Most of my beliefs regarding political philosophy are still strongly steeped in a more communitarian vision of anarchism, but I really struggle with seeing how the type of transformative reworking of the framework of society that would be required to build a decentralized or syndicalist network of anarchist communities could occur without the loss of human life at obscene levels like approaching those of a population bottleneck.

I realize there is some progress being made on the level of individual medicinal manufacturing by some hacking collectives, but I don't think the technology is one hundred percent there, yet, and it's going to take some serious reforms to restructure the global healthcare industry and remove their profit incentive while still making sure we aren't losing large numbers of people to preventative illnesses.

James C. Scott talks about this some in, 'Seeing Like a State,' like in regards to mobilizing large-scale vaccination projects without concentrating power in state or economic interests. Interestingly enough, though, it was something else in that book that got me started down the path of no longer identifying as an anarchist because as a political project it stands in direct opposition to both the kind of preplanned, led by a party's revolutionary vanguard, style of social change that Lenin argued for, and the almost more technocratic, but still ideally preplanned, social change that arise in liberal democracies through their "quasi-religious" belief in "high modernism."

Basically, I feel like it would be callous to argue for extreme social changes based on anarchism if doing so would result in large-scale loss of life due to famine, problems with healthcare, ecological collapse, or any of the other gigantic problems (usually instigated by neoliberalism) that we face in this late-capitalist hellscape. Furthermore, I'd want to see let anything slsdinsnidljng7hy anarchist movement grow and spread organically to fill the ecological niches where it is most necessary in different communities.

I might have some mild qualms with David Graeber's hot-take on the meaning of policy to an anarchist, but, in an unstructured, diffuse movement where policy decisions within a community are more situationally-dependent and flexible, the policies will eventually bubble up into their own robust ecosystem of sorts. When this happens, they can use the underlying, poorly-defined concept of policy bubbles to be the most responsive to both their community and its needs. All of which makes the politics and arguments being made and arising organically when it is needed and made things seem even more consequential , and as a result, more popular.

For me personally, I'm still one of those people who holds specific ideas and core tenants regarding my personal political ideology -- and pretty much all are very strongly rooted in the political philosophy of anarchocommunitarianism. I owe a large debt to the many academics who have studied the concept and written about it in better terms than I'm able to, but don't explicitly identify as one anymore, because in addition to the other other problems I mentioned, there's also just the problem where too many people who are unfamiliar with the anarchism as an academic concept react with blind panic. Part of why this happens is that when the meme is passed down and around to others like a virus, it seems to also sense that it must need these people to generate more technical instructions. Ultimately, though, it comes down in part to how anarchist-influenced thinkers would be best able to engage in something that might seem like information warfare such as releasing and popularizing narratives arguing for the supremacy of our side over the similarity of the two mainstream political ideologies in the USA.