The extremists in the anarchist movement are the ones who pretend everyone would just work together fine and self-organize if there was no government at all, aren’t they? Or am I thinking of a different group.
Those aren’t extremists, they’re children. I’m not saying that as an insult, I mean it literally.
Actual, practicing anarchists are extremely bureaucratic. Ironically, anarchy in practice produces large, democratic governments that change slowly. Hilariously, a small republican government is best suited for making rapid progress. Note the lower case (d) and (r) - I’m referring to ideology, and not political parties.
Anarchists create institutions that reflect democratic values, and when everyone must be given a chance to have a say, meetings are huge and take for-fucking-ever (speaking from lived commune experience here). Cliques and factions form and work together to shut down proposals they don’t like. Its actually a very conservative ideology - nothing changes quickly.
Very fair points and thanks for the acknowledgement that those who think that abolishing political structures will solve everything are not really ideological extremists but, at best, extremely naïve and in need of personal growth.
There are so many flavors but, without some form of non-democratic structure (or, I don’t know, high-speed telepathy?), rapid change is indeed not readily possible in most anarchic systems, without a unifying external force like a disaster. I don’t think that that’s necessarily a bad thing though. In current social structures, the populace has been forced to go faster and be more productive so that the ultra-wealthy and others high in the socioeconomic hierarchy can enjoy their leisure. A lot of people suffering from mental health problems rooted in stress and anxiety would be greatly benefited by this changing.
I’d say that those “extremists” are more likely people who are young (either biologically or in exposure to anarchic philosophy) and a bit naïve. They may have their heart in the right place from the perspective of those of us who have been about for a while but, likely are lacking in real-world experience with anarchic social circles and challenges that they have (wreckers, narcissists, cliques, etc).
What you’re mentioning is more of the shallow view of anarchism that’s most frequently portrayed as the alternative to the other popular Mad Max view that right-of-center groups like to use to portray “anarchy”. Neither are great at showing the full gamut of anarchic philosophy nor particularly accurate portrayals of extant or historical approaches to non-hierarchical societies.
The extremists in the anarchist movement are the ones who pretend everyone would just work together fine and self-organize if there was no government at all, aren’t they? Or am I thinking of a different group.
Those aren’t extremists, they’re children. I’m not saying that as an insult, I mean it literally.
Actual, practicing anarchists are extremely bureaucratic. Ironically, anarchy in practice produces large, democratic governments that change slowly. Hilariously, a small republican government is best suited for making rapid progress. Note the lower case (d) and (r) - I’m referring to ideology, and not political parties.
Anarchists create institutions that reflect democratic values, and when everyone must be given a chance to have a say, meetings are huge and take for-fucking-ever (speaking from lived commune experience here). Cliques and factions form and work together to shut down proposals they don’t like. Its actually a very conservative ideology - nothing changes quickly.
Very fair points and thanks for the acknowledgement that those who think that abolishing political structures will solve everything are not really ideological extremists but, at best, extremely naïve and in need of personal growth.
There are so many flavors but, without some form of non-democratic structure (or, I don’t know, high-speed telepathy?), rapid change is indeed not readily possible in most anarchic systems, without a unifying external force like a disaster. I don’t think that that’s necessarily a bad thing though. In current social structures, the populace has been forced to go faster and be more productive so that the ultra-wealthy and others high in the socioeconomic hierarchy can enjoy their leisure. A lot of people suffering from mental health problems rooted in stress and anxiety would be greatly benefited by this changing.
I’d say that those “extremists” are more likely people who are young (either biologically or in exposure to anarchic philosophy) and a bit naïve. They may have their heart in the right place from the perspective of those of us who have been about for a while but, likely are lacking in real-world experience with anarchic social circles and challenges that they have (wreckers, narcissists, cliques, etc).
What you’re mentioning is more of the shallow view of anarchism that’s most frequently portrayed as the alternative to the other popular Mad Max view that right-of-center groups like to use to portray “anarchy”. Neither are great at showing the full gamut of anarchic philosophy nor particularly accurate portrayals of extant or historical approaches to non-hierarchical societies.