in the interim? You’ve acknowledged that multiple anarchic communes are highly unlikely to spring up anytime soon, so how do you get there?
What exactly are you advocating for really?
Getting people involved. Creating spaces where anarchic relations are the norm, and letting these spaces naturally grow, split and transform. What I’m talking about isn’t a single political system that people follow but rather a different way to approach everyday interactions with each other. It’s not “we need to take over factories and farms and start establishing collective production and ownership”. It’s “we need to create anarchic connections with the people who work in the farms and factories and build relationships to exchange resources among ourselves without money”. I don’t advocate for the destruction of the state because the path I want to take to anarchism ignores the state entirely. (or at least until they start shooting at me).