The possibility of anarchism.

4 posts / 0 new
Last post
The possibility of anarchism.
Printer-friendly version

Hi again.

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?

the revolution is a class movement, not an ideological one

The revolution isn't anarchist or marxist, it's proletarian.

I agree that Adorno is interesting and important for communists to read because it deals with aspects of the system which are not simply political or economic but cultural in a wider or deeper sense. I have just re-read Elements of Antisemitism. Some of it is impenetrable, but it is also full of very lucid insights. 

I don't think they're

I don't think they're petit-bourgeois, at least not in over 150 years since mutualists were big. The main strads of anarchism, specifically class struggle anarchism, includes Platformists, non-Platformist anarchist-communists, anarcho-syndicalists and insurrectionary anarchists (the latter 2 I think are mostly anarchist communists as well- but identify with certain tactics/strategies to 'get there'). They are similar to Marxist left communists in many ways (on the trade unions, electoral parties, the state, etc.). Too much in common to be hostile to them. The op's description of a revolution that is largely influenced by anarchism is far from what most clas struggle anarchists think or do.


There are petty bourgeois forms of anarchism (lifestylists, many eco-anarchists, anarcho-terrorists for example) and there are leftist forms of anarchism (some of the official syndicalists and some of the Platformist groups, who are more like Trotskyists without the party, such as the WSM in Ireland). Anarchism is by definition extremely diverse. But I am in basic agreement with mhou, because what's most significant about the revival of anarchism in the last decade or so is that a rather large part of them are proletarian and more or less internationalist.