Happy to hear you have that focus on accountability & continued class struggle - I too often see campists justify almost any and every injustice just to make friends with their enemy's enemy - even if that enemy kills socialists too
I'm not a pacifist, but neither do I believe all violence is justified - So it is fair to say I'm against violence used for the purpose of maintaining oppressive system and believe that using violent force against such systems (like capitalism) is justified because it is defence against oppression
Thanks - I'm all for new tools and using what works - I'm not against 'leadership' in the sense of those who know the way showing the way, those who can inspire helping inspire others - just in people using violence to rule over others - that will always be a deal breaker for us anarchists
But I agree it is easy to get discouraged - capitalism does a very good job of this - and nice ideas and decent activist tactics aren't always enough by themselves. But I feel the consciousness is growing and conditions are ripening for anarchism at scale again.
3 - But this is where I think anarchism has the advantage over Leninism - 95% of Leninist revolutions (35 out of 40) have failed, but even when anarchism fails to achieve an anarchist world it maintains its ‘principles’ - it doesn’t sacrifice them to try to get there.
2 - Anarchism has no lack of plans - anarwiki.org/wiki/Anarchi... - some conceptual, some practical, and some of which have been tried successfully. What anarchists didn’t always anticipate was opposition from others on the Left (mostly Leninists).
Interesting - I don't disagree that there isn't one official plan agreed upon by all anarchists - that wouldn't be very anarchist ;-) But believe there are tried and proved anarchist 'principles' which have worked in practice and have scaled - up to the point that they were forcibly stopped. ...
Good to see the goodwill - I'd love to see a state wither away into communism too, but my lack of faith in that belief led me to anarchism.
Have you posted these very principled & respectful critiques anywhere? Because the ones I've seen from others haven't been very convincing.
I'm confused by your objection - most anarchist are communists (anarcho-communists) so believe in the communal wholeheartedly - anarchists also have a long history of organising and involvement in co-ops as a form of organising and mutual aid - the O around the anarchist Ⓐ stands for Organisation.
Navajo home
Diné (Navajo) - Anti-Authoritarian Community
‘Being Diné could be considered anarchist because we never had chiefs; we didn't have a hierarchy. It was always horizontal’
anarwiki.org/wiki/Din%C3%A9
Anarchism literally on trial today in Fort Worth, lots of back and forth about what a red and black flag means.
I'm curious about what antagonism you are seeing there and why it may be happening in America but doesn't seem to be in Europe as much at present (historically is another matter)
I'm not American (although I lived there for almost 20 years) - I live in a European city which has a good local anarchist presence which is quite active in organising here - There are some local Leninist & Trotskyist groups but (anecdotally) they seem fewer in number - I mostly see them at protests
I presumed online was what you were referring to - since in real life I rarely see anarchists spending much time on or having much interaction with Leninists at all, as they're usually focused on other praxis (except perhaps at the beginning of their learning theory journey)
Well non-anarchist pro-communists (mostly Leninists) make negative remarks about anarchism daily on Bsky, sometimes several times a day. Most anarchist I know don't have much to say about Leninism unless responding to these sorts of remarks.
Tonga people
Tonga People - Anti-Authoritarian Community
‘They govern themselves without chiefs or centralised authority, maintaining order through an intricate web of kinship obligations, joking relationships, and neighbourhood ties.’ anarwiki.org/wiki/Tonga_p... #anarchism #community
Well anarchist don't have any monopoly on ideas & many anarchist ideas have been adopted (see the UK's National Health Service for one).
But my rejection of representative democracy doesn't come from its lack of effectiveness, but its terrible record on freedom and violence.
Well there doesn't have to be four different local sewage committees, one will probably suffice, if any committees are needed in that situation at all.
Funnily enough I actually wrote a story about how such things (as sewage) would work - peacefulrevolutionary.substack.com/p/liberation...
Glad you liked it - Here are a few more links that touch upon this concept -
anarwiki.org/wiki/Horizon...
&
anarwiki.org/wiki/Workers...
&
anarwiki.org/wiki/Anarchi...
It's okay to question these things - It isn't that no-one is involved in planning or coordination - just that many people are, with none of them having power to compel anyone else - it's more like they are advisors who people can take the advice of if they want in that area of expertise
If you use the word governing to mean voluntary non-forceful coordination that you can opt out of then that's fine - but most dictionaries say it also means to control, not just advise or help - then the question becomes what right do they have to that control and what happens if you oppose it
The Rise Of The Cult Of Ultra-Nationalism
‘Have you ever noticed how some people will defend their country’s actions no matter what evidence you show them its evils?’
peacefulrevolutionary.substack.com/p/the-rise-o... #fascism
I do too! I think there is room for both - Seeing the positive in would-be-fascists losing and those with more progressive candidates winning, but also realising the limitations of electoral politics at achieving real lasting change, and wanting more shared community power and freedom.
Organisation doesn't equal government - Governing (ruling over others by force) equals government.
anarwiki.org/wiki/Definit...
Sure there can be committees - the difference is that their suggestions are voluntarily accepted and not enforced by violence - no-one is punished for not obeying - unlike governments.
Anarchism doesn't ignore human nature. If people are selfish then it's better not to give them more power to rule over others. If they're selfless then they don't need people to rule over them. If they're inbetween then we should still not take the risk of allowing rulers. youtu.be/zZSLFlAbycE
If that was what anarchism was and that was what anarchists believed then maybe you would be right - but luckily no anarchists I'm aware of are stupid enough to believe in your imaginary version of anarchism
Cures do cost time and effort, but capitalism gets in the way of this by adding paywalls: Recently a molecular biochemist had to beg the public for funding for a promising pancreatic cancer cure - while a pharmaceutical company said curing disease doesn't make enough profit.
Yes, workers and others organise, but nobody governs or rules over a state and its citizens. There are no party officials, no lobbyists, no donors, and no force. Coordination is voluntary, federated, and driven by need, not tax revenue, or maintaining state power. anarwiki.org/wiki/Definit...
"The book also a story about a clash between anarchsim/libertarianism and authoritarianism."
Libertarian in the Libertarian Socialist sense?
Traditional European anti-capitalist Libertarianism?
