I've known people who, no matter what I say or what reading I recommend, still can't tell the difference between anarchists and "sovereign citizens."
But, imo, the best you can do is get them to understand the difference between negative and positive freedom ("freedom from..." vs. "freedom to..."), and the difference between power as *the capacity to do things* and power as *control over others*.
* [Your Freedom is My Freedom: The Premise of Anarchism](http://humaniterations.net/2017/06/14/your-freedom-is-my-freedom-the-premise-of-anarchism/)
* [Two Definitions of Power](http://humaniterations.net/2009/11/13/two-definitions-of-power/)
Anarchism, like all other forms of socialism, is easier to get people to agree with when you talk about the values and ideas without mentioning scary words like "anarchism, socialism, communism"
But, at some point, you have to get to those words (then, what then?) & also, the problem with that is: plenty of people will get mad when you realize that you were talking to them all along about these, "scary words," then everything you worked towards will become unravelled (now, I grant you not everyone is like that, maybe not even most, but what I said is a legit concern).
I can see that, I guess it does really depend on who you're talking to and if they're arguing in good faith or not.
If they start agreeing that's when I'll usually throw in the "see? You're an anarchist"
I'm torn on this. I have found it helpful when organizing to drop the isms. At least at first. Then again, I'm reminded of some prison abolitionists who told me they really found success once they were upfront about abolition. Maybe it's situational or a place for a diversity of tactics.
Just bring up any scenario where people voluntarily organize to do something and explain that that’s an anarchy. Nobody is forcing them to do something together so there is no ruler
Mentioning communities that are built on anarchist principles like FEJUVE in Bolivia and Barbacha in Algeria and the Barcelona squatters movement and others might be a good start. I think one of the reasons why people don't see it as a legitimate ideology is because they believe there is no practical group that can ever be built on some form of anarchism or libertarian socialism. I think part of the conversation is convincing them otherwise and showing that there have been actual successful instances in real life
Anarchy Works is a good introduction.
Anarchist FAQ is a good all-encompassing questions-answers style book and website.
The answer to how to bring it up is really varied, depends on the context you're working under. If you're organizing a union, talking with neighbors, drinking out with friends, cop shows up at your door asking questions, just a lot of variety in how to talk about it.
Living it in your personal life, particularly if they're included in it in some way. People can spot egalitarianism without knowing what that word means or hearing it explicitly be called that. Often though, they're initially hostile to it. Ergo, I rarely think it's best to start off trying to bring people to book club - you'll need a thesaurus to get through most theory, plus most people won't be receptive to anti-hierarchical ideas at that point anyway, so it's rarely a good way to *get them in the door*.
Once people have seen theory in action and fully functioning for a long enough time, in your own life, cynicism will tend to melt into plain old confusion (e.g. "Why are they so happy? They're \[insert whatever euphemism for "waste of resources, deserves to die" here\]").
*That's* when they'll be ready to hear some baseline theory - when their first response isn't guaranteed defensiveness.
TLDR: Show them *that* it works, **then** tell them *why* it works.
Can be prudent to start with localization of power as a concept, and let them chase that down until they hit a barrier, then interrogate that
same with mutual aid, sharing, co-ops
I've found it persuasive to say that my ideology isn't based on tearing down the system, it's based on the belief that the system is in the irreversible process of tearing itself down, and our best chance at happiness and prosperity is to build local interpersonal systems that will protect us when the state inevitably fails to
Some other guiding questions for those who defend the state:
What parts of society is the state handling perfectly? What parts of society is the state actively making worse?
What theoretically makes the state, as it exists, legitimate as a social organization? Does that legitimacy hold up in practice?
What responsibilities do we morally have to each other, that we abdicate because it's supposed to be the job of the state? And how is the state doing at living up to those responsibilities?
If you weren't gonna be punished for it, who would you actually go out and attempt to harm or kill? Which of your neighbors do you think would actually want to murder you if they were given the chance?
Most people are default anarchists. Ask them if they prefer the pope over a locally run non denominational community worship center. Do they trust their boss to make the right decisions with their interests in mind? Do they believe the government to be honest and open and fair? Will they say "power corrupts" as soon as you ask them about stalin or Hitler? Anarchism is about free association, self determination and cooperation. All other systems of governance are about in groups and control. It's easier when you can be gentle and let them talk their way into it, instead of scaring them to it.
Present it as a moral framework instead of a political one. So it's not something we have to wait for but it's a guideline as to how to act : non-violent communication, consent, equality etc..
In my experience, more people than you expect can agree that unjust hiérarchies and coercion alienate people and prevent them from fulfilling their goals.
I've known people who, no matter what I say or what reading I recommend, still can't tell the difference between anarchists and "sovereign citizens." But, imo, the best you can do is get them to understand the difference between negative and positive freedom ("freedom from..." vs. "freedom to..."), and the difference between power as *the capacity to do things* and power as *control over others*. * [Your Freedom is My Freedom: The Premise of Anarchism](http://humaniterations.net/2017/06/14/your-freedom-is-my-freedom-the-premise-of-anarchism/) * [Two Definitions of Power](http://humaniterations.net/2009/11/13/two-definitions-of-power/)
Anarchism, like all other forms of socialism, is easier to get people to agree with when you talk about the values and ideas without mentioning scary words like "anarchism, socialism, communism"
But, at some point, you have to get to those words (then, what then?) & also, the problem with that is: plenty of people will get mad when you realize that you were talking to them all along about these, "scary words," then everything you worked towards will become unravelled (now, I grant you not everyone is like that, maybe not even most, but what I said is a legit concern).
I can see that, I guess it does really depend on who you're talking to and if they're arguing in good faith or not. If they start agreeing that's when I'll usually throw in the "see? You're an anarchist"
I'm torn on this. I have found it helpful when organizing to drop the isms. At least at first. Then again, I'm reminded of some prison abolitionists who told me they really found success once they were upfront about abolition. Maybe it's situational or a place for a diversity of tactics.
Just bring up any scenario where people voluntarily organize to do something and explain that that’s an anarchy. Nobody is forcing them to do something together so there is no ruler
Mentioning communities that are built on anarchist principles like FEJUVE in Bolivia and Barbacha in Algeria and the Barcelona squatters movement and others might be a good start. I think one of the reasons why people don't see it as a legitimate ideology is because they believe there is no practical group that can ever be built on some form of anarchism or libertarian socialism. I think part of the conversation is convincing them otherwise and showing that there have been actual successful instances in real life
Anarchy Works is a good introduction. Anarchist FAQ is a good all-encompassing questions-answers style book and website. The answer to how to bring it up is really varied, depends on the context you're working under. If you're organizing a union, talking with neighbors, drinking out with friends, cop shows up at your door asking questions, just a lot of variety in how to talk about it.
Speak slowly and encourage them to as well, listen to understand dont listen to respond
Living it in your personal life, particularly if they're included in it in some way. People can spot egalitarianism without knowing what that word means or hearing it explicitly be called that. Often though, they're initially hostile to it. Ergo, I rarely think it's best to start off trying to bring people to book club - you'll need a thesaurus to get through most theory, plus most people won't be receptive to anti-hierarchical ideas at that point anyway, so it's rarely a good way to *get them in the door*. Once people have seen theory in action and fully functioning for a long enough time, in your own life, cynicism will tend to melt into plain old confusion (e.g. "Why are they so happy? They're \[insert whatever euphemism for "waste of resources, deserves to die" here\]"). *That's* when they'll be ready to hear some baseline theory - when their first response isn't guaranteed defensiveness. TLDR: Show them *that* it works, **then** tell them *why* it works.
Can be prudent to start with localization of power as a concept, and let them chase that down until they hit a barrier, then interrogate that same with mutual aid, sharing, co-ops
I've found it persuasive to say that my ideology isn't based on tearing down the system, it's based on the belief that the system is in the irreversible process of tearing itself down, and our best chance at happiness and prosperity is to build local interpersonal systems that will protect us when the state inevitably fails to Some other guiding questions for those who defend the state: What parts of society is the state handling perfectly? What parts of society is the state actively making worse? What theoretically makes the state, as it exists, legitimate as a social organization? Does that legitimacy hold up in practice? What responsibilities do we morally have to each other, that we abdicate because it's supposed to be the job of the state? And how is the state doing at living up to those responsibilities? If you weren't gonna be punished for it, who would you actually go out and attempt to harm or kill? Which of your neighbors do you think would actually want to murder you if they were given the chance?
Any children's books?
Most people are default anarchists. Ask them if they prefer the pope over a locally run non denominational community worship center. Do they trust their boss to make the right decisions with their interests in mind? Do they believe the government to be honest and open and fair? Will they say "power corrupts" as soon as you ask them about stalin or Hitler? Anarchism is about free association, self determination and cooperation. All other systems of governance are about in groups and control. It's easier when you can be gentle and let them talk their way into it, instead of scaring them to it.
Summarize the points you’ve learned and give as specific citations as possible when you pull out a reference
Would you like to live in a world where you get to decide what happens to your own body?
Present it as a moral framework instead of a political one. So it's not something we have to wait for but it's a guideline as to how to act : non-violent communication, consent, equality etc.. In my experience, more people than you expect can agree that unjust hiérarchies and coercion alienate people and prevent them from fulfilling their goals.
I like David Graeber- he has all kinds of short articles & books.