"An internal FBI threat advisory obtained by The Intercept defines Anarchist Violent Extremists as individuals 'who consider capitalism and centralized government to be unnecessary and oppressive,' and 'oppose economic globalization; political, economic, and social hierarchies based on class, religion, race, gender, or private ownership of capital; and external forms of authority represented by centralized government, the military, and law enforcement.'" You know what? I can barely believe I'm saying this but - wow - credit to the FBI for putting anarchism in such simple terms as to make its appeal obvious. This must help provoke so many more people into turning towards anarchism that it's basically free publicity. Nice! #anarchism#anarchist
"Anarchists are simply people who believe human beings are capable of behaving in a reasonable fashion without having to be forced to. It is really a very simple notion," as David Graeber explained so well. "If there’s a line to get on a crowded bus, do you wait your turn and refrain from elbowing your way past others even in the absence of police? ...Do you believe that most politicians are selfish, egotistical swine who don’t really care about the public interest? Do you think we live in an economic system which is stupid and unfair?" https://davidgraeber.org/articles/are-you-an-anarchist-the-answer-maysurprise-you/#anarchism#DavidGraeber
@GreenRoc ikr?! How insecure are the followers of capitalism to feel so threatened by such an ideology simply because it challenges the very concept of power!
@ophiocephalic@GreenRoc Absolutely! To paraphrase Graeber, anarchists are great at organising, and you only really need armed forces and police if you're really bad at organising society.
@MediaActivist@GreenRoc Oh yeah. I think that's why it's essential to understand abolition as a revolutionary project rather than a reformist one. The state can't exist without its cops, and will never relinquish them voluntarily
@f800gecko Direct democracy, mutual aid, restorative justice, conflict resolution, federated systems - and just lots of responses above by people replying to this post to offer food for thought. We have to remember, against all odds, anarchists are absolutely remarkable organisers - after all, to paraphrase David Graeber again, you only need things like police and standing armies if you're really, really bad at organising society.
@f800gecko Not at all, I used to wonder the same things until anyone bothered to actually explain it all in simple terms. I find Carne Ross's documentary, The Accidental Anarchist, was very useful at explaining anarchism and offering tangible examples, locally and globally: https://kolektiva.media/w/pKgGZtPdpr8MBeMxNTQjGJ
Where in the world might this system be working today so we could have a look?
Not trying to be difficult here, but I'm always wondering how it works when no one is really in charge of anything. Like under what 'authority' if I may use that word, is direct democracy managed? Elders? Everyone? A select trusted committee?
I really don't get how anarchy remains organized (is it ever?), nevermind whether I might think it's a good or not-so-good thing in the end.
@NMBA Remarkable that people still cherry-pick from animal behaviour and use "the law of nature" and "survival of the fittest" to justify the Social Darwinism of capitalism.
@MediaActivist Arhiesim is acting morally without needing any religious dictates. Anarchy is lawlessness because there’s no organized leader for the herd. Even cows have a lead cow FFS.
I believe that *some* people are perfectly capable of behaving in a reasonable fashion without having to be forced to.
But you would have to be an absolute moron to think that *all* people can. Or even *most* people.
And, I believe a certain percentage of people are not only unable to do so, but are also complete sociopaths and will absolutely take advantage of any and all opportunities to take advantage of people and take advantage of loose rules to in order to hurt people.
Which is why we need strong rules. The rules are NOT there for the people that don't need them.
You know what a modern anarchist state looks like? It looks like Putin's Russia and it looks like Trump's America where there are no rules to control those people.
@maggiejk@econads@ophiocephalic@GreenRoc I think the principle of "having someone to deal with idiots" is what got us into this mess, though, isn't it? We have a society where kids go to school to learn from teachers how to take orders and regurgitate information and prepare for the workplace, where people consume television and "news" media owned by concentrations of corporate or state power, and where a pandemic then hit and hardly anyone in the population knew how to behave unless the Rishi Sunaks of the world told them how to. It's the Milgram Experiment, on a mass scale.
@econads@ophiocephalic@GreenRoc@MediaActivist this is the one aspect that keeps me from calling myself an anarchist, I don’t think I can classify myself as that because I do believe we need someone to deal with the idiots. Maybe before Covid I could have believed in some utopia where people care about other people and the cooperate, but we all know better.
@ophiocephalic@GreenRoc@MediaActivist Yeah you can't arrange anything without consensus of at least the majority of people, but you're always going to have to deal with some idiots. I think anarchism allows for that, iirc?
@ophiocephalic@GreenRoc@MediaActivist but what's enforcing that? People aren't naturally equal. Some people are stronger, some are more charismatic, some are more principled, some are braver..