11
A thought experiment. (lemmy.dbzer0.com)
submitted 1 year ago by to c/anarchism@lemmy.dbzer0.com
39 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Imagine you are a person fighting in an anarchist revolt. You have captured a sizeable chunk of land but the front line has grown too large and you can't progress further. The state that you have been fighting approaches you with an offer: They recognise you as a sovereign (however that would look like) entity but you have to give away most of the land you've captured. They will leave you with the primary city and enough surrounding land to feed everyone.

What would be your position? Would you be willing to make a deal with the state?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 3 points 1 year ago (4 children)

You cannot fake being an anarchist.

You sure about that? Piggy manages it all the damn time. And if a pig - the worst of the working class - can do it, anyone can.

What is it if not culture?

Counter-culture does not win wars. It sure as hell doesn't win (or even start) revolutions, either - never mind building workable and sustainable societies afterward.

Seeing a Circled A on a street corner frequently makes me smile.

I see them, too - but it doesn't make me smile, because I know the teen who made it doesn't know what it even means.

The current norm in almost every country is to be a worker in an industry and vote in elections,

I live in a country with a 40% unemployment rate - perhaps you should reconsider your conception of "normalcy." There is a big difference between merely rebelling against "normality" and posing an existential threat to the status quo - the risk profile of the latter comes with real bullets, real torture and lots and lots of real death.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 0 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    counter-culture there’s the word I was looking for when describing punk. That's what I meant with "only one side of it". Counter-culture is only one side of anarchist culture. The side called punk. But there are so many other facets to anarchy that punk doesn't cover. I agree that counter-culture can't build up social systems, which is why I don't call anarchist culture counter-culture. It's something different. Not simply about opposing what exists but also building and imagining what can.

    I know the teen who made it doesn't know what it even means.

    Are you sure of that? They might not know the theory but just by drawing it they showcase a willingness to act against the established rules. That's a good first step towards learning about anarchy, and while they could "grow out of it" they could also find actual anarchist movement and go deeper into it.

    The person who drew it also doesn't matter. It doesn't change what I think when I see it. It doesn't change how much it matters to me. The symbol lives it's own life and even if the person who drew it didn't know that, the people who see it might. Some more curious might find anarchism because of looking up what the deal with them is.

    perhaps you should reconsider your conception of "normalcy."

    My "normalcy" is the direct result of the environment I was raised in and the people I interacted with. It is an idea that changes and evolves constantly as I interact more. I don't only reconsider my conception of "normalcy" but of every word I use as I grow and learn. But in the context that I exist in normal people do not act anarchically.

    There is a big difference between merely rebelling against "normality" and posing an existential threat to the status quo - the risk profile of the latter comes with real bullets, real torture and lots and lots of real death.

    Which is scary, which makes it unappealing, which makes it actively detrimental for outreach. There are many ways to fight battles, many ways to oppose the status quo and culturally is most certainly one of them. It's not inferior to military action just because people don't die doing it, but I also know it wont be enough on it's own. Just like militancy won't be enough.

    One of the joys of anarchism is getting to choose where you belong. Being able to dictate what you do and how you do it. I am a pacifist. My aversion to violence is one of the foundations of my anarchism. I could never be on the front lines. It scares me. But I know I can do other things, help out in other ways, and that me being able to do that is foundational to anarchism.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)

    It’s something different.

    If you're going to cast anarchism as "culture," I just have to ask... what does this "culture" actually offer the rest of the working class?

    Are you sure of that?

    Yep. The rebellious teens who drew it everywhere here back in the nineties was doing so because the anarchy symbol was "popularised" during the Satanic Panic of the late eighties - and I can assure you that most of the kids who did so are now full-blown fascists.

    But in the context that I exist in normal people do not act anarchically.

    Neither do anarchists - I have yet to meet an anarchist who has successfully "opted out" of the capitalist mode of production. If they could there'd be no need for anarchism, would there? There may be some extremely privileged ones who gets to do so... but I have no interest in what they have to say. Politics that aren't rooted in the experience of the working class is less than useless to any leftist.

    One of the joys of anarchism is getting to choose where you belong.

    But do you? Anarchists can pretend that they are "choosing" this or that... but their choices are subject to the mathematics of the capitalist mode of production no differently than the (so-called) "normies" in the working class. Counter-culture can provide a safe-space socially, but it cannot provide you with an economic one - unless you're Chumbawumba, I suppose.

    I could never be on the front lines.

    Well, neither can I... my health isn't what it used to be (and it wasn't really all that good to start off with), but that's not what this is about. It's about understanding the true nature of revolution... and the inevitable counter-revolution.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    what does this "culture" actually offer the rest of the working class?

    Anarchism. Although I understand that that term means different things to us so I'm going to use the meaning you gave it a few comments back:

    Anarchism consists of a critique of hierarchy

    And this cultural anarchism is taking that critique and applying it to culture. To everyday situations. To the way children are being raised and workers are being hired. To song, writing and all the other arts. What it offers to people is anarchism. A way to live your life without archy. Or as AFAQ calls it: "social revolution" https://anarchistfaq.org/afaq/sectionJ.html#secj7

    This is what I mean when I say revolution: A complete change to the entire social structure. The biggest driving force in any society is culture. While economic forces to play a part they can only exist as long as they are reinforced by culture. The value of money exists in culture. The concept of property exists in culture. An anarchist culture is about looking at these concepts in a way that consciously opposes archy.

    Also participating in capitalism does not yet disqualify you from acting anarchically. It's not a all or nothing scenario. You do what you can, where you can. Obviously you should be on the lookout for better alternatives and constantly keep in mind what it is your participating in every time you shop, but as long as your thinking about it, considering your actions in an anarchic framework, you are acting anarchically.

    And the more people keep doing this the more they start considering alternatives, at which point anarchic spaces become a vital component to in the process to collectivise the economy. You connect people with skills who don't like having to shop for food and some of them might start their own farm, and because they already have connections to other people in that space they start being able to benefit from that venture as well.

    The social/cultural isn't separate from the economic which isn't disconnected from the political. Society is a collection of all and in order to effectively dismantle one we need the help of others. And culture is the easiest by far because all you need is for people to listen and consider the things you say. Culture is nothing more than the ideas we hold and ideas are a hell of a lot more easier to change than political or economic realities.

    But that's just the framework that I use to think about anarchism and society at large. You probably have your own.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    Anarchism.

    And I take you haven't noticed that the working class doesn't give a damn about anarchism?

    The biggest driving force in any society is culture.

    If that was true they'd be using musicians for forced labour in prisons... not low-level drug dealers.

    at which point anarchic spaces become a vital component to in the process to collectivise the economy.

    How close do you think we are to collectivising the economy? The corporations are bigger than ever, organised labour has never before in history been this thoroughly co-opted, and the transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich is accelerating... can you explain how these incremental "anarchic" lifestyle changes is reversing any of this?

    Culture is nothing more than the ideas we hold and ideas are a hell of a lot more easier to change than political or economic realities.

    Why do you assume that it's even possible to change ideas independent of political or economic realities? History suggests that it actually works the other way around.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent