Introducing others to Anarchism

[jeffreycc]

I'm relatively new to anarchism and have attempted discussing it with my circle of friends and they pretty much just shunned it all away, woohoo. I do have one friend though who at least seems open to it. I'm introducing him to An Anarchist FAQ and such, my brainwashing seems to be working! I'm also introducing some ideas to my 13 year old brother.

How did you all get your friends or family into anarchism? Assuming you have succeeded at least once so far.

[Yuppie Grinder]

You never can go wrong with the ABCs of Anarchism, available on MIA.

[Remus Bleys]

Start with communism. Mention the dotp and such.
Then figure out how its possible to just achieve communism without an in between.

[Yuppie Grinder]

I can't stress the importance of not pushing your interest in anarchism on others enough, nobody likes an evangelist. If someone is interested, that's another story.

[Quail]

I find the best way of getting people to agree with my opinions is not actually mentioning that I'm an anarchist. Seems like people pretty much always want to disagree with anarchists or communists, but a lot of people will agree with my opinions on specific topics.

[jeffreycc]

I'm definitely not evangelizing or forcing my ideas on anyone, that would be ridiculous. Introducing and changing at least 1 person is my goal.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

I'm of the feeling that a) leading by example, and b) being honest about not having the answers are both keys (among many).

The former, of course, seems obvious: trying to put anarchist politics into practice is going to have people asking you questions, which, for sure, is the best way for a conversation like that to begin. Of course, you're not going to know the answer to every question a person has (and err on the side of humility in these situations!) - helping people find answers for themselves (offering resources, pointing to historical instances to look up, whatever) is part of the practice of anarchist politics.

Also! Always be open to what you can learn from the questions of non-radicals. Every question points to an experience from everyday life that needs to be understood in a broader context. Don't look at these things as personal challenges, but as opportunities to deepen your understandings. Hell, as much as it might piss a person off, don't be afraid to respond to a question with a question. Asking "Why do you think that?" enough times can be a way of laying bare some really interesting ideological assumptions (your own as well as theirs!).

[jeffreycc]

I'm of the feeling that a) leading by example, and b) being honest about not having the answers are both keys (among many).

The former, of course, seems obvious: trying to put anarchist politics into practice is going to have people asking you questions, which, for sure, is the best way for a conversation like that to begin. Of course, you're not going to know the answer to every question a person has (and err on the side of humility in these situations!) - helping people find answers for themselves (offering resources, pointing to historical instances to look up, whatever) is part of the practice of anarchist politics.

Also! Always be open to what you can learn from the questions of non-radicals. Every question points to an experience from everyday life that needs to be understood in a broader context. Don't look at these things as personal challenges, but as opportunities to deepen your understandings. Hell, as much as it might piss a person off, don't be afraid to respond to a question with a question. Asking "Why do you think that?" enough times can be a way of laying bare some really interesting ideological assumptions (your own as well as theirs!).

I feel enlightened, thank you. But I probably should have re-worded my earlier posts on this thread: While I totally agree with you, I've noticed that every person I've discussed anything of this sort with had many misperceptions (I think that's a word) and thought anarchists were insane delusional murderers. So while I can help clear those up hopefully, I can also learn as well, just as you said.

[BIXX]

Start with communism. Mention the dotp and such.
Then figure out how its possible to just achieve communism without an in between.

Sectarian. That's not what this thread is about.

I personally am just very open about my opinions regarding most everything. I talk about power structures, oppression, etc... Fairly often, so anyone who is interested asks me.

[Remus Bleys]

Sectarian. That's not what this thread is about.

I personally am just very open about my opinions regarding most everything. I talk about power structures, oppression, etc... Fairly often, so anyone who is interested ask
s me.

What the hell?
Most peoples aversion is that anarchy can't work. When I identified as anarchists, that's the way I convinced people. I focused on the ultimate goal of marx, to give the idea legitmacy, fleshed it out and helped them see that was possible. Then, on one on one, and this was a unique argument for every person, wed discuss why the dotp wasn't necessary.

Read between the lines before you call me sectarian again.

[BIXX]

What the hell?
Most peoples aversion is that anarchy can't work. When I identified as anarchists, that's the way I convinced people. I focused on the ultimate goal of marx, to give the idea legitmacy, fleshed it out and helped them see that was possible. Then, on one on one, and this was a unique argument for every person, wed discuss why the dotp wasn't necessary.

Sorry, but your earlier comment was one that I have heard from many anti-anarchists.

However...


Read between the lines before you call me sectarian again.

This is stupid. I'm not gonna read between the lines on your posts. Asking others to read for some extra meaning behind a post that is nearly identical to posts where people are trying to delegitimize anarchism. Makes total sense.

[tuwix]

How did you all get your friends or family into anarchism? Assuming you have succeeded at least once so far.

The best way, IMHO, is to say that anarchism is just direct democracy.
And it is true. If there is direct democracy, the people rule which means a state ceases to exist. Besides it's sure that people very fastly would vote for taking out of riches their excessive wealth which is pretty coherent with rules of socialism.

[jeffreycc]

The best way, IMHO, is to say that anarchism is just direct democracy.
And it is true. If there is direct democracy, the people rule which means a state ceases to exist. Besides it's sure that people very fastly would vote for taking out of riches their excessive wealth which is pretty coherent with rules of socialism.

That's a good point to use. I also describe how an ideal anarchist society would have complete equality, that it would be egalitarian. That does tie in with direct democracy, but I then elaborate on how there would be no social hierarchy, no oppressive domination, no rascism, no sexism, no fascism, etc. People are always a fan of that. Well, almost everyone...

[Tim Cornelis]

Anarchists need to realise that anarchism and communism are not ideas and as such spreading them by word (alone) is insufficient to get people on board. Ideas only enter the realm of viability if they reflect a social or economic interest of people. Shortly after I became an anarchist this, 'preaching', was the means through which I tried to spread anarchism. But philosophical arguments about freedom and autonomy are irrelevant if they do not coincide with a social or economic interest -- moreover, the majority of people will find it boring -- and they will shrug, 'who cares?'. It can be very disillusioning since most people will disregard anarchism if it's just ideas and arguments. Now I try to spread communism through organising around short-term demands and interests.

For instance, in Breakthrough (Dutch far-left group, very small) there are some 'semi-political' workers with no interest in political philosophy whom joined because of organising efforts against welfare recipients being forced into work below minimum wage, without the right to collective action or collective bargaining, etc.

Organising before educating: organising as a recruiting and retention tool to allow for a platform for education.

And if you try to convince people tell them about real world examples that egalitarianism is feasible: Marinaleda (shows that participatory democracy is efficient and effective given that it outperforms municipalities in the same province -- full employment, no deficit), Landless Workers' Movement (shows millions of people can participate in egalitarian decision-making structures), Nanjie (small Maoist town shows money is not necessary for economic conduct), Zapatistas, etc.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Organising before educating: organising as a recruiting and retention tool to allow for a platform for education.

A thought: one ought not precede the other, but, rather, they need to be intertwined. I'm sure that we agree on this in practice, and I'm just proposing a different wording.
In my experience, "Organize then educate" is the model of organizations like the International Socialists in Canada, which means they have a rotating door membership of cadre who join the organization, discover they don't actually agree with the organization, then leave. Repeat with every cycle of struggle in which the IS plays a role.
"Educate then organize", of course, is a recipe for getting called a "windbag" if it's disconnected from your own practice. The trick is to educate on practical and immediate matters before jumping into the "heavy theory" that informs the practical/immediate analysis. As I mentioned above, if you offer good practical advice/ideas, hopefully people will ask "How did you come to this conclusion?" of their own accord, and you won't need to be all like, up on a podium being like, "Fellow workers! The time has come to embark upon a serious study of Guy Debord!"

[Jimmie Higgins]

Anarchists need to realise that anarchism and communism are not ideas and as such spreading them by word (alone) is insufficient to get people on board. Ideas only enter the realm of viability if they reflect a social or economic interest of people. Yeah I think this is true but I also think GDU is right that these have to be a sort of combined process (not that what you were both saying was counter-posed). In addition if someone is interested in radical politics, I don;t think there's one formula for all induviduals - people come to it in different ways. If someone had told me, you need to read these 10 books... well, I'd probably be reading some sci-fi novel or surfing and complaining about Pitchfork reviews right now rather than talking online about radical politics. Whereas many other people on this site radicalized because they read something that inspired or convinced them.

I guess to the OP, yeah, I think the best thing is to just be open with friends and people around you as much as you can but not to expect or really heavy-handedly attempt to convince them. If they are political or interested in these things, then maybe they will be convinced. A logical argument or a convincing argument will still be abstract unless people see it as relevant to things in their lives. Also people's ideas change a lot and so someone who "didn't care about politics" in 2010, might have been inspired by Occupy or something and suddenly see "politics" differently in 2012 because their previous thinking was that it was all just the main parties and a lot of rhetorical bullshit.

[tuwix]

That's a good point to use. I also describe how an ideal anarchist society would have complete equality, that it would be egalitarian.

Well, I wouldn't do it. They can argue that it's just imposible. But with present technology direct democracy is completely possible. :)

[cyu]

every person I've discussed anything of this sort with had many misperceptions (I think that's a word) and thought anarchists were insane delusional murderers.


There are lots of people in history that have broken the law. They may not have been anarchists, yet they are generally considered to be respectable people today. For example, was George Washington a delusional murderer?

National histories are filled with successful revolutions, in which people broke the law and often killed members of the establishment. However, they're usually not depicted as delusional murderers. Why? Because history is written by the victors.

Other people who have broken the law: Harriet Tubman, John Brown, Martin Luther King, Henry David Thoreau, Gandhi, Nelson Mandela.

Do I need to mention Manning and Snowden?

[The Feral Underclass]

Then figure out how its possible to just achieve communism without an in between.

Aside from this making absolutely no sense, can you explain how this relates to anarchism?


Most peoples aversion is that anarchy can't work. When I identified as anarchists, that's the way I convinced people. I focused on the ultimate goal of marx, to give the idea legitmacy, fleshed it out and helped them see that was possible. Then, on one on one, and this was a unique argument for every person, wed discuss why the dotp wasn't necessary.

Read between the lines before you call me sectarian again.

It's not accurate that anarchists believe a transitional phase isn't necessary.

[Remus Bleys]

Aside from this making absolutely no sense, can you explain how this relates to anarchism?
Because Anarchism is full communism minus the dictatorship of the proletariat?



It's not accurate that anarchists believe a transitional phase isn't necessary.[/QUOTE]

A state is what I mean. And if anarchism has a transitional period between capitalism and communism, whats with the aversion to the state?

[The Feral Underclass]

Because Anarchism is full communism minus the dictatorship of the proletariat?

But full communism would be minus the dictatorship of the proletariat anyway, since it is claimed to be a transitional entity.

Communism is a social relationship, it is a state of history. Anarchism is not a social relationship, nor is it an epoch, it is a methodology and critique of political power and hierarchy.


A state is what I mean. And if anarchism has a transitional period between capitalism and communism, whats with the aversion to the state?

Because a state, being a self-perpetuating structure of political power, is not able to create the necessary conditions for the establishment of a society where it is negated. A state by its very definition cannot negate itself. The idea that the state can end class antagonisms and will eventually lead to the redundancy and dissolution of state power as well as the institutions that maintain it is an illusion.