thank you for the synopsis. I wondered why you were so eager to engage me in conversation, and your essay does explain your motivation. I suspect that something like this provides the best strategy for freedom and agency against the abuses of state police power and the interests of capital accumulation, and there are many of us searching for better, more effective ways to rebalance the equation.
I thought you might be interested in this book review, which my browser offered for recreational reading. (Firefox Pocket, if you're familiar with it.)
It offers a sense of the fluidity of the project of maximizing freedom and agency with least harm. I don't think Municipalism is wrong, but sometimes the route to a goal isn't a straight line. I've engaged with many idealistic and ideological struggles, and have never had the satisfaction of persuading anyone at scale. Mostly I found myself in an echo-chamber, or completely alone. Consider the travails of Lao-Tzu, who tried to impart his philosophy to war lords across China (he wanted them to take care of their peoples), only to die without having persuaded even one. The model of change I follow is more organic. Ever keeping the largest vision in mind - maximum freedom with least harm - I engage the project that interests me, and keeps me engaged in the community, and by the small moments I am able to produce, move the world toward justice and kindness.
I suspect this is not helpful to you, but I will develop one more idea. When I was a teenager, I encountered the Born Again Christian movement, and later the Jehovah's Witnesses, who with many others, wanted to deliver paradise, if only everyone would believe. My answer to them was "You'll never persuade everyone, so why would I join you?"
But humanity is guided by that Pole star, equality. We are not seeking unfettered impulsiveness, we want that balance of freedom and accountability which fosters life. I assume you are also guided by that pole-star. So there may be a formula and there may be many formulas. The way we get there is by experimenting, and it's mostly a contingent process, I think they call it heuristic, where the agent of change doesn't make the change but (a-la Lao Tzu) tries to shape the change that finds them.
I believe, feel, that we are doing that here in our mutual aid society. We are collectively working toward something like what you are proposing, but you won't get everyone to make the leap of faith before they have arrived there on their own. I have worked as an advocate for the homeless for years, but my greatest impact has come after the emergence of the mutual aid group, completely without my making any effort to create it. It happened, and it has strengthened my voice.
Don't go big, seek change in the margin where your efforts will affect how people behave. Test your ideas by advancing them and seeing how people respond to them. Look for ideas that are appealing, and develop them. You may find that the growth is not in others, but in yourself.
I hope this explains why I have not been responsive to your appeal. I apologize for any disappointment I have imparted. I encourage you to continue the development of your ideas, but remember to ask yourself, "How does this help others solve problems they are trying to solve, in this moment?"
