Are Lemmy anarchists okay? How does this person have 24 upvotes? In what universe are anarchists NOT doing class analysis, (therefore) don't want to abolish capitalism, and don't want to fight archism?
I suspect this is just because libs absolutely DESPISE comrade @Cowbee@hexbear.net and will upvote anything smart-sounding that supposedly addresses whatever is being discussed?
Also, gotta love the whole "I have this opinion and many anarchists will disagree and that's what anarchism is about". Like, buddy, you haven't read one book or talked to one anarchist IRL, let alone organized in your entire life.
I don't know how anyone can come to the conclusion that anarchy doesn't involve fighting against archy when it is the literal antithesis of archy.
It's wild that people seem so hung up on that sentence. Of course anarchists oppose class and archists, and need to worry about resources. The point is that it's not something that should be the focus. By focusing only on the things you are against you feed antagonism and tribalism. I find it much more productive to focus on the constructive things.
That is the point of the sentence: "Anarchy isn't about all of these things that are defined in opposition. But this thing that is constructive"
If opposing archy isn't the focus then there is literally never going to be anarchy. All you're doing is making community under archy more pleasant and therefore reducing the conditions that make people more likely to support revolution. It is exactly the same trap that democratic-socialists fall into as they pursue better conditions for workers under capitalism and ultimately never pursue revolution.
Do you actually want anarchy? Or do you just want healthcare and slightly better working conditions?
Serious question. I've said the same to so-called communists before too so don't think I'm calling you out, I was an anarchist myself for several decades. Communists make the same god damn mistake too, many forget that they're supposed to be achieving socialism, which ultimately requires revolution, not just making things under capitalism slightly better.
The primary goal of an anarchist should be to end archy. That requires direct conflict with the state and it requires convincing others of the need to destroy the state as well.
It's not my focus, because I don't like conflict. It will be the focus of other anarchists. I'll let them deal with it. Not everyone needs (or should) be on the front-lines. The anarchy that I describe is mine. It doesn't work on it's own. It requires other peoples anarchies to compliment it. I don't need to have all the answers. I don't need to fight all the fights. This I consider the primary privilege of anarchism "I don't need to care about everyone" and "I don't need to have all the answers". I have hope that someone else will. I am just a small cog in a machine not the overseer of an entire society.
That's what makes it anarchy. It's that despite not being that oppositional to archy myself I still believe that it can be destroyed, and will help others to do it. I seek anarchist spaces and other anarchists to begin building my own community. That's what makes me an anarchist.
Strongly disagree. I think this is a mindset that leads to a huge quantity of people that would be revolutionaries if given a social push, but instead choose to say it's someone else's job.
It's all of our job. Every single last one of us. Unwillingness to die for it is just a sign of not really actually wanting it. Sympathisers they may well be, but they're not revolutionaries unless they take that step. They hold within themselves deep fears, lack of commitment and ultimately a deeply rooted and unexamined element of liberalism that they have not yet examined or excised from within themselves. The deep yearning they have to go back to brunch. To have things just be comfortable.
If not us. Who. When.
The can gets kicked to another generation each time a generation is too cowardly to commit to what must ultimately be done.
Nobody is coming to free the working class. We must do it ourselves.
So give me that social push. I'm all for it. Give me a group of people that make me want to fight and I will. I'm stuck in a country with so little revolutionary potential. I would absolutely love to find some movement and I hope in time I will.
I'm not saying I won't fight. I'm saying my fighting will not be direct. I will play support. It's a role that suits me more. I'll clean, I'll cook, I'll help setting up tables or tents. I'll write programs. I will do what I'm comfortable with. Otherwise it isn't a revolution I want to support. Anarchy is about finding your own place and having others accept it. Anarchy is about being comfortable if that's what you want to be.
You call not wanting to fight a lack of commitment and cowardice. I call it being sensible and not putting myself in a situation where I'm leasts efficient and will probably contribute nothing, and in worst case scenario cause damage. I will not fight on the front-lines. It's not what I'm good at.
Join a marxist organization, there is plenty of that work to do. I can't speak to anarchist organization simply because I can only speak from my own experience. Part of Marxist practice, though, is movement building. We aren't plotting to have revolution tomorrow or to push anyone into things they aren't yet ready for. Be assured, we will get you ready for those things (if and when the moment calls for them), but we also understand that revolution is both not something that can be planned on a specifc date, nor can it be successful without a critical mass of the working class being organized and understanding the necessity of organization. We cannot wield our collective power or bring new people into our movement without actively engaging with other members of our class. That means we take on the mass work of training, social investigation, political education and interventions (i.e. programs, tables, and tents), as well as engaging with theory and being students of history in order to inform and develop that practice.
And to be clear, we study history because it teaches us in concrete terms how the Vietnamese, Cubans, Russians, Chinese, etc, won their struggles for independence despite even worse conditions than what we experience today. Peasant societies that went from being 90% illiterate and living in abject poverty to, yes, being trained under both marxist theory and practice, and leading a coordinated fight against the some of the most powerful armies in the world. Standing even to this day to develop their projects against those same powers that seek to undermine what they've worked so hard to build. In American context, it teaches us how a completely enslaved people broke their chains, went on to elected office, championed massive advancements of society (without reconstruction we would not have public schools), only to be overcome by the racist structures that, naturally, were not abolished when their emancipation was conceded. A critical analysis of history teaches us in every way that disorganization is the antithesis to a successful and lasting revolution.
All that to say, everyone has a starting point and everyone can contribute something. Nobody wakes up as a fully trained revolutionary, nor did any revolutionary come to their understandings simply through osmosis or material conditions. Yeah you can get a pretty good, if shallow, foundation from those things, but it's certainly not a given nor can it ever be expected. We only expect a willingness to learn and engage with our ideas. We have to be students before we can be teachers.
I'm calling it an open invitation to everyone else with any kind of hesitations to use the same excuse to never fight. It's a social contagion that reduces people that otherwise would become fighters. It's a position that reduces revolutionary energy rather than increases it.
Given a choice between fighting and not fighting almost everyone will choose not fighting. The choice must be taken away before revolution actually occurs, both in material conditions and socially. The working class must realise that they have no choice.
Alright, reading this honestly is pushing me more toward what Awoo said. Later you make a more valid point about what your skills are (while seemingly ignoring that you can get new skills), but if a demand for comfort is truly a guiding axiom, you would sooner betray us for the liberals, because revolution is not a dinner party.
Considering the liberals expect me to pay for my existence, making money a constant source of anxiety. I will never be comfortable under capitalism, not to mention patriarchy and NeuroTypArchy causing me to be trapped in norms and expectations I don't want to conform to, making the aforementioned moneymaking even more difficult.
Don't worry, I'll take communists over liberals, no hesitation. Although obviously I would prefer anarchists.
I mildly disagree with Awoo here (though I respect her opinion both in general and here specifically), but I have a different criticism: I think this focus on decentralized everything leading to an idea of decentralized, modular political theory is unhelpful. I think that it's fine to not personally be much of a fighter, at least so long as you recognize that there are circumstances where that might need to change. What I think is not okay is not having an understanding of why and how to fight (because it's not "my anarchy"). That's not political theory, that's a lifestyle brand.
There is no "your anarchy" in the sense of a modular truth, there is only "what you currently understand about anarchy," where what you don't understand isn't marked as merely someone else's business, or a soup of definitional contradictions that are all still true, but merely things that you do not understand yet, and typically should be concerned with learning the answers for.