One of my justifications for anarchism has been that the horrors of the twentieth century were only possible because there existed the centralized institutions of power that the ideologues could grab hold of in order to enforce their misguided ideas onto such large numbers of people who had little power to resist. The decentralisation of political power is a buffer against this kind of disaster scenario. This, at least, is a problem very worthy of consideration.
But the other part of the story is that these ideologues were calling for radical changes because they over-estimated their own understanding of how society works. The great danger of the intellect, which at its best is so conducive to human flourishing, is that it tends to fall in love with its own creations (to borrow a phrase I learnt from Jordan Peterson, but which originated from the Catholic Church). That is, it creates a model of some phenomenon, and thinks that it basically has the whole story. This leads to arrogance and over-confidence, which can be extremely dangerous.
So, the irony in my story is that I became so enamoured with the philosophy of libertarian anarchism, that I failed to appreciate just how little of the big picture I was seeing. Of course, I may have realised that an immediate abolition of the existent state without any kind of organized transition would be disastrous, but I did not (and still do not) understand just how deep the difficulty is.
To the ordinary reader, it will not be hard to see how a naïve approach to such issues could be dangerous. An anarchistic society, properly understood, needn't be a Hobbesian nightmare of savagery and chaos, but I do think that at least chaos is the default state of affairs. One could view human history as a slow and profoundly difficult struggle, through trial and error (and often grave error), towards forms of social organization more conducive to human flourishing. Great progress has been made, as evidenced by the drastic and ongoing decline of death and misery, brought about by technological advancement as well as the improvement of political institutions (in no small part a respect of individual liberty), which we MUST NOT take for granted.
As a principle, then, I believe that one should seek to understand as well as possible why things are the way they are before calling for drastic changes - and even then, one should proceed with caution.
Even my former religious conviction, I believe, became toxic partly because of my intellectualisation and speculative theologising. In other words, it was the illusion of knowledge, for I convinced myself that I understood what I now see clearly that I did not. Having realised that, and that I may have thrown the baby out with the bathwater, I find myself dipping my toes again in that old pool (partly via Jordan Peterson's video series on the psychological significance of the Bible).
So, let me then not cast the first stone, for I myself have sinned.
In light of this, I turn as just one example to the issue of feminism, and the naïve approach too many feminists take to gender, of which I have long been a critic.
The problem I see is that so many feminists have abstracted gender entirely away from biological sex (when, more realistically, gender could be viewed as the social aspect of sex). Gender norms are taken to be purely social constructions; they are reduced to no more than a manifestation of patriarchal oppression. Little heed is given to the notion that gender is partly an expression of underlying biological realities, or the historical (and now significantly, but not totally diminished) necessity of specialisation, i.e. the division of labour between men and women, i.e. gender roles.
I am not suggesting, of course, that we have gotten these things entirely right, or that there's no room for improvement, or adaptation, because there certainly is. My point is that there are deep reasons for these norms to be the way they are, much deeper than anyone currently understands. Thus, we should proceed with caution, and not recklessly throw out all progress that may have been made over millennia of human history, towards understanding what it means to be human, and to be male or female.
Yet, modern naïve gender ideology has even passed into the education system and is being pressed onto young impressionable children. To strip children of their inheritance with regards to our cultural understanding of gender is not just a manifestation of over-confidence in ideology, but could interfere with the psychological development of those children in such a way that could have consequences more far-reaching and destructive than even the most reactionary conservatives anticipate.
But the issue of gender is just one of many, and the problem is much broader than this. The problem of hubris and the limits of our knowledge extends to both sides of the political spectrum, and into many sciences (and economics). This is a general flaw in thinking, and a universal reality of the human condition, of which we must remain forever alert. Recognising the flaw in others is useful not only so that you can call them out, but also because it makes it easier to recognise the flaw in oneself, and understand its significance. I hope the reader will heed my warning.