Speaker 1: Also media.
Speaker 2: Agree. This is Andrew Sage bringing yet another episode of
Speaker 2: it could happen here? As my granny us to say
Speaker 2: when she answered the phone, what's happening? And the answer
Speaker 2: in this case is anarchy. Last episode, I gave a
Speaker 2: definition of anarchism. The anarchism is the political philosophy and
Speaker 2: practice that opposes all authority along with his justifying dogmas,
Speaker 2: and proposes the unend in pursuit of anarchy, a world
Speaker 2: without rule where selfterimation, mutuality, and free association form the
Speaker 2: basis of our society. And then we took that definition
Speaker 2: and we broke it down a bit further. You go
Speaker 2: back to the episode if you want to hear how
Speaker 2: but I left my explanation a bit incomplete. I didn't
Speaker 2: get into the positive side of the definition. So today
Speaker 2: I am joined once again.
Speaker 3: By Miir Wong also who does this podcast and who
Speaker 3: was excited to talk about building the new world in
Speaker 3: Michelle the.
Speaker 2: Old Let's go. So anarchism proposes the unending pursuit of anarchy,
Speaker 2: a world without rule where self determination, mutuality, and free
Speaker 2: association from the basis of our society. See unin pursuit
Speaker 2: element is another important part of the definition. You know,
Speaker 2: it's ongoing. It's a strive. It's not something some perfect
Speaker 2: utopia that we reached and staggering with it. In fact,
Speaker 2: it's not even a suman of when people become perfect anarchists.
Speaker 2: It's about currently and constantly pushing to be better, to
Speaker 2: create systems that produce better outcomes and greater anarchy. It's
Speaker 2: a continuous redevelopment of the value is necessary to maintain anarchy.
Speaker 2: To never get complacent and understand that this is a
Speaker 2: species level project. The idea of anarchy being a world
Speaker 2: without rule is actually something that gets some pushback from
Speaker 2: some anarchists as well. There's this sort of rules not rulers,
Speaker 2: a version of anarchism that has a lot of sway
Speaker 2: in some circles.
Speaker 3: The Inarco Constitution is.
Speaker 2: The anarcho constitutionalists. You know, it was popularized, but the
Speaker 2: sort of direct democracy libertarian Marxist crow that kind of
Speaker 2: got their popularity needs these to mageties. But it's not
Speaker 2: something that I consider an accurate representation of what anarchism
Speaker 2: strives for. You know, now that we have access to
Speaker 2: more historical anarchist literature than ever. If you dive into
Speaker 2: any of it and you get to the root of
Speaker 2: what anarche is. It becomes very clear that anarchists, we're
Speaker 2: not into this whole theraph democracy thing. They want to
Speaker 2: really into any form of democracy, as in the rule
Speaker 2: by majority or the rule by some abstraction called the people.
Speaker 2: Anarchism is really about. It's not just no rulers, also
Speaker 2: no rule. I've been brought into this understanding by the
Speaker 2: efforts of the translator and sort of scholar of anarchist
Speaker 2: history Sean Wilbill, who, in my opinion, is putting forward
Speaker 2: some of the best historical analysis of anarchism today. He's
Speaker 2: actually who inspired a lot of my definition of authority
Speaker 2: and anarchism, and so I'll have his work links in
Speaker 2: the show notes, of course. But in this get into
Speaker 2: this sort of no rules staff A SHAVANARKI, A lot
Speaker 2: of people might ask, you know, but we still need rules.
Speaker 2: But of course enforceable rules are just really a full
Speaker 2: of laws that are backed by authorities, which I guess
Speaker 2: what I pose is, and unenforceable rules are not really
Speaker 2: rules at all. They're close. It's a norms of behavior.
Speaker 2: And if living in a society tells you anything, you
Speaker 2: should know that norms should be as open to question
Speaker 2: as the most rigidive rules. In fact, norms can be
Speaker 2: even more dangerous if we let them slide. It's just
Speaker 2: the way that things are and the way we do
Speaker 2: things around here.
Speaker 3: Yeah, like patriarchy, for example, something that is I mean
Speaker 3: yet like obviously, yes, pre chacuation enforced by the state
Speaker 3: and by like explicit violence, but it's also really really
Speaker 3: enforced by norms. Yeah, in a way that like you know,
Speaker 3: requires you to like reckon with norms as a concept theoretically.
Speaker 2: Yeah, there's a concept of authority that is inherent in patriarchy.
Speaker 2: That is also the set of norms that exist to
Speaker 2: aid and to reinforce, you know, that authority. We tend
Speaker 2: to speak a lot of you know, the people in
Speaker 2: the community and stuff and anarchist circles, but I think
Speaker 2: it's important to make sure it's clear that something special
Speaker 2: about quote unquote the people or quote unquote the community.
Speaker 2: You know, what the people of the community thinks is
Speaker 2: right and wrong should not be all litmust test and
Speaker 2: what is right and wrong. There's no virtue in being
Speaker 2: a majority, and there's also no virtue in being a minority,
Speaker 2: because you can see within instances where there are minorities
Speaker 2: such as the elite, the rich, who obviously have asvo
Speaker 2: all the time and their instances, the majority is that
Speaker 2: does exist to reinforce a lot of the rules and
Speaker 2: norms and authorities that are keeping all of us down.
Speaker 2: So oligmus test is not a majority use what a
Speaker 2: majority votes for, what the majority wants, or what minority
Speaker 2: use desire. It's really the absence of authority, the sons
Speaker 2: of this sort of power over others at all. And
Speaker 2: it's also inevitably the absence of permission and probisu the
Speaker 2: ability to permit things, the ability to prohibit things. When
Speaker 2: a thing is allowed and the thing is disallowed. Yes,
Speaker 2: people can do what they want, but every el khols
Speaker 2: do what they want, and so that creates the incentive
Speaker 2: to be thoughtful and responsible in what you do, and
Speaker 2: to be thoughtful and responsible in how what you do
Speaker 2: affects other people. You do things, and your things are
Speaker 2: open to any number of consequences, and so if you
Speaker 2: want to avoid negative consequences, you can't get informed. You
Speaker 2: have to learn about how your actions might affect others
Speaker 2: through communication with individuals and groups, and you have to
Speaker 2: find compromises and solutions to points of conflict. You're not
Speaker 2: an island. Your part of a web of mutually interdependent relationships,
Speaker 2: and that's something that exists in every kind of society
Speaker 2: at mutual independence. The problem with hierarchy is in a
Speaker 2: hierarchy society, to access that web of mutual independence, you
Speaker 2: have to obey authority, you have to take part in
Speaker 2: the authoritaian systems, so we have access to human community.
Speaker 2: So in anarchic society, you don't have as well be
Speaker 2: an authority, but our behavior is still regulated quote unquote
Speaker 2: in a sense that we are dependent on other people
Speaker 2: and we want to have as much as possible a
Speaker 2: harmonious relationship with those other people. Perhaps controversially, I could
Speaker 2: say that it's actually the absence of rules and rulers
Speaker 2: that makes anarchism work, because, for one, harm can ever
Speaker 2: be fully captured by rules and rules cand of capture
Speaker 2: all the possible circumstances where harm could occur. Because of
Speaker 2: the two, the existence of rule often provides protections for authority.
Speaker 2: This is something we talked about in our definition of
Speaker 2: authority in the last episode. This idea that the authority
Speaker 2: is there's a right that grants it privileges and protections.
Speaker 2: You know, the idea that the police officer can beat
Speaker 2: you up, but you cannot raise a hand in defense
Speaker 2: of yourself. You know, the bank can evict you from
Speaker 2: your home, but you can't be throwing all its alveaus
Speaker 2: into the bank. You know, that sort of thing is
Speaker 2: a very unequal relationship that is enforced and defended by rules,
Speaker 2: by the rights granted by those rules. And so rather
Speaker 2: than approaching society with a one size fits all approach
Speaker 2: to rules that are enforced by some type of authority,
Speaker 2: we can instead create solutions that are tield specific problems.
Speaker 2: And yes, you might approach concepts like best practice and
Speaker 2: solving problems in conflicts, but I'll be different from rules.
Speaker 2: You know, that's something that that's not enforced, and then
Speaker 2: that's constantly in in negotiation. So then it's constantly taken
Speaker 2: into practice and developed and shifted, and it's far more flexible.
Speaker 2: And I know that it can be difficult to break
Speaker 2: away from the idea that we need rules and that
Speaker 2: the rulers are essential, but it's necessary that we can
Speaker 2: conceptualize anarchy from that angle. With that implication. It's difficult
Speaker 2: because of how we've been socialized how we tend to
Speaker 2: view human nature. You know, it take time to develop
Speaker 2: these ideas, to join them food that I'm still grasping
Speaker 2: some of these things and trying to understand them. But
Speaker 2: you know, between this episode and the next, and all
Speaker 2: the books and all the work that is being put
Speaker 2: out there to sort of develop anarchism, to bring it
Speaker 2: to more people, and of course through practice, we can
Speaker 2: get a clearer sense of how anarchist organization can work
Speaker 2: in all of its harmonious complexity. And I say organization
Speaker 2: and complexity specifically, because it is often assumed that the
Speaker 2: presence of anarch is the absence of organization or the
Speaker 2: absence of complexity, because those terms are often associated with
Speaker 2: are synonymized with hierarchy and authority. But you can have
Speaker 2: organization and complexity without them. So on the next part
Speaker 2: of the definition, we get into the idea of anarcheb
Speaker 2: You know, well, where self determination, mutuality, and free association
Speaker 2: form the basis of our society. Self attimination is probably
Speaker 2: the easiest to explain it for three terms that I
Speaker 2: use to define such a society, because it's just the
Speaker 2: idea that individuals can define and pursue their own paths
Speaker 2: is the belief that people individually and collectively have the
Speaker 2: capacity to live and organize themselves in ways to reflect
Speaker 2: their own needs, desires, and values. It rejects the notion
Speaker 2: that others, whether they be states, corporations, religious institutions, or
Speaker 2: other elites, should have the power to dictate the lives
Speaker 2: of individuals or impose structures exploitation and control. Self detimination
Speaker 2: is the basis of autonomy, which is necessarily followed by
Speaker 2: free association. The first and foremost I want to get
Speaker 2: into the idea of mutuality. Mutuality is feeling an action
Speaker 2: in a relationship that is based on shape benefit between
Speaker 2: individuals and groups in a society. There is reciprocity and
Speaker 2: its communication. It's a shar enough sentiment and an exchange
Speaker 2: of positive actions, and it's not unique to anarchy. Weutral
Speaker 2: into dependence, which is a component of mutuality, is also
Speaker 2: not unique to anarchy. It can be free found in
Speaker 2: pretty much every society because we rely on neutrality to
Speaker 2: survive and progress through our day to day life, whether
Speaker 2: we're working together to clean the house for Christmas or
Speaker 2: troubleshooting a problem in the workplace, or taking part in
Speaker 2: a club or sport, or sharing resources follow in a
Speaker 2: natural disaster. Mutuality happens constantly, informally and often without recognition.
Speaker 2: This is something that Creator talks about in Debt of
Speaker 2: First five thousand Years. He says, this is the glue
Speaker 2: that who will society together? Not contracts or power, but solidarity, empathy,
Speaker 2: and the natural human inclination to care for others. All
Speaker 2: world is so divided, and we still find ways to care.
Speaker 2: Are there obstacles that care? Of course, you know the
Speaker 2: various presuences, propagandized mindsets, socio economic systems, and material conditions
Speaker 2: that limit our practice of mutuality. But these are problems
Speaker 2: that he seeks to rectify. Obviously, it's used like cluialism
Speaker 2: and white supremacy are fractured societies along racial lines and
Speaker 2: create a distress and competition where mutuality could flourish. The
Speaker 2: propaganda perpetuated by states and corporations also limits our capacity
Speaker 2: to imagine mutuality and create this sense of ssty in
Speaker 2: this competitive mindset that creates an unnecessary dichotomy between the
Speaker 2: success of the individual and success of the collective. Because
Speaker 2: of the very nature these hierarchical systems are forcing us
Speaker 2: intexplosive relationships. Things like mutual aid and are being replaced
Speaker 2: by transactional exchanges. Care and community become commodities, basic human
Speaker 2: needs become profit driven markets, and the state takes on
Speaker 2: a lot of the role that was formerly filled by mutuality.
Speaker 2: Just the idea of disaster response, for example, is dominated
Speaker 2: by bureaucratic agencies that monobilize and direct the resources that
Speaker 2: could be used and more effectively used by people addressing
Speaker 2: their own needs locally. And of course, with the implementation
Speaker 2: of the property regime, with privatization fencing off the commons
Speaker 2: that once supports at communal life, it creates that sort
Speaker 2: of scarcity that the limits or interpersonal practice of neutrality.
Speaker 2: And when people are poor, when they're struggling intermediate will needs,
Speaker 2: they often lack the resources or energy to extend help
Speaker 2: to others. Food and secure families may not have the
Speaker 2: capacity to engage in community support networks. Or you know,
Speaker 2: if you look at how cities are often designed their
Speaker 2: structure to isolate people, they make it harder people to
Speaker 2: form balance of trust. The existence of all these non
Speaker 2: places like highways, the absence of third places, and the
Speaker 2: prevalence of civil and sprawl or make it more difficult
Speaker 2: for us to form bonds of trust and solidarity. And then,
Speaker 2: of course you have the intervention of the state into
Speaker 2: people's efforts to engage in mutual aid. You know, the
Speaker 2: states punishes and criminalizes mutual aid efforts for migrants or
Speaker 2: for homeless people. You will often see the police or
Speaker 2: border authority is preventing people from helping those people, charging
Speaker 2: them with criminal penalties just for trying to help their
Speaker 2: fellow humor and all these are things that limits the
Speaker 2: free and full flourishing of mutuality. Or we shouldn't look
Speaker 2: to the limits of mutuality in our current system as
Speaker 2: an indication of how it might be limited in another system.
Speaker 2: In fact, we can look at these limits and see
Speaker 2: what ways mutuality could flourish even further when they no
Speaker 2: longer exist. So by taking the time to dismantle prejudices,
Speaker 2: to challenge propaganda, to build alternatives, and to create abundance,
Speaker 2: we can start to recognize the potential of our mutuality.
Speaker 2: And so really getting from zero point A to point B,
Speaker 2: it becomes a matter of expanding our solidarity, which would
Speaker 2: expand our capacity for mutuality to drive our social organizations.
Speaker 2: Solidarity is about establishing and recognizing the bond between all people,
Speaker 2: understanding that I center gain from you doing well and
Speaker 2: vice versa rememother. Our system incentivized selfishness that acts to
Speaker 2: the detriment of others. So anarchy doesn't need perfect people,
Speaker 2: it just needs systems to have better incentives. So anarchic
Speaker 2: systems would incentivize generosity and selflessness, of course, But the
Speaker 2: real trick is really in creating systems that utilize selfishness
Speaker 2: to the benefit of others, making it so that even
Speaker 2: the most self interested and self absorbed people are a
Speaker 2: net positive or at least a net zero on the
Speaker 2: impacts of the rest of society, because they will find
Speaker 2: themselves acting in ways that are generous and that are
Speaker 2: selfless in order to get the gains that they desire
Speaker 2: for themselves. You can call it to kind of a
Speaker 2: selfish selflessness.
Speaker 3: Yeah, And it's funny because like that's the sort of
Speaker 3: justification that capitalism uses, that like, oh, if everyone that
Speaker 3: purely acts into self interest and everything will get better
Speaker 3: for everyone, you know. But it's effectively just like a
Speaker 3: code of paint that's been put on a system that
Speaker 3: people use their self interest to make things better for
Speaker 3: egas exactly them.
Speaker 2: Yeah, So clearly the system of capitalism has these systemic
Speaker 2: incentives and structures that allow for selfishness that not only
Speaker 2: expand and propagate and be reinforced, there also ensures that
Speaker 2: that impulse that in inclination has an extraordinary impact on
Speaker 2: the lives of millions of people. An individual selfish person
Speaker 2: cannot do that much to impact others, but put them
Speaker 2: in a position of power, and all of a sudden
Speaker 2: their decisions can impact the lives of thousands, millions, even billions.
Speaker 2: So the practice of anarchy is a way of creating
Speaker 2: a society where no one stands above another, and where
Speaker 2: lives are built in cooperation instead of domination. Reshape and
Speaker 2: how we practice mutuality why building new habits of cooperation
Speaker 2: that work without rulers. And that's what social revolution is
Speaker 2: all about. It's an ongoing and intentional transformation of our
Speaker 2: society for economy and culture and philosophy and technology and
Speaker 2: relationship and politics. It's the ongoing indication of all forms
Speaker 2: of authority and prejudice and the ongoing affirmation of freely
Speaker 2: associated equals. There is, in many ways a reconstitution of
Speaker 2: our natural initiative or capacity of mutuality and our responsibility
Speaker 2: for ourselves and each other. And that starts here and now,
Speaker 2: not at some distant points in the future. It won't
Speaker 2: be easy, but it's necessary to unshackle our mutuality to
Speaker 2: create a society where it can flourish. And this is
Speaker 2: where we get into things like mutual aid. It's confused
Speaker 2: with charity very often, but it's a manifestation of our mutuality.
Speaker 2: It's a voluntary and mutually beneficial exchange of services and
Speaker 2: resources in a society. And so it's not about tit
Speaker 2: for tat peedback or measuring each person's contributions. It's what
Speaker 2: taking responsibility for one another as members of a society
Speaker 2: and building social relations that sharpen our ability to collaborate
Speaker 2: and share. To part phrase Peter Creputkin, practice and mutual
Speaker 2: aid is the surest means forgiving each other into all
Speaker 2: of the greatest safety, the best guarantee of existence and
Speaker 2: progress bodily, intellectually, and morally, but mutually. Like I said earlier,
Speaker 2: it derives its basis from our interdependence, which is another
Speaker 2: component of mutuality. Mutual independence is the very basic idea
Speaker 2: that we rely on each other for various aspects of
Speaker 2: our lives. In every kind of society and an he
Speaker 2: our mutual interdependence is unrestricted by authority and instead guided
Speaker 2: by complementarity, so we are all approached and appreciated as
Speaker 2: unique equals cooperated on that basis. Mutual responsibility is another
Speaker 2: manifestation of mutuality, as the idea that in the absence
Speaker 2: of legal order, in the absence of authority, when society
Speaker 2: is no longer guided by laws that are binding and
Speaker 2: enforceable by some authority, we must be guided instead by responsibility.
Speaker 2: But actions are pre authorized or pre judged by an
Speaker 2: external rules, but that each action is undertaken freely and
Speaker 2: subject to any number of responses positive and negative. Are
Speaker 2: you curious about this idea of legal order and permission,
Speaker 2: prohibition and unusual responsibility? I recommend Sean Wilber's and new
Speaker 2: glossary on the Libertarian Labyrinth, as it offers the exploration
Speaker 2: of that concept and a lot more to synthetic anarchism.
Speaker 2: So anarchy demands a high degree of self awareness, care,
Speaker 2: and reciprocity from individuals and communities, not through coercion or enforcement,
Speaker 2: but through voluntary continue us and conscious negotiation. Incentivized by
Speaker 2: the nature of the system itself, with its basis in
Speaker 2: cooperation and the desire to prevent annecessary conflict. In hierarchical systems,
Speaker 2: humans of justice often escalates conflict. Imprisonment, for example, tends
Speaker 2: to breed resentment and resistance and further criminalization. In anarchy,
Speaker 2: the absence of preauthorized retaliation encourages us to find that
Speaker 2: dialogue and to create restorative practices. If a conflict arises
Speaker 2: over a resource, people have an interest in reachion and
Speaker 2: resolution that benefits both rather than escalates and things and
Speaker 2: prolonged disputes. So, such as society, you will necessarily require responsibility.
Speaker 2: They're both responsibility for the environment and responsibility for other people.
Speaker 2: You know, if you are costing the ecosystem its resources,
Speaker 2: it can just offload that cost onto everybody else, As
Speaker 2: it's common in captive systems. You have to be in
Speaker 2: dialogue with other people to ensure your actions are balanced
Speaker 2: by replenishing the resource, by mitigating harm, or by securing
Speaker 2: so kind of collective agreement. And if somebody is creating
Speaker 2: a disruptive situation, if they're blasting out music at night,
Speaker 2: we kind oft rely on an external authority to mediate,
Speaker 2: but we have to mediate in some way. We have
Speaker 2: to find ways to ensure that they bear the costs
Speaker 2: of disturbing others, whether involves apologizing or making amends or
Speaker 2: just in their behavior, or if they don't want to
Speaker 2: take on other people facing other consequences as necessary. So
Speaker 2: social revolution really aims to prepare us for that responsibility. It's,
Speaker 2: as Wilber describes, a basic principle for encountering, recognizing, and
Speaker 2: engaging with others. It's our beefed up and extremely demanded
Speaker 2: version of the Golden rule. The organic emergence of this
Speaker 2: responsibility and the incentives of this system could create a
Speaker 2: sort of a mutual understanding, which is another aspect of neutrality.
Speaker 2: As people will necessarily form norms of behavior that will
Speaker 2: guide the interactions between them. They'll facilitate consultation and negotiation
Speaker 2: to restrain the escalation of conflict. They'll maintain the viability
Speaker 2: of shared commons and libraries of thiths, and similarly, our
Speaker 2: desire to prevent the escalation of conflict, to prevent threat
Speaker 2: to our being and prevent threats to our social harmony
Speaker 2: or society's integrity with thus developed a sense of mutual
Speaker 2: defense it's in all of our interests to minimize the
Speaker 2: potential Hoever, our actions to proctively seek out solutions to
Speaker 2: potential and actual conflict ensure that we won't get flack
Speaker 2: and pushback and negative consequences to the things that we
Speaker 2: do and threats to the sustainability of our society and
Speaker 2: our lives I. Thinyet. Another manifestation of mutuality become to
Speaker 2: the idea of mutual interests, which are what make free
Speaker 2: association as the basis of an arctic social organization possible.
Speaker 2: Free association is the founding principle of an archic social organization,
Speaker 2: and it refers the ability of each person to move
Speaker 2: around to association disassociated with others as they so choose,
Speaker 2: without being subject to authority. Free association is free from
Speaker 2: the impositions of wage labor, from the boundaries of citizenship,
Speaker 2: and from all other hierarchical relationships. This is different from
Speaker 2: the sort of liberal idea of freedom of association, where
Speaker 2: under capitalists that freedom of association is the freedom that
Speaker 2: comes with signing contracts and control in private property. So
Speaker 2: being free from authority, we still have to do what
Speaker 2: we have to do, because we're still muchly interdependent, but
Speaker 2: that free association empowers people to connect with others and
Speaker 2: to form groups based around shared interests or as add
Speaker 2: actions to pursue those interests. Of actions. So interest maypy
Speaker 2: as broad as onet and to eat, or as niche
Speaker 2: as wanting to maintain the traditional Japanese art of wood joinery.
Speaker 2: Or they might span the globe or whatever unique to
Speaker 2: a particular interest, such as those who are interested in
Speaker 2: the mantia and the cleanliness of a local river. So
Speaker 2: groups don't just exist for the sake of existing. They
Speaker 2: don't exist to perpetuate on existence. They exist with a
Speaker 2: particular goal in mind, whether that is mintian roads, producing
Speaker 2: a distributing food, or building housing. And then such groups
Speaker 2: may exist for a long time, or they may dissolve frequently.
Speaker 2: They may split, or they may emerge. They may overlap
Speaker 2: or come into conflict, and the spaces where they interact
Speaker 2: could be called spaces of encounter, taken place in factories
Speaker 2: or in gardens, specifically to at online platforms or some
Speaker 2: sort of community center. So free association may occur on
Speaker 2: the level of networks of individuals or federations of groups.
Speaker 2: But I need to explain the commune and the federation,
Speaker 2: because those are things that can be interpreted in a
Speaker 2: few different ways. You know, federations people who might think
Speaker 2: of government, communes people might think of well, local government
Speaker 2: or con geese or something of that nature. Yeah, be
Speaker 2: cult too. So i'm a key is about funding ways
Speaker 2: to cooperate in ways that are not bound by the
Speaker 2: traditional boundaries of authority, and that includes didditional boundaries of
Speaker 2: shared territory. The Anech's commune has been confused very often
Speaker 2: with things like intentional communities or administrative divisions. But if
Speaker 2: we're going by Kropotkin's description in Words of a Rebel
Speaker 2: Chapters Tend to eleven, he makes it clear that commune
Speaker 2: describes any group forming on the basis of free association.
Speaker 2: In fact, he juxtaposes the free commune with traditional conceptions
Speaker 2: of the commune. He says, for us quote, commune no
Speaker 2: longer means a territorial agglomeration. It is rather a generic name,
Speaker 2: a synonym for the grouping of equals, which knows neither
Speaker 2: frontiers nor walls. The social commune soon cease to be
Speaker 2: a clearly defined entity. Each group in the commune necessarily
Speaker 2: be drawn towards similar groups and other communes. They'll come together,
Speaker 2: and the things that federate them will be as solid
Speaker 2: as those that attach them to their fellow citizens, And
Speaker 2: this way they will emerge a commune of interests whose
Speaker 2: members are scattered in a thousand towns and villagious. Each
Speaker 2: individual find the full satisfaction of his needs only by
Speaker 2: grouping with other individuals who have the same tastes but
Speaker 2: inhabits one hundred other communes end quote. Scropotkin's commune is
Speaker 2: essentially a fluid collective of individuals and groups wherever they
Speaker 2: find themselves, coming together their own volition and according to
Speaker 2: their shared interests, projects, and activity, without being bound to
Speaker 2: territorial designations. So I expect to see a bunch of
Speaker 2: like mini governments all over a bunch of mini community
Speaker 2: governments or over energy. Because an abstract group in the
Speaker 2: community may not even necessarily share many real interests in common,
Speaker 2: as trying to put them all into one body, one
Speaker 2: polity that is responsible for identifying and enacting their will,
Speaker 2: it tends to be dominated by the group's most dominant voices.
Speaker 2: It tends to subordinate individuals to the will of a
Speaker 2: nebulous collective nebulous majority as The alternative to this sort
Speaker 2: of polity form, as Willard describes it is the federative
Speaker 2: principle understood in its most radical anarchic sensus, So not
Speaker 2: in the sense of networking conventional static polities like a
Speaker 2: confederation of city states, but instead bringing together the information
Speaker 2: and perspectives necessary to facilitate the dynamic process of free association.
Speaker 2: We could look to antionomies of democracy. Another bit of
Speaker 2: writing by Wilbur which fud explains how the federative organization
Speaker 2: is the process by which we identify specific social cells
Speaker 2: as an interests or needs and establish the involvement in
Speaker 2: large scale collectivities that are formed on the basis of
Speaker 2: those conversion interests. So these collectivities might exist on a
Speaker 2: sort of a consultative basis as they seek out and
Speaker 2: disseminate information or advice. It relates to interests, but the
Speaker 2: recognition we're relevant of expertise, so there might be such
Speaker 2: associations based on armed defense or cohousing construction or agro forestry.
Speaker 2: The RepU consultative associations with a journalistic focus or with
Speaker 2: a rewildin focus or an accessibility focus. They may exist
Speaker 2: on any scale, depending on the specificity of the information needed,
Speaker 2: from as the locals an apartment building to as far
Speaker 2: reaching as a consonant or even the entire globe. Consultative
Speaker 2: associations could create bluepference. They could document the viewable label
Speaker 2: and expertise, They can source resources, and they can share feedback.
Speaker 2: Also that interested and affected individuals and groups can easily
Speaker 2: access everything they need to make informed decisions. So in anarchy,
Speaker 2: we'll see a variety of individuals grouping together and interacted
Speaker 2: in ways that are perhaps illegible from our top down
Speaker 2: view of society, but in ways that work to accomplish
Speaker 2: their goals, resolve their conflicts, and maintain social harmony. It
Speaker 2: can be difficult to imagine this possibility due to how
Speaker 2: thoroughly our disempowerment in dovestigation has been We live under
Speaker 2: a global order that seems to deny any alternatives and
Speaker 2: extors its understanding of human nature as the only valid interpretation.
Speaker 2: The propaganda of our education on mass media and our
Speaker 2: inherited understanding as subjects in hierarchical society has limited our
Speaker 2: consciousness of our situation and thus our drives and powers
Speaker 2: to transform our situation. There are those of us who
Speaker 2: can overcome this through theoretical and historical study. But there
Speaker 2: are others who can only overcome this condition through demonstration.
Speaker 2: Some are not convinced by intellectual anarchist arguments. They have
Speaker 2: to be transformed through experiences. So to borrow the terminology
Speaker 2: of innovation adoption, it is up to us early adopters,
Speaker 2: those who are into the revolution before it becomes cool,
Speaker 2: to convince the majority of the possibility of freedom by example.
Speaker 2: And furthermore, as William Gillis wrote in The Distinct Radicalism
Speaker 2: of Anarchism, quote, to reach a moment where we sit
Speaker 2: back entirely satisfied would be to abandon anarchism to the
Speaker 2: radical of It is no alitmus for due diligence, no
Speaker 2: final finish line, no moment where we pat ourselves on
Speaker 2: the back. The vigilance of the radical is never as satiated.
Speaker 2: End quote. And that's it for me today. We'll get
Speaker 2: more into revolution, powers, drives, and consciousness and more in
Speaker 2: future episodes. In the meantime, you can check out my
Speaker 2: channel Andraism on YouTube. I took all things like this
Speaker 2: all the time I've been ondre siege. This is it
Speaker 2: could happen here. All power to all the people peace.
Speaker 1: It could Happen Here is a production of cool Zone Media.
Speaker 1: For more podcasts from cool Zone Media, visit our website
Speaker 1: coolzonemedia dot com, or check us out on the iHeartRadio app,
Speaker 1: Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen to podcasts. You can
Speaker 1: now find sources for it could Happen Here listed directly
Speaker 1: in episode descriptions. Thanks for listening.