If anarchism has actually developed a framework for tackling state power, why has it never, ever seen lasting success in doing so?
Even in cases of abject state failure, it only sneaks in at the edges, never holds ground well, and is eventually crushed when state strengthens.
Conversation
Anarchism has better humanist principles than most extant ideologies, but it just. keeps. losing.
It's bizarre in this context that anarchists are so fucking smug about holding the "correct" views. Does that *help*?
Replying to
Anarchists: "Oy, we've been getting shot, tortured and hanged for a good cause for over a century. Why don't you assholes want to follow our example?"
2
Replying to
If you find any interesting reading about this kind of thing, let me know. Especially if shorter than a book: I'm doing my own book research and I'm trying not to do so much research that I put off writing the damn thing.
(also, I agree but don't know enough to propose options)
1
1
Replying to
Seems the concept of “winning” only meaningfully applies to rationally or emotionally coherent systems. In a way, the anarchist stance is to resist genocide and ratcheting inequality by opposing “winning” (defined as totalization of system) in favor of ecosystem.
1
1
Replying to
This works right up until the point where a bunch of statists kick down the door and shoot everyone inside.
Which they are wont to do.
That's the crux of my point. How do you prevent *that* in an anarchist context? I haven't seen a good answer. It always ends in state violence.
1
2
Show replies