“What does Anarchy mean to you?” - @tribesteemup bi-weekly question

in #tribesteemup6 years ago

I spent most of my youth convinced by media and its misuse of the word, as well as the self-proclaimed anarchists that I met that anarchy meant destruction. The freedom to do whatever the hell you want, no rules whatsoever. This made little sense to me, not the part about no rules, “no rules” sounded great. But if everyone is doing whatever they want, what happens when there are conflicting interests.

Much later I become well acquainted with a sort of intentional community which had loosely formed out of a group of likeminded individuals during the Occupy movement. They were very much anarchist and they seemed to think that I was too, despite my efforts to deny it. What I came to understand through them is that we can align our interests through cooperation and trust so that our interests have no need to conflict. When we see ourselves as a part of the whole (yet still as empowered individuals) we are able to work towards our own benefit at the very same time that we work towards our own interests. This is what anarchy is truly about in my eyes, freedom in alignment.

Just a word

Words are sticky things, we all think that we agree on their meaning but we rarely do, and for political and social concepts even less so. A label is useful for trying to understand deeper concepts but to cling to that label is counterproductive, so I am still a bit hesitant to call myself anarchist but I do finally admit that it certainly fits me better than any other label. Not an-cap, not an-com, simply Anarchist. For some this may mean the absence of a state but for me it means without hierarchy. Perhaps the philosophy will have a more specific name for me but I’m not very interested in it.

Obviously in its pure form Anarchy will be without state, because state is hierarchical in nature, but it also extends to any structure or social norms which encourages hierarchy. That may also include a monetary system which allows the hoarding of resources or an overly influential “majority rules” mindset (not an-cap). I also do not believe that we should set our sights on forcing anyone to give up what has been designated as their property (not an-com) but that we do need structural change where resources are allowed to flow more freely towards the middle and the bottom.

This will not likely happen with an abrupt end to the state, we would require an “incubation period” where we could distance ourselves from the old culture of scarcity and new culture of abundance would be allowed to flourish. More of us organizing to form intentional communities is essential. Any laws that allow intentional communities to flourish (currently they are impeded in countless ways) would then be enough for everything else to play out naturally.

A natural flow

I believe in a natural flow of energy, and anarchy is merely a part of that natural equilibrium which we will inevitably reach when we’ve finished playing around with power structures and find them to be against our truest desires as a species. When resources and power are reserved and preserved for a limited amount of people, it creates instability in the world. Whether that power is maintained through physical force or systematic manipulation, it will always create instability. This instability may not always manifest as social unrest. It could manifest as wide-scale mental illness, an imbalance in the environment or destructive social norms. It may follow a long drawn out path, but nature always finds its equilibrium, we will eventually realize it is in our best interest to adapt.

I can only work to make sure we realize sooner rather than later to minimize the suffering we are inflicting on ourselves and our environment.

Where we go from here

This is not to say that I believe hierarchy is evil, it is simple against the natural flow of things, and therefore destructive by nature, non-sustainable in the longest of long terms. It’s part of a growing and learning process. It is a lesson in contrast, once we see what we don’t want, we can understand more clearly what we do want, and due to the intricacies of life and the wide variety of possible ways in which humans can come together, we have been taste testing a huge variety of systems and beliefs about life that are not exactly what we are looking for.

I do not believe that fighting against hierarchy directly will achieve much (self defense is different) because that “they are wrong, we are right attitude” is the same justification that is used to allow this kind of hierarchy to exist in the first place, it is exactly why we are fighting against each other. People do not trust each other and so we require someone in control with some system that they’ve sold us on, to protect us from each other. Ideas like “evil” are in itself counterproductive, humanity needs to see itself as unified in order to succeed and search for such unity through consensus (not majority rules) that can be worked towards rather than forced. Some people may be damaged to an extent that it is difficult for us to conceive that they may ever change, but rather than focus on these extreme cases, it serves us much better to focus on the regular people around us, our neighbors.

In order to fix things, trust needs to reign supreme, and not blind trust, but trust which is built over generations to mend the wounds caused by centuries of competition (much of which was forced upon us externally). Competition for survival may be moral in theoretical situations where there is lack, but this does not generally reflect the reality we live in. In most situations the “not enough” narrative is used as a tool for manipulation.

A network of strong communities that have strong bonds of trust and shared purpose within the community and a strong aversion towards violence and competition between communities will be required if we want anything to change on a fundamental level. This will obviously take time to build.

The “Eventualist” stance

This all may sound extremely idealistic to most people. I have to admit that it would require massive changes in our culture, and a lot of things to fall into place. I could conceive of all of this occurring within ten years but it could also take hundreds of years and many more distractions. For that reason I consider myself as an “eventualist” which as far as I know is a term I have coined for myself. It WILL happen, but how much suffering and running in circles will it take? That will be up to us.

It won’t take a majority of people understanding in order to set things in motion however, I believe they were set in motion in the 60’s and this has been reflected in the changing tones of our culture, all we need to do is insist on living in alignment with our own ideals shamelessly rather than trying to convince others.

For now, I would be more than content with a state whose policies reflected a philosophy in which their main purpose is to render themselves obsolete. Even a state in which we were free to explore these ideas openly would be a huge improvement. In the meantime, I would like to see more of us experiment outside of social norms with how we organize, how we exchange or even if we exchange, how we raise our children and how we interact with our environments. The more experimentation the better as long as peace and shared purpose are ideals. We also need to defend our right to experiment and do whatever we can within our means to ensure resources are more widely distributed, especially towards those who are open minded and interested in working together, otherwise none of this will be possible. This is necessary to counteract much of the manipulation done by those who do not have EVERYONES interests in mind. Crypto is a great tool and @tribesteemup is doing an amazing job with this!

These are my ideas but I do not own any of them, I trust that if you use any of them you will make an effort to support me through the channels I have left open, supporting my work on and off steemit.

-Pineapple


IMG_1406.JPG

Join the "Be Awesome" discord community

The Be Awesome discord chat, was created with the intention of making deeper connections with fellow steemians. Come talk about "deep shit" and make friends.

Join Steemit Community Catalyst discord

Come join us look for ways to help minnows grow organically and create a greater sense of community on steemit. #steemitzombies , #nobidbot , the Deadpost Initiative and more project chats inside.

Confessions of the Damaged - a collection of short stories

—-

If you like what I do and you have enough to spare, please consider becoming a patron on Patreon or sending some crypto gifts. Feel free to send me a message on discord if you need help raising your vibes or learning a language.

BTC 1HsHctHFoZucpjEY9NfE4SHUfEpCQwaDVc

​ETH 0x252c2641438709687aec16d42974fbc3952f88d8

​LTC Ldzq13WK1fTDZe9p7WvaQhqWyx8TWcweNx

—-
U5drTgnBQ2qzxT9o1kcF5PmjeLSEKi1_1680x8400.jpg
by @skyleap

Sort:  

I don't think hierarchies are unnatural, actually it should be reasonable to think that they are kind of simple and therefore logical, but it's a different hierarchy just like the media analogy.

Hierarchies of competence are actually quite natural, of course it's based on the group of people and their world view and mindsets, it can't really extend to the extent of institutions unless it's pretty base, sadly domination and subjugation are natural to humans as well, in this case people and groups that are too set on their goal/ideal/idea end up pushing their narrative the strongest, I would say with a different mindset there will be a different outcome.

So I do agree with your proposal :)

Like you, well, I tell myself I'm a contrarian if a thing exists :D hopefully it does, so I like arguing points against each other, just like a mental duel, to see which idea suits me better, if it works in my "world" I can practice it in the outside, if it works there, it's a good idea that works in the current state, if not it's a bad idea for the moment, but yeah I like exploring, so my political structure is pretty loose and baseless so far.

I like concepts, but I think people shouldn't be too set on things they don't understand, since I think if they did understand politics and economics, on a kind of fundamental root level, at least they would know where things are going, where they are and where they can take them, so at least it's a conscious decision, then comes the evil part, technically it should exist, there are just those kinds of people that would think of the options and do the one that divides and hurts the most, some of the time, that happens, is it evil, should it be punished, I don't know, I can't really judge for myself, but I'm divulging in too many topics.

I can say I agree to disagree and think more, "eventually we will be" doesn't suit me, I like doing.
I can't know what's best for everyone, but I do think they can individually find out for themselves.

I’m not saying that someone who obviously knows about housebuilding won’t have more weight in deciding how to build the houses, but their authority can come from the momentary need for their expertise and only apply to that particular situation and only if the group trusts their expertise more than their own collective judgement.

The problem isn’t that we have teachers and doctors. The problem is that we almost deify them and presume that no one could possibly know better without studying for years and receiving proper certification.

You just need 3-4 empowered people (meaning comfortable in their own skin and comfortable making important decisions) who trust each other and who really want to respect the opinions of each other who are willing to experiment with fluid leadership. It’s hard to find because it’s outside of people’s experiences, but I’ve seen it work extremely well on a small scale. Large scale solutions can come later, after we figure out how to restructure our communities.

But isn't hierarchy also established bottom up? I mean, it seems to me that most people WANT an authority to tell them what to do and promise them stability, safety, etc. It might be in our DNA. That's going to take a long time to change.

That doesn't mean it has to be a government, I guess. I can imagine a situation where a few come to a voluntary consensus and the rest just trust them and follow along. Kind of like how it works here with witness voting.

Absolutely, it is established from both directions, but the reason it is established from the bottom up is that we are convinced it is the only way to function productively. It will take a long time to change, and I don’t propose we abolish all forms of it, but rather experiment as we distance ourselves from old ways of thinking and continue to identify the beliefs that don’t serve us.

I love having a small group with fluid leadership, where who individuals can take center stage but if they are standing there too long, the group or the individual will allow someone else up there. This requires a few things, first and foremost is trust, but also a shared desire to respect others and not control and also to empower those who aren’t not yet comfortable being at the center of things. I’ve seen this work with groups of 30-40 people, I imagine if it became a ommon thing it could be experimented with to work with groups of over 100, I still can’t imagine it working with thousands of people but it’s a great start!

in nature hierarchy is a vital element, don't you think? a leader brings a singular voice to chaos and controls it. human beings took hierarchy to a different level but animals have it too.

sometimes concerted action is not possible without a top down approach.

well written article and i enjoyed reading it

I get what your saying, but I still would like to challenge this idea, I don’t think we should assume that it is the only way or that it is MORE natural than a non-hierarchical mode of interaction. In nature we see the appearance of “lack” and this may be what causes hierarchy to arise in the form of a “pack leader”.

I would also like to explore the idea of fluid leadership where a “leader” could be the one who holds the microphone and the microphone will constantly switch hands between all those ready to hold it, while we help those who are not yet ready to find themselves and get ready.

Nice..Thanks for sharing the information,

To listen to the audio version of this article click on the play image.

Brought to you by @tts. If you find it useful please consider upvoting this reply.

Societal collapse. There's a reason humans form governments we just need way better ones.

Is it such a bad thing for a society to collapse? I think that all unsustainable structures will naturally tend toward destruction. Personally I think that humans might actually have the capacity to spontaneously self govern and manage our own sovereignty, our need for governments may just be an inherited and programmed need that has made us weak and dependent

I agree that many of us will be able to self govern, but I don’t believe that all will and those who’s won’t could easily create huge problems for the rest of us. I think the best possible way forward would be a massive increase in the amount of people building intentional communities and government which appreciates the experimentive nature of such communities, while those who want to opt for the old way of life have the option, it will probably seem more lucrative to stay in society at first and so the most selfish among us will stay there.

Not saying this is the only way forward but it seems like the most productive to me. A break from traditional media, banking and education would be the first step and we are basically at the start of that.

Coin Marketplace

STEEM 0.15
TRX 0.12
JST 0.026
BTC 56787.81
ETH 2507.96
USDT 1.00
SBD 2.24