Obviously this is going to ruffle feathers and be considered "condescending", that's kinda the point I guess and there's clear frustration being communicated by the author. That doesn't mean it's not interesting reading, so i'd hope people can at least read the full thing and engage it in good faith. It is a bit of a meandering rant in how it's written tho.
Also keep in mind words and meaning are weird. I know a bunch of people who call themselves "anarchists" but if you get down to what they want and how it should be done they're just MLs who acknowledge they're living in the empire and right now can't do much more than agitate and build local networks, they work on an ML model (even if they don't know it or use those words).
The way the word anarchy/anarchism is used in that article might not be how you have it in your head. From the context of that article I would actually agree that yes, in that sense, "anarchism" as a large organized force is basically only left in bourgeois western nations and not relevant anymore. That's one point that I feel is often weirdly ignored, the overwhelming rest of the world, especially the working-class, revolutionary global south also operates from this point of view and doesn't consider anarchism relevant. Words matter here too, it's not that "anarchism" is "bad" in that context, it's that that's not how they choose to operate because to them it doesn't work or not efficiently enough.
That's basically where i'm at. I don't dislike anarchism, this isn't about taste or preference. Obviously I love all my comrades, I don't really care what word they use to describe their positions, I care about their actual positions. I feel fucking stupid using words like anarchist or ML as silly little pins that I choose like it's a fucking ice-cream flavour. I'm sure I can re-imagine what the word anarchism could mean to me, but that's pointless. Anarchism as it's defined in its own theory and as it's practiced (and has been practiced) seems to not be relevant anymore except in mostly white, middle-class western nations. At the end of the day whatever my feelings are on it, i'm going to trust the judgment of the global south and the enormous masses of people who managed to fight their revolutions and are building socialism, and go with what makes the most sense and works.
I really wish this topic was more detached from aesthetic and "personal taste", detached from a real or imaginary sense of belonging to a "group" or identity. I don't feel angry or annoyed or attacked when someone talks about tankies, MLs or whatever, because I don't even think they're talking about me, it's not a defining characteristic of my existence, or a hobby. It's like saying "are you a cool heliocentrist or a dumb geocentrist?", i'm sorry what? How is that in any way a "group" or an identity to be associated with? It's a specific theory, I don't have a "personal" say in which one is cool or not, I just try to get informed and figure out which one is the most correct and useful in reaching solutions. Saying "geocentrism doesn't seem to reach working solutions and be a useful theoretical tool anymore, in fact most of the science community has now updated their theoretical models to heliocentrism" isn't somehow "condescending" to geocentrism.
It weirds me the fuck out that in the west we've managed to embed those words so deeply into a vocabulary of individual perception, emotions or aesthetic, as if they constitute identity categories and not theoretical models and strategies.
I enjoyed your rant. I feel like this ice cream flavourish over-identification with what amounts to little more than floating signifiers - and the reflexive defensiveness of what is perceived to be 'your team' - is a phenomenon of consumer culture so deeply ingrained in subjects of the imperial core, it is the single greatest obstacle to material change.
Obviously this is going to ruffle feathers and be considered "condescending", that's kinda the point I guess and there's clear frustration being communicated by the author. That doesn't mean it's not interesting reading, so i'd hope people can at least read the full thing and engage it in good faith. It is a bit of a meandering rant in how it's written tho.
Also keep in mind words and meaning are weird. I know a bunch of people who call themselves "anarchists" but if you get down to what they want and how it should be done they're just MLs who acknowledge they're living in the empire and right now can't do much more than agitate and build local networks, they work on an ML model (even if they don't know it or use those words).
The way the word anarchy/anarchism is used in that article might not be how you have it in your head. From the context of that article I would actually agree that yes, in that sense, "anarchism" as a large organized force is basically only left in bourgeois western nations and not relevant anymore. That's one point that I feel is often weirdly ignored, the overwhelming rest of the world, especially the working-class, revolutionary global south also operates from this point of view and doesn't consider anarchism relevant. Words matter here too, it's not that "anarchism" is "bad" in that context, it's that that's not how they choose to operate because to them it doesn't work or not efficiently enough.
That's basically where i'm at. I don't dislike anarchism, this isn't about taste or preference. Obviously I love all my comrades, I don't really care what word they use to describe their positions, I care about their actual positions. I feel fucking stupid using words like anarchist or ML as silly little pins that I choose like it's a fucking ice-cream flavour. I'm sure I can re-imagine what the word anarchism could mean to me, but that's pointless. Anarchism as it's defined in its own theory and as it's practiced (and has been practiced) seems to not be relevant anymore except in mostly white, middle-class western nations. At the end of the day whatever my feelings are on it, i'm going to trust the judgment of the global south and the enormous masses of people who managed to fight their revolutions and are building socialism, and go with what makes the most sense and works.
I really wish this topic was more detached from aesthetic and "personal taste", detached from a real or imaginary sense of belonging to a "group" or identity. I don't feel angry or annoyed or attacked when someone talks about tankies, MLs or whatever, because I don't even think they're talking about me, it's not a defining characteristic of my existence, or a hobby. It's like saying "are you a cool heliocentrist or a dumb geocentrist?", i'm sorry what? How is that in any way a "group" or an identity to be associated with? It's a specific theory, I don't have a "personal" say in which one is cool or not, I just try to get informed and figure out which one is the most correct and useful in reaching solutions. Saying "geocentrism doesn't seem to reach working solutions and be a useful theoretical tool anymore, in fact most of the science community has now updated their theoretical models to heliocentrism" isn't somehow "condescending" to geocentrism.
It weirds me the fuck out that in the west we've managed to embed those words so deeply into a vocabulary of individual perception, emotions or aesthetic, as if they constitute identity categories and not theoretical models and strategies.
Sorry that was probably a mostly incoherent rant.
I enjoyed your rant. I feel like this ice cream flavourish over-identification with what amounts to little more than floating signifiers - and the reflexive defensiveness of what is perceived to be 'your team' - is a phenomenon of consumer culture so deeply ingrained in subjects of the imperial core, it is the single greatest obstacle to material change.