Though I have recently left the Anarchist movement in protest and become relatively a-political, as I wonder if the slogan, "the personal is political", shouldn't ring all too true, I have decided to conceptualize a new political philosophy. I have coined the term, "Meta-Anarchism", to describe a political philosophy that proceeds from but has also left Anarchism behind. I will give my reasons for doing so in the following paragraphs.

A partial inspiration for doing so is that, like some Nihilists, I believe for an effective ethical global revolution to be impossible. In this text, Endnotes claims that that the military should choose not to fire upon a civilian populace and defect to them is the sine qua non of any effective revolution. I agree with this. What I should first like to ask is as to why it is that we should expect for the militaries of the world arbitrate the establishment of a loosely affiliated set of freely associated Anarchist communes following a global revolution? As their doing so will necessitate the creation of ethical internment camps at best, I should also like to ask as to how this can be done ethically? As such a situation can just simply not be produced, what qualms I have with revolutionary praxis are just simply irrelevant.

For a global spontaneous revolution to occur, everyone would have to decide to flood the streets of the cities and cultural centers of the world simultaneously. Such an extraordinary event can only occur within the speculative realm of Philosophy as thought experiments. Substantial changes to the world can be made within experimental communities, through various forms of protest, and in advance of as libertarian and egalitarian of a political community as possible, but what the advancement of such praxis is not is Anarchism. Anarchism is delimited by its advancement of a global revolution. It is not possible to remain effective within the Anarchist movement if you do not agree to partake within a revolutionary project.

A reason that I cited for leaving the Anarchist movement was of its general proclivities towards "political violence". Actual Anarchist terrorists are extraordinarily rare, but those who, in theory, defend them are not. A coercive act of direct action is an act of terrorism. If you plant a bomb in a factory, even one that doesn't kill anyone, and use that act, one that could merely qualify as sabotage, as a threat, then, that is terrorism. You are making an attempt to force the hands of others by intimidating them. Clearly, an overtly coercive act of direct action, such as a political assassination, is an act of terrorism. Though I understand all too well as to how American discourse has become totally lacking in either complexity or nuance when it comes to just what is or is not "terrorism", it just simply is what political coercion is. All too many Anarchists will give all too many excuses in their rationalizations and justifications for such acts. As a Pacifist, I have found for the movement as a whole to be completely untenable. As anyone who undertakes a cursory analysis of the far-Left following a series of events in 1968 ought to discover what the ramifications of engaging in such praxis are, the detractors to it are right to describe such praxis as "adventurist terrorism".

What I did not cite as a reason for leaving the Anarchist movement is what I have just recently realized, that it is impossible to create a fully participatory democracy. Though I do still advance the eventual creation of a loosely affiliated set of freely associated communes, what I have realized is that they will have to have delegates, and, so, now offer a syncretic participatory and representative democracy in opposition to the form of Liberal democracy that exists today. I also think that such an organization of a political community can only be achieved gradually. Experimental communities, nonviolent acts of direct action and protest, free expression, and the meaningful participation within the Liberal democratic project can all be utilized in bringing such a political community about. Though similar to the "diversity of tactics", as Malcom X's strategy precluded strict nonviolence, what I have proposed markedly differs. I am not making an attempt to co-opt his strategy; I have given one that I believe to be better in a decisive split from the Anarchist movement. I don't want to make a bid for control within it. I am leaving it behind.

In no unclear or uncertain terms, Meta-Anarchism is a nonviolent gradualist political philosophy that advocates for the eventual creation of a loosely affiliated set of freely associated communes effectuated by a syncretic participatory and representative democracy through a diverse set of tactics. There are no required readings and it is open to all.