Anarchy, Anarchists + Personal Paths To Freedom 🏴
I'm grateful to @lasseehlers for writing the following comment on this post:
I am a fan of the anarchistic philosophy or ideology, or what ever the movement call it... but to call yourself an anarchist, I must see as false in the world of today... here is why:
The house or apartment you live in are registered and somehow connected to the state / statism and so goes for many other things that you use for maintaining a live of today (unless you live in the forest and don't use any technology).
I could be wrong, so please correct me if I am wrong, I just think that it is:
"false" to call yourself or any other an anarchist, when you still are depending on statism.
I believe in the idea of anarchism and I think that crypto currencies and blockchains can lead to an anarchistic society, but until we have those systems fully developed, there exists no anarchists in the world of today (but you can be a messenger of the anarchistic ideas, but it is not the same as being an anarchist).
Please please, tell me if you agree or think that I lost reality completely :9) ? :).---
Respectfully, I do not agree, @lasseehlers.
A basic definition of anarchist is: "a person who rebels against any authority, established order, or ruling power."
What's debatable about that? That definition is not only entirely achievable, it is already widely demonstrated.
You said, "there exists no anarchists in the world of today."
When comparing these two statements about anarchists, I can only conclude that the dictionary and you, are not using the word the same way.
Duress is not dependency.
I just think that it is "false" to call yourself or any other an anarchist, when you still are depending on statism.
"depending on statism"? Mmm, no. Hardly. I do depend, though, on good clarification of terms!
DEPEND: be controlled or determined by; rely on.
DURESS: threats, violence, constraints, or other action brought to bear on someone to do something against their will or better judgment; forcible restraint or imprisonment.
Duress is a badge of sadists.
Governments have the sanctioned ability to coerce, violently force, and threaten its citizens at gunpoint. This duress is also the mirror that reveals the true, abusive, tyrannical engine that powers government.
People who comply with the rules and registrations of their house or apartment are FORCED to do so. Many of the rules are likely dumb, and they probably bottleneck progress and efficiency.
What happens when someone does not remove unapproved solar panels... or they install an unapproved water catchment system? A sheriff-escorted eviction will eventually await them. If not incarceration, for their contempt of foolishness.
Which came first, the chicken, or the egg?
before anarchists can legitimately call themselves such.
But who will anarchy come through... if not anarchists??
🤦
Anarchists PRECEDE anarchy.
Straight lines. Meh.
Aesthetics aside, no rulers needed or wanted!
What's false, is the surrender of innate freedom and life-force.
Any human who has even partially recalled the true state of their nature, cannot put themselves back in the stocks and bonds from which they escaped.
Everyone's path is unique and personal to them (yes, like a snowflake!)
No person, ideology, or movement has proprietary ownership of something as mighty and wondrous as FREEDOM. So, first, maybe we all could be refreshed by that. If it can be reduced to bite-sized, economic-kibble or political-bits, it is a derivative of freedom.
The SOURCE of a thing, is always better, purer, and more excellent than the secondary and tertiary things, that eventually come to be derived from the primary thing. Whenever possible, go for the primary thing.
When you connect with the Source of Freedom -- HOWEVER that happens for you, and WHATEVER you call that process -- you will also + immediately be at odds with many laws and customs of The Land, because The Land is currently governed by rules and forces that oppose life, and peaceful liberty.
When you stand for life, you become a peaceful warrior.
The work, is in the standing. And, the speaking.
Speaking things, as they should be, now.
The person who is connected to the Source of Freedom,
remembered that it was their birthright all along.
They grow into the sovereignty within them.
Eventually, their outer life aligns with the freedom
of their inner life, and they break through.
There are pioneers of freedom all over the world.
Who knows... your future self might be one, too! ;-)
Anarchy looks like an external thing, but it sparks internally.
Anarchy -- a desirable (versus disorderly) state of rulerlessness --
starts its freeing work in our mind.
It usually starts after we see, hear, read, sense, remember or understand something...
that puts a severe crack in a dishonest foundation we'd previously built upon.
It needed to be cracked.
Cognitive dissonance comes.
Collapse. Rebuild.
Paradigms, vows, businesses, friendships, identities.
Everything gets shaken.
What's false, falls. What's true, remains.
It's easy enough to get sorted,
but it does come with some quake.
The only way I see us getting "those fully developed (anarchistic) systems in place..." is by enough of us becoming a person who refuses to empower or obey immoral laws.
Maturing as a sovereign being, brings us into occasional conflict... with ourselves, with others, and with a lot of our foundational beliefs.
Many of the beliefs that we took as our own Operating System, were an unhealthy, unexamined blend of myths, manipulation and mass socialization/domestication.
It's not easy or stress-free... toggling between what is "right and moral" and what is "legal and immoral."
It means being able to see the nobility of certain disobedience.
It means not waiting for "others" to start the show.
It means looking in the mirror... and seeing the show-starter right there!
@lasseehlers: Thank you, again, for asking such a stimulating question!
I look forward to hearing what you think about this response.
Don't miss: ---> HempCoin Series #2: Visionary Crypto-Developers Needed
Dear @erikaharris , I have called myself an anarchist for many years, but my experience tells me that it is not true to call yourself an anarchist if you rely on any statism system.
Let me ask you a few questions to illustrate what I mean:
"Where do you live? In an apartment or house registered by the mexican government?"
"Do you ever use mexican peso?"
I believe that if you answer yes to any or all of these questions, then it is false to call yourself an anarchist.
Again the day we have housing on the blockchain and crypto currencies (private, not government or banks) are more adopted, then maybe it is possible to live as an anarchist.
I am very interested in your view on this, since it is a question that bothers me a lot.
Thank you for this, @erikaharris. Your effective and successful effort at clarification here is much appreciated by Voluntaryists everywhere! Resteemed.
Big thanks + love for that, @kafkanarchy84! :-)
Personally I think anarchism is just an idea that will not get anywhere, hell it's been around for nearly two centuries and nothing has come out of it. Of course you can be an anarchist, but for that you would have to go live somewhere where you will be by yourself, because the definition of anarchy is no hierarchies and in the world we live in that is just not possible, just look at one of the statements above, I believe crypto currencies and the blockchain can lead to anarchist society, that is funny, crypto is based on hierarchies the ones who have more are the ones who control it, as for the block chain it also can be controlled, despite the many times I've read about it being hack free, it is being hacked all the time. No, Anarchy is a nice idea but like most nice ideas it is also a chimera.
Mmp! Great push-back, @gduran. Okay, let's say you're right... anarchy IS a chimera. One big, fat illusion with no pragmatic potential. I don't believe that, of course, but just to explore your reality... let's say anarchy is a pipedream... my response to that is:
Who/what do we become while sustaining a belief in the possibility of anarchy? How does a person behave, when they have accepted full responsibility for themselves? What is the character like of someone who honors the Non-Aggression Principle?
Holding anarchy as an ideal, influences us to be more resilient, generative, moral people. Holding statism as an ideal stunts growth and retards motivation.
But are those the only choices?
Yes. None other!
Haha, of course there are other choices.
I'd love to see how they stand up to those questions, too!
Does anarchy hold a non aggression principle? I don't think so, in fact the history of anarchy is a history of aggression, McKinley is an example, but better look at this: http://listverse.com/2014/05/04/10-acts-of-anarchist-terrorism-that-shocked-the-world/, no anarchism is not a peace loving movement, like I told you anarchists can live an anarchist life but only if they are really separate from everybody else. You see you can have ideas but the events that can be the outcome of these ideas are the problems, you present only the bright side of things, the ugly parts are left out.
There is no anarchism without the non-aggession-principle. Why? Because initiation of force is the basis for ruling others. No rulers means no initiation of force. I think anarchism is probably not what you think it is. From your own link:
'Proudhon himself did not advocate violence, and few anarchists were bomb-throwers. But desperate individuals heard the propaganda and took it upon themselves to strike against entrenched privilege.'
The Internet + Anarchy + Crypto + Goodwill Toward Men
Has been around about 10 years now.
WE SHALL SEE how well it does my friend, we shall see.
Goodwill has been around for ages, only not all practice it. And besides this goodwill toward men is mostly a biblical precept, if you look into anarchy you will find most anarchists are atheists, I mean how can someone who despises government be ok with a heavenly government?
MIND is like a parachute; it won't work if it's not open!
All ideologies are utopian. To suggest any other ideal than anarchism/self-governance is suggesting that using force is necessary. The idea that you have to in live separate from everyone else if you want to be an anarchist is silly because you are assuming the utilitarian aspects must be achieved in order for an ideal to be lived by. If this was the case, nobody would be living anywhere as all dogmas and collectivist ideologies people hold eventually fail.
I think people get caught up in the "utilitarian trap" as they think it's a requirement of an ideal to be possible for the most amount of people at a given time. Nothing works like that, in actuality, I believe anarchism is the most pragmatic of all utopias.
But you do have to live isolated to be an anarchist, nothig silly in that, in this type of situation you have to be pragmatci, humans are socila animals and anrchism doesn't fit in with a society, because we all either need a leader or hopefully are leaders in either case you are not an anarchist.
Ever heard of philosophical anarchism?
Philosophical anarchism is an anarchist school of thought which holds that the state lacks moral legitimacy while not supporting violence to eliminate it.
So how are you going to eliminate the state? Look I see a lot of older people here, most from first world countries who rely on their state pensions to live on, yet these guys are the most enthusiastic anarchists, do you think they are willing to forfeit there pensions as long as government cease to exist? So who is going to bring down the state, manifestos, or a lot of articles on a small social media? Like they say if you're going to talk the talk you've got to walk the walk.
You don't eliminate it, you let it fall; the State comes down on its own. It happens time and time again throughout history.
And time and time the state comes back, you just have to look at history it has been a back to back history of state after state, each with a different ideology you have Egypt, then Babylonians, Persians, Greeks, Romans, Chinese, Japanese, European kingdoms until the modern day, democracies, communist, socialist etc, every time a state with a government that feeds off of the people shows up, anarchy I think has about 180 years as an idea and it has never passed that stage it is still only an idea. A snail moves faster than anarchy.
Most things you do on a day to day basis are voluntary, not forced. Anarchismus (Voluntarism) aims only at finally getting rid of the force and sanctioned violence still left in our lives. The world is way more Anarchist than it seems, friend.
I think there is some marge in how people define anarchism, but that it is foremost an ideology, so I agree with that standpoint. However, saying; "a person who rebels against any authority, established order, or ruling power" is to be an anarchist, I disagree. Anarachy is being against the fundamentals of hierachy itself, so rebelling towards a particilar authorithy doesn't necessarily apply you're an anarchist.
I think this depends on your flavor of anarchy. Yes, some flavors are against all hierarchy. My flavor (Voluntaryism), however, is ok with hierarchy that is voluntary in nature. So if i voluntarily choose to work for someone and voluntarily agree to do the tasks they ask me to do, then from my perspective, there is no coercion in the relationship, so that particular hietarchy is ok.
Nice! Another great distinction, @scottermonkey. Thanks. :-) As you said, there are many flavors of anarchy, and I'd never find delight or meaning in splitting hairs among them, lol.
The main purpose of my post is just to object to the idea that anarchists (of any kind), do not exist unless/until anarchy is the established way.
^^ That's what I understood @lasseehlers' point to be, and that's what I wanted to challenge.
But that would not be anarchy, it might be a good idea but it holds not one of the precepts of what anarchy is, anarchy is the enemy of capitalism and any other form of organized groups, if you want to talk about voluntaryism OK, but don't call it anarchy, because you are not making much sense, anarchy is implicitly the absence of hierarchies, and that is impossible to find in a human society.
@gduran: I'm saying anarchists + voluntaryists have the existential right to refer to themselves as anarchists + voluntaryists, WHILE dismantling hierarchies... AS they influence events toward a more free way.
We don't have to wait 2 generations, or deny what we are, until all states have been overthrown, to make the truthful statement that: "I'm an anarchist."
The veracity comes from the anarchist's reclaimed mind... not the blessing or toppling of the thing renounced! The truth is user-generated, and that's what liberates.
In hindsight, it's a small thing to contest. But good thought and convo has been stirred, so nothing's wasted.
Exactly, you can think it, but there is no action behind it, ergo nothing happens.
Thanks, @droucil. That's a great clarification. I hope more are made, because I was very general throughout.
This deserves some attention. Upvoted and resteemed :)
I appreciate that very much, @taylor.swift! Thank you :-)
Wow, thanks for the post discussion @ericaharris, I have been trying to understand the meaning of the Tag anarchy. This gives me idea's to contemplate..
@quantummonks, it goes way beyond tags :-)
That's an excellent explanation @erikaharris, thanks. That's given me quantum leap in understanding , I will be reading your future posts with interest. ))
Very Nice.
That last sentence, hahahaha.
So I am co-guilty for the (what he calls) violence (that may occur in the future), if I don't help him pay the rent?
@erikaharris , to help get an idea, of where I fit with Anarchism, would you be kind enough to check my post and give me an idea.. )) https://steemit.com/life/@quantummonks/i-d-rather-be-a-king-eating-caviar-than
@erikaharris you're pretty much right.
@lasseehlers seems to be confusing technology and the infrastructure derived from it with technology. That's incorrect.
Technology is, has, and always will be invented by people. Groups (states) might finance it but it's the individuals that do the innovation and creation.
Fun fact...both governments AND groups are getting more powerful...however individuals are getting more powerful at a faster rate. If the trend continues at some point individuals (or small groups) will be as powerful, and eventually MORE powerful, than governments.
It's already happening. Today's multi-billionaires are more powerful than many nations of the not too distant past.
The rich are getting richer...and the poor are getting richer too...
I so resteemed this!
I've always rebelled against my family. Would you call it anarchy?
@superstar2018, if you have to ask... I'd guess, no.
(That might sound snarky, but none is intended.)
With the upcoming elections in Germany and the revival of the far right, many of my friends urge me to vote, but I refuse since to vote means to legitimize the current system of rulership.
It has been argued that the refusal of the Spanish anarchists to take part in the power games of the Spanish Republic lead to their defeat, but as an anarchist you cannot take part in something you regard as utterly wrong, even if that refusal leads to your downfall, because if you would, you would have let yourself down and this is the worst defeat.
For me, the understanding that humans ruling humans is morally wrong and therefore the refusal of the masses to accept the authority of the state and its institutions is the paradigm shift which is needed for humanity to reach a new level of enlightenment. Like the renaissance which started the movement to free us from the grips of superstition and religion by explaining certain phenomena with the tools of science and rational thinking, a process which still continues today, we need a movement to enlighten the people about the absurdity of stastism. When people are really grown-up, they will understand that they don´t need Vater Staat (Father State), as we call it in Germany, any longer, that they can rule themselves on the basis of voluntary agreements.
We Germans have shown the world where blind belief in state, government and authority can lead to, but I take solace in the fact that some of the most profound thinkers and philosophers of anarchism were also Germans.
Ni dieu ni maitre, pas l´etat!