Submitted by arduinna in Anarchism (edited )

Anarchists here are often better than most so this isn't entirely directed at all y'all, but its something that's been bothering me.

Why do anarchists continue to talk about how great things will be after the revolution? Which revolution do you mean? The one ongoing in Chiapas, the one in Rojava? Or is the only true revolution one that happens without any effort in a western country that has a strong enough position to declare to the world "we're done with capitalism lets move on"?

It's a bad joke to talk about the revolution whilst others are ongoing. Or is Rojava not up to snuff because they haven't entirely dissolved the state whilst fighting off both European imperialist and literally ISIS alike? Are the Zapatistas not enough because they haven't yet liberated all of North America for you, the poor American anarchist arm-chairing about them online?

Why is it these revolutions aren't enough? Why can't you support them, or even join them?

This is mainly a vent of frustration after seeing so many online spaces (especially Reddit, which I recently got dragged into again and regret returning to) refer to Rojava as a statist mess, or the Zapatistas as a failed revolution, whilst responding to important social issues such as racism and sexism with the simple "it'll be fixed after the revolution", as if they don't understand that "the revolution" is ongoing, and requires they offer assistance and effort to it. To whine about how the revolution hasn't come is only counter-productive in sapping support towards the legitimately ongoing revolutions in favor of your utopian view that no oppressed peoples are actually in a position to obtain.

My central point is this- the revolution has started and is ongoing. Are you going to lend your support or go jack yourself off to texts from dead utopian white guys instead?

17

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

ziq wrote

People who say that are mostly naive kids who actually think anarcho-communism / syndicalism / Bookchinism is going to magically topple the system and create an instant egalitarian utopia where they'll continue to have all the same shiny stuff they have under capitalism but without bosses, landlords, presidents and other bullies to boss them around. In other words they're fantasists without a modicum of common sense or self-awareness.

Why can't you support them, or even join them?

Because actual anarchist movements don't meet with their fantastic vision of global social anarchism aka USA: New Egalitarian Flavor with extra sprinkles.

as if they don't understand that "the revolution" is ongoing

They don't and when you explain it to them they throw spiteful tantrums to avoid having to learn it because it breaks with their ridiculous anarcho-liberal dogma. Then they'll dismiss you as a postie or a primmie or whatever the latest anlib pariah is.

whilst responding to important social issues such as racism and sexism with the simple "it'll be fixed after the revolution",

Because they're lowkey white supremacists and anti-feminists. Have you ever tried to talk about race on r/anarchism? It'll make you tear your hair from your scalp.

Are you going to lend your support or go jack yourself off to texts from dead utopian white guys instead?

The second one obviously. And if you dare dismiss one of those dead (or living: Chomsky) utopians, you'll feel the full brunt of the collectivist struggle session that allows them to remain perpetually useless. On reddit they'll even attack you for speaking ill of Stalin, Mao and Lenin now, somehow (hint: because they never actually understood what anarchy is).

8

arduinna OP wrote

For the second link...

A very high number of Marxist-Leninists, dare I say most that I've met or interacted with, are not authoritarian

What the fuck do they think Marxism-Leninism is about?

3

rot wrote

Who does this? What Anarchist imagines a sudden people's revolution or a "post-revolution" (revolution is a ongoing process not a single event!) time where things like racism and sexism can be dealt with later (Anarchism means no oppression not just no capitalism!)

4

arduinna OP wrote

A lot of bad anarchists, especially in ancom circles. Its such a common view (that goes hand-in-hand with shitting on actual revolutionaries) that its really pissing me off.

5

rot wrote

Sounds like a marxist-lenninist, not an Anarchist.

4

GaldraChevaliere wrote

Show me Utopia, I'll call it a jail / we'll pick up the pieces and snap them in half.

4

An_Old_Big_Tree wrote

Yeah. Doing things after the revolution seems only to be a thing if you're separating your political revolution from your social one, as in Marxist logic, or if you're a reductionist, like some class-reductionists or race-reductionists are. None of which I think makes sense for anarchists.

To add, there's also the likely reality that there will never be an "after the revolution." And even if magically there were, it would require permanent upkeep.

3

arduinna OP wrote

To add, there's also the likely reality that there will never be an "after the revolution."

Yeah, I never got that especially- given the history of anarchist revolutions, why would they imagine a sudden, worldwide revolution without any external opposition?

4

ziq wrote

because their politics are boring as fuck.

3

arduinna OP wrote

Even leftists should understand that's not gonna happen, given what happened in Spain and Ukraine. It really just feels like a Marxist 'the world only goes forward' view infecting anarchist politics.

4

ziq wrote

I even see people with anarcho-Marxist flairs on reddit now.

2

arduinna OP wrote (edited )

mutualism is not true anarchism

What. I don't understand for a second.

3

ziq wrote

I guess in their heads anarchism didn't get real until Bookchin struggled against it.

2

AnarchoSpook wrote (edited )

I think their sentiments as such don't prove their point wrong but rather its their position. Active self-criticism is one of the most crucial virtues revolutionary politics can have, but when you idealize your politics so much that it doesn't correspond to any real practice in the world, that might be moving away from criticism and towards embracing excuses that ultimately bring on apathy which limits the social and theoretical capital of these revolutionary movements. If you are not glad with how some people are doing some things, why don't you do it the way you see should be done? You can build your own praxis if you want to show an alternative.

1