Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

An_Old_Big_Tree wrote (edited )

It's nice to know that I have kin scattered through history.

No anarchist loses against hierarchy, we win just by living anarchy in the here and now.

12

blackbearder wrote

This is a good way to think of it. We might be completely outnumbered but we're not alone and we never will be.

5

exvegan wrote

How do you live without capitalism when capitalism exists?

−8

blackbearder wrote

Anarchism isn't "no capitalism", read a book please.

2

celebratedrecluse wrote

anarchism can have little a capitalism?

In all seriousness, what do you mean by this? Mutualist, perhaps?

5

Majrelende wrote

I am not at all sure what it means, but I do feel sorrow about all of the people trapped forever in the past as slaves.

Maybe anarchists in general have been trying too much or in the wrong way.

I suppose that maybe utopias are more resonant than anti-dystopias, yet any conception of anarchy is inherently rather non-utopian.

We neither know nor are able to know.

6

exvegan wrote

yet any conception of anarchy is inherently rather non-utopian

How so? Anarchism is peak utopianism. Its failure is rooted in its inability to be practical.

−7

blackbearder wrote

The 'failure' to create a top down system that forces everyone to live a certain way is by no means a knock against anarchism. It's an advantage. Every hierarchical system is automatically a failure since it denies people freedom and autonomy from the system that forcibly governs them.

5

celebratedrecluse wrote

Well, that's not the only kind of failure that anarchists engage in. For example, there are countless times where anarchist groups have split, stated their goals and then not met them on their own terms, and/or simply not shared labour equitably and reified horrible hierarchies within their cliquish in-groups. More specifically to the point raised here, I can think of at least three different major instances from my personal life where specific anarchists' idealism and unwillingness to put in backend labour resulted in the destruction of shared projects and communal spaces. There are many forms of anarchist failure, and it is notable that some of us have decided to regard every form of failure as either positive or not worth discussing.

In this vein it seems, rather concerningly, that you have construed this critique (which is actually very poignant, unfortunately) in a way where you can automatically win the argument by disregarding any possible validity it could have. While I hardly agree with their strain of politics, this is not useful and should invite reflection. I know that my experience with anarchist failures is far from unique, it is grounded over decades of experience and repetition.

1

Majrelende wrote

Utopia is to strive towards artificial perfection of society, which is an authoritarian goal.

3

celebratedrecluse wrote

Tbh, it means we are not very good at this

4

[deleted] wrote

2

celebratedrecluse wrote

Good question lol

3

An_Old_Big_Tree wrote

My thoughts:

The end of state-capitalism and civilisation is a framework for an abstract goal. Concrete goals are must be real.

We would not consider ourselves to have failed if a giant meteor came and destroyed the planet, because such a thing is out of our hands.
Whether we succeed or fail has to be about the things that are in our hands, the things that we can actually do together. What those things are is unknown, but we do have the way of living that unfolds them, the lived ethic of anarchy.

And so, success is living anarchy. Something any of us can do, in some sense at least.

4

celebratedrecluse wrote

Ah, but the things within our grasp, they are also fleeting for anarchists. At every turn it seems, communities are breaking apart, most of us live years of idolation from fellow travelers, and for every temporary advance there are very few concrete strongholds and quite numerous retreats. And that is in the good times.

If success for anarchists is purely in individual feeling, then i think we have lost grasp of most of the material reality that inexorably binds our destinies.

3

ziq wrote

We would not consider ourselves to have failed if a giant meteor came and destroyed the planet

an anarcho-posadist would consider that a great triumpth

3

exvegan wrote

I think you are on the right path. Of all the people on this site, you seem the most reasonable by far.

−5

Pop wrote

found your leader then, you must be relieved

6

celebratedrecluse wrote

Don't mistake my cynicism, rooted in disappointment with other anarchists, for wisdom.

The endgame is just coming into shape . The reason i am still writing is because it is in moments of great anticipation when incredible transformation can occur. Anarchists still have time to learn from our internal contradictions, and some of us will in time to leave lasting impacts on the world.

4

CaptainACAB wrote

It means that, despite everything, there will always be people who hate authority enough to oppose it.

And that gives me some small measure of peace of mind.

4

blackbearder wrote (edited )

It means nothing to me since as an anarchist, I know authority will never cease to exist (and neither will anarchy).

3

ziq wrote

In the future, I'd recommend f/anarchism for anarchist topics. f/lobby is really for stuff that would be off-topic elsewhere.

I think capitalism and the state surviving isn't saying much when they (and more generally, civilization) are destroying everything they touch.

History isn't going to look back on these systems fondly since they've doomed near-future generations to a permanent struggle for survival in a vast resource-depleted wasteland where even water and oxygen are hard to come by.

Civilization surviving right now is meaningless when you look at all the death and destruction it has wrought in its incredibly short existence. Anarchy flourished for millennia without harming the ecosystems.

3

rot wrote

even if the world revolted tomorrow most of us would live under and die under capitalism and the state

2

exvegan wrote

I get 500 internal server error when I try to submit links.

0

exvegan wrote (edited )

It shows that anarchism is a bourgeoisie distraction and not at all tenable. Every anarchist revolution has been IMMEDIATELY destroyed by imperialist forces. Anarchist can't work, that's why anarchists need to read Marx and Lenin so they can graduate from their naive utopianism.

−9

MarxWasTheMessiah wrote

Anarchist can't work, that's why anarchists need to read Marx and Lenin so they can graduate from their naive utopianism.

See, that's what I've been saying, but no one here takes me seriously! Were it not for the fact that the force ghosts of Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Mao came to me in a fever dream and told me to come here and convert these tree fascist anarkiddie liberals into fine, upstanding soldiers of The Revolution ® for The Second Coming; I'd be outside doing some real communism.

7

ziq wrote

The closest thing to doing real communism is shoplifting since it's moneyless by definition. I think you should join f/illegalism.

5

MarxWasTheMessiah wrote

No one in the Holy Quadrant has ever said anything about shoplifting in Sacred Scrolls of Socialism, therefore it must be a bourgeoisie distraction! If I try to think of things outside of the specific theory laid down by long dead communists, I'd grow as person and maybe even attain something resembling a coherent worldview!

Can't have that happen.

5

blackbearder wrote

Because Marx and Lenin's theories worked out so well. Look at all the communism they manifested!

4