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*?
3
2
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.
And much as I love a good last stand, I just don't see the merit in getting a bunch of good people killed for very small gains that don't last.
2
2
Replying to
It doesn’t always get you killed. Sometimes you just get fired or lose status. Either way, it’s usually a question of preserving dignity or refusing complicity with a specific injustice, not seeking some ultimate victory. Yes, it should matter to someone—even if not to everyone.
1
3
Show replies