Anarchism... Ideological or Impractical?

[MilitantAnarchist]

I have just had a very long discussion down the pub with certain individuals about anarchism and politics in general...
I class myself as an anarchist, and was obviously sticking up for my beliefs. Unfortunatly, i didn't do a very good job, alot on my mind and a sore throat hindered me and i couldnt answer properly, but EVERYONE was jumping down my neck, and all the people could say was 'anarchy means chaos, everyone would rape and kill eachother, it is terrible, how can you advocate that' and no matter how much i told them it wasnt that, they wouldnt listen.
I explained it is anti-oppression, it is about unity and freedom, equality and peace, anti-state and anti-capitalist.... but nobody seemed to listen...
Obviously I am biast towards Anarchism, and they aren't because nobody understands or will even listen to Anarchists due to stereotypical bollocks we all know and face....
Does this make Anarchism just a beautiful ideal that is impractical to the general public?

[Stranger Than Paradise]

Man I hate it when people are like that. It has happened to me many times comrade. It doesn't say anything about the impracticality of Anarchism. It just shows the power of the media to control peoples thoughts. Tell me, where do they base this idea of chaos from? There is no evidence for it yet they say it. When they say that you should always come back with something like that isn't human nature.

[MilitantAnarchist]

Man I hate it when people are like that. It has happened to me many times comrade. It doesn't say anything about the impracticality of Anarchism. It just shows the power of the media to control peoples thoughts. Tell me, where do they base this idea of chaos from? There is no evidence for it yet they say it. When they say that you should always come back with something like that isn't human nature.

I did exactly that comrade... I replied with 'What is stopping you stabbing me now? The law or you not wanting to?
But it didnt change the reply, it was still 'but without laws...' and the usual
I should really have a witty reply for somthing like that shouldnt i haha...

[Stranger Than Paradise]

I did exactly that comrade... I replied with 'What is stopping you stabbing me now? The law or you not wanting to?
But it didnt change the reply, it was still 'but without laws...' and the usual
I should really have a witty reply for somthing like that shouldnt i haha...

Yeah I'm the same, I can never come up with a good response in a debate.

[MilitantAnarchist]

Yeah I'm the same, I can never come up with a good response in a debate.

Anarchism is so difficult to explain to someone who has zero understanding of it and think it is another word for chaos... The people i was arguing with were mostly Tory with BNP sympathies... so it was quite difficult to get my point across, especially feeling like shit (sounds like an excuse but i was in no mood for deep debate)...

[hugsandmarxism]

I don't debate revolutionary politics with conservatives. They are, for the most part, unresponsive to arguments based in logic. The capitalist powers that be have done a brilliant job of stupefying people such as these, so don't feel bad if you couldn't keep up in a shouting match. I'd offer my critique of anarchism, but having read the circumstances of your forming of this question, I'll just pat you on the back and say "fuck 'em, they're morons." -pat- ;)

[InTheMatterOfBoots]

Peoples attitudes change in periods of struggle. New ideas tend to emerge when people are confronted with the real limitations of the state and capitalist system. Even if you convinced 55% of the people in this country over the merits of anarchism it wouldn't bring about the revolution. It's about developing a libertarian communist tradition when capitalism starts to show its weakness. You'll be surprised how many people will be willing to listen then.

[Idealism]

anarchy meaning "without leaders" not "without order"
dont explain that anarchism is anti-oppression, because in the mind of someone who thinks its chaos, this could further the idea that it is chaos, i prefer to talk to people saying it is truly democratic, community based, anti-authoritarian ideology; that want economic and political and equality in the most radical sense of the word.

[Blackscare]

I get in situations like this too. My number one goal, whether or not I "convert" anyone or not, is to make sure that at the end of it people realize that Anarchism is philosophically and theoretically based in reason and human natute; that it isn't chaos and death. This is what I try to do.

Out of the gate, the first thing I do is quote Proudhon by saying "Anarchy is order". Of course that gets people curious and I explain what that means, how free agreement can maintain order as well as force, etc.

Once I've pretty much established that Anarchy the theory is not a lack of organization but instead a vision of a highly sophisticated and organized free society, I move on to arguments against the current capitalist system. I try to point out the unstable nature of capitalism, the fact that it's based on constant growth that can only lead to a darwinistic process in which the small businesses that we're taught to look to as the model of the capitalist dream are swallowed and crushed as they become unable to compete with the larger growth (not just profit, thanks to stock) based companies.

At this point I sort of play devil's advocate and say that the type of capitalism we're raised to believe in; individual initiative, small business, etc, isn't really all that bad and that if that were the case I wouldn't be looking to take that quality of life away from people. But, that was a certain sweet spot on the timeline of capitalism that has passed, and all that is left now is late capitalism, which is a very different beast (I don't believe that captialism was ever good, but the point is to sound reasonable enough to get people to listen without dismissing you). I tell them about the process of proletarianization, and how it explains the proliferation of chain stores, etc.


Then I try to show why state socialist countries that have existed failed, and tie that in to why anarcho-communism fixes said problems.


IDK, I didn't explain my basic strategy that well, but whatever. You get a basic idea.


Remember, the goal should be to sound reasonable and level headed, so as to at least combat the old stereotypes that exist about us as well as maybe get someone interested to look into it. Coming across as a bombastic anarchist will only reenforce people's ideas of what our ideology is all about.

Good luck next time!

[Decolonize The Left]

I have just had a very long discussion down the pub with certain individuals about anarchism and politics in general...
I class myself as an anarchist, and was obviously sticking up for my beliefs. Unfortunatly, i didn't do a very good job, alot on my mind and a sore throat hindered me and i couldnt answer properly, but EVERYONE was jumping down my neck, and all the people could say was 'anarchy means chaos, everyone would rape and kill eachother, it is terrible, how can you advocate that' and no matter how much i told them it wasnt that, they wouldnt listen.

Fear is always a motive for maintaining the status-quo.


I explained it is anti-oppression, it is about unity and freedom, equality and peace, anti-state and anti-capitalist.... but nobody seemed to listen...
Obviously I am biast towards Anarchism, and they aren't because nobody understands or will even listen to Anarchists due to stereotypical bollocks we all know and face....
Does this make Anarchism just a beautiful ideal that is impractical to the general public?

Anarchism is impractical only if the people do not want anarchism - think about it. Anarchism, the idea that hierarchies, authority, and oppression are all negative forms of social existence, requires the people themselves to be committed to its realization. Hence it is entirely impractical so long as the people are not prepared to make it practical.

- August

[Jimmie Higgins]

If people needed a cop sitting in a car somewhere in the general area to prevent you from being stabbed by a stranger in a pub just 'cause he can, then humans never would have made it far enough to invent such a thing as police.

A Police force is a relatively new thing. It basically came about in the 1800s - before that, the ruling class was less slick and just used military style forces to put down uprisings. But capitalists are inventive and somehow sold most of society on a repressive institution using the excuse, "it's for our own good".

Do police really prevent crime? I'd say no - what are the chances (outside a hollywood movie) of a cop walking by right as a crime is happening? Read the police reports in the newspaper and try to find the one that says Officer Wiggy was on his way to demand free food from Krispy Kreme when he stopped a murder in progress. It almost never happens!

I live in a "bad" area of Oakland where the mayor is being pushed by businessmen to hire armed private security to patrol - think of it as job placement for Blackwater emplyees. In my neighboor hood, you sometimes hear shootings and not once I have heard a shot followed by an immediate police sirin - there's usually a lag of 10 or 15 minutes despite heavy police presence.

So what do the police actually do in my neighborhood? They pull people (young males) over a lot, they try and intimidae high school kids, and they shoot young men in the back while they are facedown on the subway platform on New Years eve.