I do not usually write rebuttals. Nonproductive shit-slinging generally ensues. But today I made an exception. A member of the Steemit community penned an inflammatory article condemning anarchists as "delusional" and "childish." This inspired me to provide an alternative perspective for the community by tackling his criticisms.
This individual, named 
Compassionate Communication...My Intentions are Pure
Sarcasm aside, I do not intend to address his arguments by hurling insults and waxing vitriolic. My intention is to point out the errors in his commentary, while maintaining dignity and compassionate communication. I will be quoting relevant passages directly and offering a systematic refutation.
However, he does say some things I agree with, and I believe we share many commonalities. I just think he missed the mark and conflated anarchism with communism at times.
Nonetheless, by the end of this rebuttal I hope to have convinced him that we may be able to get on the same wavelength, especially since he explicitly mentioned that he accepts the philosophy. At one point, he actually said: "I adhere to ideals of capitalism, anarchy and free-market economics myself."
But if he adheres to capitalism, anarchy, and free-market economics, why did many of his complaints seem to contradict or undermine these ideas? The thrust of my rebuttal will continuously return to this glaring issue.
Big Bad Government, Oh My!
In the first section of the article, the author asks a common question and then refers to anarchists as having a "wet dream." He said:
What makes you think that if tomorrow the governments around the world ceased to exist something will change? Let’s say the dollar crashes, economies fail and all of your end-of-the world wet dreams come true.This is an interesting question, but it represents a strawman or is directed at a specific, unnamed individual. No one said anything about believing that the world would change overnight if the government instantly evaporated.
Most anarchists admit that moving the dial closer to freedom is a multi-generational process. It is not an overnight act of magic. This type of renaissance takes philosophical change and a paradigmatic shift, which anarchists are working on by educating the masses.
In addition, anarchists realize that belief in authority is the foundation of government. It is the myth that seduces politicians into harming others. This is why many anarchists suggest that things would be better without governments since they have been responsible for murdering billions of people.
The evidence has been fleshed out by the research conducted on democide. Democide is the idea that governments have killed their own citizens by the droves. It is true. Public crimes have always vastly outweighed private crimes. Therefore, in the worst case scenario, we can expect some improvement to civilization in the absence of State control. Even if abolition of government did occur overnight.
Lastly, kyriacos mentions that this whole notion is an anarchist's "wet dream."
This remark blew my mind for a specific reason. The author admitted to accepting anarchism, which by definition means "without a ruler." In this sense, should not the collapse of government also represent his "wet dream"? Or does he prefer the sustained existence of government? I am rightfully confused.
The Redistribution of Wealth and the Evil Whales
In the same section, the author mentions that anarchists have a desire to "redistribute wealth." This is inaccurate. Not all "anarchists" argue for equal redistribution of wealth. Generally, that idea is aligned with communism or anarchists who trumpet socialism.
This makes me wonder who kyriacos targeted with his article. As far as I can see, most of the anarchist population on Steemit consists of anarcho-capitalists who do not vie for wealth redistribution. In the language of anarcho-capitalism, that is just another term for extortion or robbery. I hope that this knowledge reminds the author that we adamantly agree with his capitalistic sentiment. In our view, redistribution of wealth is anathema to anarchism.
In the next section, the author continues elaborating on his idea that wealth distribution is the problem. At this point, I am flabbergasted that the Strawman is still standing. But I am likewise optimistic that once kyriacos reads this post he will realize that we are the same side.
He continued:
"Steemit will have whales, Ethereum will have whales. All new paradigms will have whales. It is not about corporations or whales. Is about a few individuals that make shit happen and bunch of others watching shit happen. Big corporations might brought wars, misery and all that you like to parrot about but they also brought innovation, fought poverty, raised life expectancy by a three fold and improve daily our lives."I am happy to say that I agree with the good things that corporations have done. As a proponent of anarcho-capitalism and relational anarchism, I think that these businesses have mostly been victims of government. As Frank Underwood eloquently stated in one House of Cards episode, "You may have all the money (speaking about a corporation whale), but I have all the men with guns (talking about the fact that he is a politician)."
In this regard, most corporations just attempt to survive in a predatory environment, but it is also good to bear in mind that this does not exonerate the ones that have done outright evil, such as Blackwater or other government-created monstrosities.
To summarize, not all whales are evil. And no self-respecting anarchist is anti-whale merely because whales are rich. The anarchist just realizes that any violence or social disparity that crops up as a result of wealth is a direct byproduct of government coercion and economic intervention.
Government is always the epicenter of suffering and depredation, not money; I cannot emphasize this point enough.
Better, Freer Money...
In the next section, the author takes the stance that Bitcoin or any other cryptocurrency will not save humanity. In a bold claim, he suggests this that cryptocurrencies and fiat are equally bad:
"At least with your money in the bank you know you are being scammed daily. You know is debt. You know it's a fairy tale that goes round and round. With cryptos, same thing happens plus you need to have the know-how not to get hacked."Here the author eludes to the "same thing" happening with cryptographical monies, but he does not actually provide an argument or reasoning as to why. The truth of the matter is that no one has to worry about being "scammed" with cryptocurrencies, at least not in the same manner.
The point of of crpytocurrency is that you can be your own bank. An individual does not have to worry about a middleman freezing his funds. He does not have to worry about exorbitant fees. And he gets to keep the keys to himself.
With all of these anti-authority features, it is a wonder how the author even came up with this position. Cryptocurrencies were purposely designed by anarchists as an attack on government and as a way to liberate mankind. I would invite the author to read the work of the cypherpunks, namely Timothy May, who outlined the purpose of cryptographic protocols.
The Anarchist Who Loves Government, the Problem of Sheep, and a Compassionate Goodbye
The author concluded his argument by suggesting that people are sheep and follow regardless, and this is what creates the governments, banks, and other vile institutions.
"The problem is not the government, not the banks and not the corporations. The problems you see around you are created from people being sheep. The same mentality that makes you follow scam artists and sensationalist speakers in order to make them...whales because YOU cannot be an individual. Whales that you will be complaining about in the future."This concluding statement boggles my mind, because it totally misses the point of anarchism.
First he says that "the problem is not the government." I want to return the reader's attention to his earlier comments. He said he accepts anarchism. Generally, if someone accepts a philosophy that rejects rulers, they will not turn around later and claim that rulers are not the problem.
As a final point, there is nothing morally wrong or contradictory for anarchists to follow leaders. Sometimes people just need to have the ideas articulated differently, or be close to people who have visions of the future. So long as these leaders are not coercing anyone or using an iron fist to compel followers, then there is no issue.
In this sense, being a "sheep" is a nonargument.
It is true that the herd mentality can further entrench governments and make people more acculturated, but the reality is that people can be enlightened to new ways of functioning.
As the author already knows, many of these "sheep" who follow whales choose not condone violence and bloodshed. They follow, but they do not harm others. All that needs to happen is for anarchist leaders to continue educating people on new cultural principles, and this is how an anarchist society can and will blossom.
This means that being "sheep" is not the sole problem, the idea that violence is acceptable to solve social problems is one of the most preeminent conundrums of our time. And I hope that
Anarchists are not children, and certainly not delusional.
My name is Sterlin. Follow me @ Psychologic-Anarchist. I also run the Psychologic-Anarchist Facebook page and produce many YouTube videos. My interests lie in the intersection of counseling psychology and anarchism. I write about the depredations of psychiatry, and also the new philosophy of compassionate anarchism. We have a large community devoted to discussing psychology and relational voluntaryism.