Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

celebratedrecluse wrote

One response I have to this is, in what ways is this simply not anarchist at all? What is the relationship of anarchists to these protest movements? It seems that there are exceedingly divergent interests in play here, but there is a hesitation from anarchists (especially the whites, and non-black anarchists in general) to really discuss this. The fear appears to be, I don't want to seem like I'm co-opting something. But liberalism, is by definition a co-optation, an accomodation with the structures that are opposed by abolitionist forces. And these goals and material aspirations of for example this conversation are, seemingly, clearly within that system, even as they discuss "dismantling it entirely" etc.

I think it's important to cut through the rhetoric and discuss what appears to be a contradiction, because that's where the food gets really spicey.

3

Tequilx_Wolf wrote (edited )

It's not anarchist.

I'd put this in the realm of authoritarian radical reforms.

This is how I get there -

Authoritarian: if there are appeals to authority at all rather than mutualistic direct action.

Within that, there are two types of reforms; radical and reformist.

Radical reforms are more likely to incidentally help anarchists (while reaffirming a fundamentally undesirable mode of relating - authoritarianism), and are usually negations ("de-" words like defund and demilitarise and decriminalise). Say they take away the cops guns via official structures and ballots.

Reformist reforms capacitate the state, like cop training, more funds for body cameras, more sophisticated weapons etc.

Anarchist approach generally does not do any of these, rather it builds mutual aid networks/societies that are their own power.

4

celebratedrecluse wrote

I think that anarchist, worldwide, have a self-interest in articulating and acting autonomously from these para-authority moves. It's not about "splitting a/the group", but rather learning how to speak and act for ourselves without subsuming ourselves as part of anonther mass.

We don't need mass-- we need mutuality, like you say. Creating space for people to meaningfully choose to act in a liberated way, rather than printing blueprints for a chess game, is much more appealing to me. And, like you say, they aren't even always at odds-- there are ways that the liberal authoritarians can focus their energy as a negation of the state authorities, in a way that synergizes with anarchist activity. And, vice versa.

But there should be no confusion that we are two different parties, with two different approaches and different desires. I think the deconstruction of liberal authoritarianism, insofar as it fuels the identity politics of liberalism, is important as it is fraught, for anarchist to do in this tense moment in history.

3