[Critique This!] People who think that Marxism and anarchism have the same end goal are misunderstanding anarchism, framing anarchism in terms of authoritarian values and perspectives.

Submitted by Tequila_Wolf in CritiqueThis (edited )

It’s common to hear people say that Marxists and anarchists have the same end goal; full communism, the stateless, moneyless society. Except, they say, the difference is in how they propose we get there!

But that difference itself, the how we get there, is anarchism. Anarchism, with its task of creating the new world in the shell of the old, creating new sets of sociopolitical logics outside of authoritarian ones, has effectively nothing to do with destinations.

Anarchism is a lived ethic in the here and now, one that seeks always to unmake coercive relationships of all kinds, based on a calculated, situated praxis rooted in our needs and desires.

Anarchism has no destination except more anarchism. There is no such thing as “after the revolution” for anarchists, except in the vague sense that there might be a time when state-capitalism is fully dissolved from this world. But even then, anarchists would live their lives in opposition to authority and hierarchising tendencies everywhere. Our stagnancy would mean their rebirth, since anarchism is a kind of becoming, it is movement.

15

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

Tequila_Wolf OP wrote

Similarly, prefiguration is not the process of acting like we would act "after the revolution" - that would mean acting as if classes, race, binary gender and all other forms of hierarchy did not exist. Which makes no sense, though it is useful sometimes as a heuristic for people.

Prefiguration is just the instantiation of anarchist values and logics in the here and now, fully attuned to the details of our very specific contexts.

9

ziq wrote

You've been on a big prefiguration kick lately, which I like. It's always confused me how it's gotten a bad rep.

6

black_fox wrote

Prefiguration is just the instantiation of anarchist values and logics in the here and now, fully attuned to the details of our very specific contexts.

It's always confused me how it's gotten a bad rep.

yes!

4

celebratedrecluse wrote

all organizations, regardless of professed political goals, have an inherent self interest in perpetuating the context in which that organization can survive.

authoritarian communist orgs, and even anarchist orgs, are liable to slip into bourgeois sentimentality and cognition because of the material condition of their own futurity. If there is not a context in which a relationship can survive into the future, the relationship will incentivize participants to delay that future by reifying the present relationships of power, regardless of their symbolic politics.

this is the strongest argument that I can articulate for the importance of individualist and illegalist praxis and positionality, however don't think that's a silver bullet either.

The challenge for anarchists moving forward into the new decade will be how to instantiate rhizomatic conceptions of futurity that do not rely on the reification of 20th century modernism, and all the toxic elements of ourselves which are bound up with it.

7

ziq wrote

I can't really critique this since I wholeheartedly agree. I hope we can get this idea to gain traction so people stop buying into ML propaganda that sees them as only slightly different from anarchists.

5

cronal wrote (edited )

How to critique this? plz explain

0

Splinglebot wrote

not quite sure what you're asking. Are you asking what critique this means or how to go about critiquing it?

or is it supposed to be like "how can I possibly critique this because it's too good"? I really can't tell

1

cronal wrote

Well the thread asks me to "critique this!", so I don't really know how to critique it, as it pretty much makes sense... Marxists are the enemy of anarchy. They don't even hide it.

−1