I see more and more anarchist "memes" around me. Perhaps this is coincidental. Anyway, I got aimlessly thinking about what it would mean for there to be anarchist revolution, that is not explictly working class. I barely understand that possibility, find it imaginable! Now, I see [in my, limited, understanding] anarchism as being the theory that revolution itself is sufficient to tip the scales of, say justice, far enough that all existing problems [themselves all emenating from the state, capitalism, whatever] are overcome. Is that possible? One event that literally negates everything it should, with no remainder? Typing this out just then, it occurred to me to mention Adotno's negative dialectics. No he wasn't a militant, or really a communist I guess, but IMHO he was awesomely good at what he did - writing bourgeois philosophy that did not affirm the status qup. He characterizes dialectics in terms of what does not fit under the concept - [I forget the exact characterization of it but] that every idea includes something that should not fal under it. Would this mean that anarchism, as I have defined in my haste, is actually impossible? And should the same be said of a higher communism that is in principle irreversible?
And, what about Marxist dialectics?