I used to be strictly materialist and atheist. Now I’m pretty spiritual. Don’t necessarily follow a religion and don’t support bigotry but yeah, I’m fairly spiritual now. This is a recent development and I never thought I’d be here like 5 years ago.
I used to be strictly materialist and atheist. Now I’m pretty spiritual. Don’t necessarily follow a religion and don’t support bigotry but yeah, I’m fairly spiritual now. This is a recent development and I never thought I’d be here like 5 years ago.
I think the world is more complex than any individual person can possibly comprehend, but that doesn’t make us incapable of moral judgement or unable to imagine radical alternatives to the status quo. Yes, things are the way they are now for a reason, but rarely a good reason. I see the appeal to complexity as a cognitive trap serving as a thought-terminating cliché, and it’s the trap that a lot of social democrats have fallen into. It is easier to stick to what you know than to speculate about a world you’ve never experienced, but I promise you the latter is more fulfilling and a great antidote to cynicism.
I won’t speak for you, but when I was a social democrat I was pretty miserable and cynical. I recommend the book Capitalist Realism by Mark Fisher, as it is what snapped me out of being a social democrat, personally. That sent me into the world of radical politics and I found footing by reading David Graeber (The History Of Everything, Bullshit Jobs, etc.) which helped me put my thoughts into perspective and realize my beliefs had already been fairly anarchist for a while. I’m not an anti-realist like a lot of anarchists are, my worldview is still grounded in materialism, but I have become a bit more agnostic in that regard over time.
You’re right, it is a thought terminating cliche for a lot of people. If you get rid of the thought terminating cliches and put in the work to understand, you open yourself up to all the ideologies, not just anarchism.
If you want to turn this around and sell something to me, fill that in with details. Anarchists have a way of pointing out things that seem terrible, but then when you ask how things should work instead, getting really vague.
On it’s own that says nothing about the movement itself. But, when it’s literally all you can find even looking hard at an old idea, it starts to seem like there’s nothing there.
Doesn’t “a bunch of other things have been tried, and they had X problem” count?
On policy specifically, that’s usually the gist. There’s been a lot of history, very little is original unless new technologies are involved, and even there it’s uncommon (eg. tech monopolies are railroad monopolies).
You know, maybe I will. I’m pretty sure I did read Bullshit Jobs. Or maybe just the notes?