Permanently Deleted

  • Meh [comrade/them]
    ·
    4 years ago

    I'm really curious to hear your thoughts on it, because this is a question I'm currently grappling with.

    • Nagarjuna [he/him]
      ·
      4 years ago

      Revolution means compromising on your ideals. Malatesta argued that revolutionary violence is self defense against structural violence. So while anarchism is anti violent, it isn't non violent. He was arguing that we should start from anti violence and then compromise to the degree necessary to realize anarchy.

      I think you can take this and apply it to other concepts like "defending the revolution." You start from a position of no collaboration from the state and no heirarchy and then compromise. Maybe the police want to raid your squat so you buy it and make it a land trust. Maybe the whites want to take back power, so you form a centralized army but use rotating authority and officer elections (as the PKK does and Red Army did during the revolution), or you have permanent officers but they get the same wage, go by first name, come from the ranks, and sleep in the trenches (as with the POUM).

      Bonanno said anarchism isn't a plan to be realized, but a tension where anarchists pull whatever situation they're in closer to liberty within the constraints of reality.