Anarchism is Deeply, Intimately Personal

in anarchism •  2 years ago

join-the-resistance-fall-in-love copy

Being an anarchist is not just a catchy and trendy, temporary way of life; nor is it a passing fancy or a cool philosophy to use for the sake of winning arguments.

Anarchism is deeply, intimately personal.

I chose anarchism because I do not believe I should have to obey someone for the sake of obeying. I chose it because I know "government authority" is a useless and dangerous concept, which only gets innocent people caged, harmed or killed. I chose anarchism because I enjoy independence, because I loathe the idea of being ruled, and because I acknowledge that freedom from institutional and social violence leads to happiness and love. I chose it because I believe people are innately free, that they have the power and decency to live their own life and solve their own problems, without a perpetual father figure looming over and judging their decisions.

Anarchism, under this light, is more than a philosophy; it is the soul and fire of the authentic person.

Anarchism denotes a spirit and strength of character that other philosophies fail to discern, that other people fail to grasp or care about. Anarchism screams acceptance of humanity, and it declares all individuals as totally sovereign, only governable by the will and moral compass of their own passions.

To not accept anarchism, then, is to throw oneself down at the alter of slavery, and insert oneself into a kind of hell on earth.

order not chaos

 

Authors get paid when people like you upvote their post.
If you enjoyed what you read here, create your account today and start earning FREE STEEM!
Sort Order:  

Thank you for the article Sterlin lately I find myself so conflicted over the philosophy I choice to believe in. Part of me still wants to believe in government and the idea of selfless government for the people by the people. The other part of me is torn and realize that is just a dream and should actively be seeking ways to escape government rule. Your article just reinforces that there is a another way and that helps in more ways then you know.

·

What you want to believe in could be the need for law and order. Like anything, if the government monopolizes something, you don't get to see what the voluntary solution would be. So if we had voluntary courts and defense, it might seem like the "government" that you feel like you want.

It's my belief that a robust, p2p ratings platform will one day be what "governs" the world. But you enter it voluntarily because you want to be able to show your reputation to people.

I agree with Sterlin about argumentation. It can be a fine exercise, and occasionally it might be useful, but it won't be what frees the world. Actions and feelings and more people living with the attitude that nobody owns each other is more powerful.

·

No problem, brother. Thanks as usual for your engagement. I also absolutely believe that there are more ways to get people involved in anarchism without necessarily engaging in raw argumentation. My goal here was to simply show how intimate and self-involved in can be. I have said that anarchism is apolitical many times, and I stand by that statement.

·
·

Well I think this article definitely succeeded in that goal my friend. Congrats on your success on this platform again seems your work is really starting to catch fire as I knew it would! It really makes me happy that people like you can be rewarded handsomely for spreading a simple but very powerful messages in these tough times thank you technology!

Very good post. I think that a lot of young anarchist confuse anarchism with anarchy, the second term being used to describe a state of chaos where the law of the jungle is the only law.

·

My personal opinion is that both come from the original Greek root words, "an" and "archos." "An" means without, and "archos: refers to rulers. So just "without rulers." Therefore, in my mind, any bit of baggage that gets added to the definition along the way is merely connotation.

But I can see why you might see personal differences between the two. In either case, thank you for posting on my wall and following my posts.

Thank you. I believe if we come to see a world of enlightened individuals - anarchy will be inevitable. There is no need to destroy the establishment - gently ditching it for a better option is all it takes, and it is definitely happening

Ya know, I've been trying to save up my voting power... but this gets an up, for sure!

It feels like this is just the tip of the iceberg you've posted. and I mean that in a positive way! Have you read John Zerzans work?

·

I am not familiar with Zerzan. Maybe you can give me a brief breakdown of his ideas?

·
·

John Zerzan is one of the very few that truly understands anarchy. He sees all man made systems of rule as unsustainable and unethical and looks to Nature as a model for forming a rule free culture.

In a comment above, you stated that anarchy means "without rulers". It actually means "without rules". This is in reference to man's rules and not just the "leaders" that create and enforce them. The reason for this is that man's rules can always be broken by psychopaths and sociopaths because they're not scared of the consequences of cheating. This means that in any system dependent upon man's rules, psychopaths will rise to the top of the power structure and explains the mess our species is in today.

Zerzan has figured this out and realizes that the only rules that man can't break are Nature's rules. If you over fish the river, you either starve, move, or breed less. If you rape a man's wife, he's probably going to kill you. If you fall, it hurts. He advocates a full return to hunter/gatherer lifestyles as they are solely governed by Nature's autonomous resource based economy. I'm with him but differ in that I believe that we can integrate diy green tech and repurposing of civ's waste into the lifestyle so things like the communication and health issues that the hunter gatherers of the past struggled with aren't an issue.

I've been studying anarchism for 30 years but only started to live it about three years ago when I started living nomadically full time, using gift economy, freeganism, bushcraft/primitive skills, and scavenging civ's waste to meet my needs. Despite a broken neck and worn out body and only having a few friends minimally participating in gift economy with me, I'm happier, healthier, and more free than I've ever been. I'm actually making slow progress on diy green tech inventions as well.

I very occasionally use money, just to make things happen a little faster but I feel terrible about it whenever I do because I know that by valuing money, I am strengthening a man made rule/slavery system and going against my ethics. I keep telling myself that I'll go completely money free once I finish some inventions and buy a few acres to use as a home base. Buying/owning land is something I really don't believe in either but civilization doesn't respect feral human rights so I don't have much choice if I want any kind of stability. I won't be doing any development on my land though, just camping and storing some supplies underground. I'm buying the land to preserve it so that's how I can justify it and still sleep at night.

If you're not a green anarchist yet, if you truly believe in anarchy and can follow the logic to the end, you'll be a green anarchist someday because any other lifestyle ends up creating archy.

This article I wrote might explain a little better:
https://steemit.com/anarchism/@apocaloptimisto/how-and-why-government-exists

Excellent article. I'm a touch more libertarian, but sprinkled with some anarchism.

·

Thanks Condra. Glad you have some anarchism sprinkled in there.

·

I'm so happy to see someone actually acknowledge that there's a difference!