Anarchism seems to be gaining more and more interest – once you can get past the preconception that it’s nothing more than chaotic insurgence. While still fringe, it’s clearly becoming much more conducive to intelligent conversations about its merit. 

For those who have been anarchists for years, it’s become intuitive. You’ve wrestled with what such a life would look like and you strive toward living it personally as well as you can. Then, when you see the statist nonsense for what it is, you understandably experience different reactions. Some are sad, others are disgusted while yet others get downright angry. 

Even as I wrote that, I had to reflect on the fact that I could include “understandably.” Just a few years ago, I couldn’t quite understand. It was a bridge I couldn’t seem to cross. Getting here has been a long and arduous journey from being an ardent and passionate patriot. As recently as 9/11, I was flying my stars and stripes proudly. 

There was much I had to wrestle with. As I would read one writer, an aspect of my view would be threatened. Then I’d read another and a whole new set of my beliefs was apparently undermined. It wasn’t an avalanche. It was the death of statism by thousands of tiny cuts. But, along the journey, perceived truths would enter into great mental wars with real truths, as I defended what I thought I knew against what was staring me in the face.

 

Cognitive Dissonance

We all experience cognitive dissonance at times, especially in the things we’re most passionate about. That’s not bad. In fact, it’s good that you experience it, because it alerts you that something isn’t quite right. And we need to be honest – none of us have it all figured out. But what do we do when confronted with this uncomfortable attack on logical fallacies that have nestled in our consciousnesses? 

Most people will attempt to explain it away. It’s most comfortable to simply continue on a given path. And sometimes the alternative is so threatening to their current situation that they simply cannot engage with it well. Perhaps it’ll work its way through their thought processes, but often it’ll simply be shut into a corner to wither and die. 

There are many who will attempt to reconcile it with their current mindset. Sometimes this is possible simply by shifting our understanding about things. But if it’s truly contradictory, then we either must formulate some sort of systematized rational, though it might not actually be rational, or accept it at face value and deal with it. 

Most who will be reading this will probably fall into the latter group. I like to think of myself as this sort of person, though I sometimes encounter cognitive dissonance that I honestly don’t know how to understand. And there have admittedly been topics that I simply considered and accepted as being at odds, knowing that I couldn’t really grasp them clearly. 

But, as I noted earlier, often I would find myself searching for greater understanding, only to be met with anger, disgust or derision. Even when reading some articles, the authors would be so vociferous that I wasn’t about to ask questions. I’d just read and try to assimilate what I could, thinking that this particular person would view me as parasitic (which I was, in some ways), part of the problem (which I was, in some ways) and someone who disgusted them (which I very well may have, but that’s their problem). 

How could I have been reached most effectively? What would have been more conducive to me being able to think and ask questions? To ponder that, let’s try to put some labels on various types of anarchists. 

 

Anarchy Evangelists

As I mentioned, in my search for what was true and most virtuous I often found myself hampered, held back and confronted with sarcasm and derision. It was true that I didn’t understand. But I was asking honest questions in light of my realization that my paradigm didn’t account for a world without rulers. Unfortunately, it seems that many of my challenges and roadblocks along the way were caused by anarchists. 

In order to explore this, I’ve considered that, as with any ideology, there are strains of anarchy. I’m sure they can be broken down almost infinitely, but I’ll concentrate on three main categories. 

1. The Rogue – This would be the stereotypical statist perspective of an anarchist; you know, the ones who are into violence, insurrection and sometimes even their own form of government. When most statists think of anarchy, this is who they think of. He might be a redneck running moonshine, a religious fanatic striving to weaponize his cult or the supposed Marxist anarchists we see in much of Latin America. These aren’t necessarily anarchists, but it is the anti-state aspect of this group that makes many label them as such. 
2. The Fundamentalist – This is where it seems that most who are very vocal in their understanding about true anarchy seem to be. They look down on anyone who doesn’t get it, as though they’re idiots. In their own form of elitism, they actually become a detriment to those who are honestly seeking. This group makes it very difficult for those who see anarchism as the stereotypical rogue to consider that there might be a grander perspective. 
3. The Advocate –This is the person who understands that people are at different stages of their journey, and often need help overcoming preconceptions, indoctrinations and the brainwashing they’ve received all their lives – and continue to be bombarded with through friends, social groups and mainstream media. The Anarchy Advocate shares his views with amazing passion tempered by a winsome and compassionate demeanor that truly understands and empathizes with the plight of the statist. 

 

The Rogue Anarchist

We can dismiss the Rogue Anarchist. I don’t think anyone reading on Steemit will fall into this group. If you do, please consider yourself summarily dismissed. 

The Anarchy Fundamentalist

What about the Anarchy Fundamentalist? Alas, they dwell among us. One doesn’t have to go far in the various pro-anarchy sources to find that there is plenty of anarchy fundamentalism to go around. 

For my journey, this is the group that held me up the most. It wasn’t my Christian worldview, while there were certain inhibitions. Obviously the statism that had been shoved into my psyche by the statist indoctrination institutions was a challenge. But I was truly trying to understand how anarchy would work – how it could work. 

Why do some claim that it’s better? Wouldn’t a limited government make more sense? I was, though I now recognize there’s a certain inconsistency to the terminology, a libertarian minarchist.

 

A Quick Rabbit Trail

The inconsistency can often be overcome with some defining of terms. While it’s probably true that most minarchists are holding onto a degree of statism, on the other hand, many who label themselves minarchists are actually anarchists who consider their idea of administration to be minanarchy. This gets into a deeper discussion of the distinction between the state and government. We’ll just gloss over it quickly. 

For some, there is no distinction. The government is synonymous with the state. Minarchists who embrace this perspective necessarily embrace at least a semblance of statism. 

For others, the state and the government can be distinct. In other words, the state is cunning, coercive and wicked, Nock wrote about this distinction in his excellent book, Our Enemy, the State. 

The government, on the other hand, simply administrates. While it may be an agent of the state, it may just as well be an agent of the people. These self-proclaimed minarchists may in fact detest the state and see no room for it, but recognize a need for some form of administration, which they consider synonymous with government. With this perspective, they’re really more likely to be anarchists, though still somewhat confused in their terminology. 

Back on Track

The Anarchy Fundamentalist is a detriment in attempting to help others understand how evil the state really is. They get angry, offensive and obnoxious about their beloved anarchy, becoming abusive in the process. Often thinking they’re doing the right thing, they are so full of animosity that they fail to recognize that they’ve become a detriment to those they supposedly want to convert. 

When this person pops off, those who perceive anarchy as the Rogue version feel justified. Realizing that there is a more virtuous thought process just doesn’t enter their minds. In such cases, anarchy is easily written off as a lunatic ideology that promotes violence against government.

 

The Anarchy Advocate

I think this person could be summed up in one name, and everyone would get it – Jeffrey Tucker. Nobody I know of seems to exude so much sheer joy in their pursuit and proclamation of all that anarchy has to offer. When Jeffrey speaks, the wondrous beauty of anarchy becomes apparent, as anyone who’s read his Beautiful Anarchy can attest.  

As the title to this article states, you can’t beat me into anarchy. It’s like coercing someone into freedom. However, the best course is to love folks into anarchy. Perhaps a list of bullet points will help us think through it. 

• · Be humble – You weren’t always an anarchist. Well, there might be a small handful of you that were. But most of you had to rise from some form of statism in order to get to the point where you could embrace anarchy. Even if your parents raised you to be an anarchist, be grateful and not proud, counting your blessings of birth. 
• · Be empathetic – Approach folks from a point of understanding. Try to grasp why they think what they do, then ask questions that will help them think about the implications. When they say something you know isn’t right, continue to seek mutual understanding so that they can have the opportunity to grapple with what you’re thinking. 
• · Be gentle – The goal should be to win people, not push them away. If we hit them over the head with anarchy, then aren’t we basically being coercive? Now we’re back to cognitive dissonance.   
• · Don’t expect everyone to change – It’s just not how we’re generally wired. Those who are, probably are already exploring and seeking outside the status quo. Convincing those who embrace the status quo is very difficult. We need to be willing to lovingly give them bits and pieces and let them cogitate on them for a while. Maybe the thousand tiny cuts will do their work. Maybe not. Can we love them in their plight anyway? 
• · Meet them where they are – Everyone is at a different place in their journey. Most will never come to where you are, at least not during your lifetime. We need to learn how to meet them at a place where they are already, attempting to help them forward in their journey. This means that it’s more important that you understand what they think than it is to tell them what you think, at least at first. Besides, the Socratic method of teaching is probably the most effective anyway, so just keep asking the right questions.

 

Final Thoughts

Some of you who are here fall into both of these last two groups. I’ve seen a couple of you go from fundamentalism to gentle advocacy in the past few years. It’s been inspiring. 

Where do you fall? Maybe you’re not an anarchist at all, but can identify with the challenge of even having an intelligent conversation about it. Maybe you’re a fundamentalist that needs to stop getting in the way. Hopefully you’re a true Anarchy Advocate, or are in the process of becoming one, and will continue to lovingly draw people to freedom.  

After all, if you’re trying to beat me into anarchy, you’re really no different than the state. 

Steemin' on,
Another Joe

Facebook
Twitter