politics

These are some pretty good questions, and ones that are not particularly uncommon. (I also promise this will be the last long post I make lmao, you are absolutely right about this being an empty room to speak in)

but why do these [anarchist/libertarian socialist] values not seem to take hold on a larger scale?

Depends on what you mean by a larger scale. There's nothing at the scale of a large country like the US in the current day, or at the current population. but, as detailed in "The Dawn of Everything" by anthropologist David Graeber and David Wengrow, pre-colonial america has some very anarchistic organizational structures that were successful in their right.

There are also currently some anarchistic projects. While they're technically not pure anarchism, the Zapatista and Rojava experiments are ongoing, and have some solid achievements (they consider themselves a different libertarian socialist branch that is very similar to anarchism, being neozapitismo and social ecology respectively). One interesting thing I'd love to point out is that these experiments are actually closer to socialism (and I'd arguably say are close to achieving it in both cases) compared to supposedly socialist/communist countries such as the USSR, the CCP, and Cuba. Here are two videos summarizing the two movements.

• Liberation in Action: The Zapatistas
• Liberation in Action: AANES/Rojava

It feels like that need for hierarchy is built into us as a species as it seems to be the default through much of history.

First and foremost, the necessity of hierarchy being built into us would only be true if there was no horizontal (non-hierarchical) society in the past, but there have been many, as mentioned in "The Dawn of Everything".

I mean, it might feel like that considering we live in a world where we don't really see any alternative to the status quo. There's this concept of "Capitalist realism," where it becomes increasingly difficult to consider a world where there is no capitalism. We are told we live in "The End of History", where "There is no alternative", as put by Fukuyama and Thatcher. The same can be said for hierarchy, as we live in a hierarchic world that is simply "the way things are" as a social construct. But what says we can't tear it down? For many years there was the natural hierarchy of the divine monarch at the top and the peasant suffering under their boot. To the peasant, there was no alternative; the monarch had to be there. But in reality the monarch didn't have to be there.

Anarchists do have an answer for this (Well, there's quite a few, but I find this one simplest), which is the theory of practice. Essentially, many things are learned by people, including societal norms. Take a highly hierarchic culture like south korea, where the hierarchies enforced by their version of Confucianism is dominant. There is no organ in the human body that forces humans to be hierarchic in accordance to Confucianism from birth. Instead, people are taught that it is" the natural order", then practice said hierarchic order, making it reality. By the practice of said hierarchies, it becomes real. However, if you are raised in such a society, it would be difficult to see an alternative, unless you begin to practice a different hierarchic order.

On the other hand, what if we begin making a society that isn't hierarchic? What if instead of instilling the values of obedience, we tell people obedience is not a virtue? What if we tell people that there is no natural reason to live under such a hierarchy, and that they could set themselves free? What if we instill values of self-governance, and let people practice self governance.

This is why anarchists often approach spreading anarchy in what might not seem an intuitive way. You might see an anarchist organizing a union, or creating a mutual aid group, or making a chapter of Food Not Bombs. If we consider the fact that practice influences the way you think, then it only makes sense that creating a non-hierarchic structure such as an anarchistic union, mutual aid group, etc. When non-anarchists participate in these structures, they begin to practice anarchism, and dreaming of a non-hierarchic world becomes much easier. Unfortunately it's kinda hard to get people to participate in some of these structures under the increasingly individualist modes of capitalism, but it is still a viable path that will need to adapt to the changing times.

Wrapping my head around all the -isms has been a lot of work. You need to learn what they are in both historical and modern context, and that varies from person to person as it is, so it can be hard to get what everyone is always advocating even if they use the same words.

I've had a fun experience talking with someone at a protest, and we were agreeing with many things broadly speaking. He eventually was like "What type of communist are you", and I just said "Oh, I'm an anarchist" and he, a trot, was disappointed. I've also had a discussion with a different random person who was on board with literally everything I said in a discussion, barring a few implementation details. He then decried the communists and anarchists for their radical ideas 🤦‍♂️.

As far as current and historic context, check out "Means and Ends" by Zoe Baker. I've not gotten to reading it yet but a wonderful lady at my local Anarchist bookfair told me it was not only a good starting place for historical context to the movement, but it is also wonderfully written. Also, you'll be pleased to know that the differences between old and modern anarchism isn't too drastic. It's more refined than changed. There's some splinters and splits, but even the biggest differences are smaller when compared to how other leftist thought has developed.

As far as -isms, I totally get that. -isms are often used as an insult, such as when trump tried to insult all the cool people, which tends to devalue the fact that in many cases there is a huge amount of philosophy behind the idea (not that it makes the philosophy or the ideology good) and conversely elevates more mainstream politics by turning alternatives into an ideological insult, even if their philosophy and ideologies are kinda trash.

So I’m not against most of the Lemmy Left in concept, I’d just rather see helpful post and comments like you and I are having than what feels like a leftist version of a FOX News comments section of everybody complaining, but not bringing anything useful to the party. We all need to vent and all, but it feels like that’s the bulk of what I see on here now

First, thanks :)

I think you are right, but probably in a way you weren't thinking. When I watch FOX I always feel like I'm missing some context even though I am seeing a story beginning to end. I don't see this on mainstream lemmy, but interestingly I do sometimes see it on Hexbear. I think that's because I'm immersed in leftist culture, and there is a shared cultural understanding that I share with the left in general that the average conservative would share with FOX. I'm not a Marxist-Leninist, and sometimes I'll see a take on hexbear that catches me off guard, since I lack the ML viewpoint and shared culture. And just like FOX, I don't think that the average lemmy user will have the most nuanced and carefully examined takes (myself included, though I am getting better at discussing some topics after actually doing it more often) that makes their political discussion uneasy, but at least most of them lack the bigotry.

I dont really remember it being that way 9 months ago when I first hopped over here with everyone else

I remember occasionally seeing it. But not at this level. I think a lot of people are getting radicalized by the genocide and seeing the two genocide lovers on a ballot and are having a justifiably angry reaction. Also, election season is in full swing, so the internet will be infested with political discourse for a little while, and not the kind that is fun, pleasant, or interesting.

I was raised conservative until I got to know some people who acted much like you are here that helped me to gain a better perspective and to see the things that I valued weren’t being supported by those I thought I was supposed to trust

Me too. I was born in a deeply christian family, and I identified as a conservative libertarian after becoming politically active. IDK how I'd be doing right now if I was still conservative. Now, I'm queer, and while I still suffer the unfortunate position of having to be in the closet to prevent my family from exploding, having that feeling of shame and regret consume myself from the inside out would be 100x worse if my politics and religion made me objectively bad for it.

Thankfully I talked with some of my friends I had in a political science class I took in high school around the time Bernie started campaigning. At this time I was having some doubts about capitalism that I never shook off from seeing some good critiques of capitalism itself, and my libertarian ideology. I was pulled further left, and eventually surpassed them on my journey to becoming a socialist with a libertarian edge. I haven't looked back.

Granted, I've only really reconsidered politics recently when evaluating the absolute shitshow that's been american politics. While I was becoming increasingly anarchistic when studying theory, I can definitely say that I was radicalized by the ongoing genocide. The mechanisms that worked to justify the existence of an apartheid state, to justify the ongoing genocide, and to execute it are fueled by the state to further it's positions, which doesn't exactly give the it a good look. Once again, I went on this journey with a friend who was also becoming more radical.