A thought experiment. : anarchism

[–] Takapapatapaka@tarte.nuage-libre.fr 1 points 13 hours ago

Kinda depends on the situation as always.

One aspect is obviously the civilians lives at hand. If we are speaking of a city, there's people to protect from the war. But then, what about the people living in the territories that are to be given back ? Are they at risk of a high persecution ? Then maybe it's worse a shot protecting them too. And even if not, will the states really hold back ? On a military basis at first, but also on an economic basis : won't they try to create a blocus to end the separatism ? How many time do you think it will hold as is ? Multiple years is already a quite longer time than most anarchists uprisings, so if that's somehow guaranteed, agreeing could be worth a shot.

Some deal would have to be done with some state at some point i guess, from a pragmatical point of view, every state won't fall at the same time. So if it appears you can't go further anyway, maybe it would be the right time.

[–] Kolanaki@pawb.social 2 points 6 days ago

I ain't giving them shit. I already know they be lying.

[–] alzymologist@sopuli.xyz 19 points 1 week ago (2 children)

The offer like this should either have guaranties implied or is not worth considering. What would those be?

Also, by offering this, they already recognize you as sovereign; it's time to loudly make this public and get support from some other countries/rally more people for your cause!

Thus, I find this scenario either extremely unprobable, either the state is losing so badly you are about to win, or it's a clear trap.

[–] outhouseperilous@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

guarantees

How the fuck do you trust those?

[–] alzymologist@sopuli.xyz 4 points 1 week ago

Exactly; they make an offer, they need to come up with something they honestly do not want to lose. I have no idea what they could reasonably offer in modern world. In older times people had firstborns and such, now everyone is just a cynical asshole who could sell their soul for 0.01% profit margin. But maybe they want the peace for real, and get creative... at least something to consider and give a laugh.

Remember: the peace is always made with an enemy.

[–] anaVal@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Ok, let's expand upon this.

The fighting has been going on for a while now. thousands of people have been killed, every day new causalities are ticking up on both sides due to small raids, but there is no end in sight. Nighter side has enough resources to push forward but, if you decline the deal the people of the state will start considering you unreasonable, push up support for the war and allow for more extreme actions to be taken against you.

No one from the outside is coming to help and due to the fighting the people who support you cannot get to you. This is presented as your only way out, it's either this or fighting to the last man.

The deal would stop the hostilities between you and allow for others sympathetic to your cause to join. There might even be a chance to negotiate for more territory down the line.

[–] alzymologist@sopuli.xyz 5 points 1 week ago (1 children)

You've missed the most important part.

The deal claims to provide it, but what will stop the state from not doing their part? I wouldn't be fighting someone capable of honesty, no state has that luxury today. What kind of guaranties could they provide? They are clearly lying.

It's an offer trying to objectivize my anarchland. I'll objectivise them instead, with a counter-offer! For example, let free passage of sympathizers and give me your firstborn to foster and grow up as an anarch! Something silly, they'll reject it and lose initiative, at least some part of it. I'll win time and be unpredictable. They are bargaining, they must be almost done.

Without guaranties - no deal.

[–] anaVal@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I wouldn't be fighting someone capable of honesty

What if the fighting started accidentality? What if the state that is actually a pretty decent liberal democracy where there is a large amount of political freedom. Would you still be part of the revolt? and would you take the deal if, at least for the time being, the current government is sympathetic to your cause?

As for guarantees, what could they offer that would be enough? Lets say the deal gives you the city and surrounding area, opens up trade between you, and allows for free movement of people. There would be a guarded border on the state side but no troops or cops would be allowed inside. Or maybe a DMZ?

Also fooling them with a silly counter-offer is a really good idea, but a part of me thinks that it's kinda cruel to ridicule their genuine offer.

[–] alzymologist@sopuli.xyz 3 points 1 week ago

As I said, I don't see myself fighting against Finland. I can always reason with decent liberal democracy and probably even convert them. Finland is effectively anarchic state - socialist, but you can trade all you want if you want; regulations are minimal and made by actual people, taxes are high (brutally progressive) but you know they are used for the community.

As you can see from modern conflicts, DMZ and stuff matter shit if your opponent is deragned maniac like Putin or Tump, and any ceasefire would be just them regrouping for final attack. They matter little if your opponents are "regular leaders" under pressure of international relations. Border rules are enforced at please of each side, and you'll need to force your opponent.

They'll need guaranties as well by the way. They sure are proposing something in their offer - if you are overgrown revolt, most of your forces might be guerilla (technically all they are non-coms and criminals by international law until you are recognized as a state). Removing your troops from buffer zone pretty much banning entry altogether or it means nothing. If you are not allowed to control execution of treaty, the buffer zone will be militarizred in 20 minutes.

And this Finland reference shows one more thing - the only guaranties in modern world, apart from nukes, are international alliances. You could be winning, but as long as the rule of triangle is in force globally, things can change, and without an alliance (real one, where you interdepend) you'll be crushed soon. So - just look at the map and see - make your state useful for someone you are not fighting against, produce something everyone needs, and be located where force needs to be projected - and you'll be reasonably safe. Do less - and you'll be eternal proxy war playground. Do nothing - and you will not be.

[–] masquenox@lemmy.dbzer0.com 16 points 1 week ago

They will leave you with the primary city and enough surrounding land to feed everyone.

Now that is what those in the business of war scientifically refer to as "one obvious fucking trap."

[–] rumimevlevi@lemmings.world 9 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

Thry can't be trusted. No deal

[–] anaVal@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 1 week ago (3 children)

I think they can be trusted to act in their best self-interest and this deal is that.

It allows them to:

Stop the trickle of casualties.
Gain back most of the lost territory.
Regroup to potentially take the city back later. (Of course they would stand no chance but obviously they would think differently)
Win public support.
Have a sink for the more radical people in the populous. (Wanna live in anarchy? Go over there!)

[–] masquenox@lemmy.dbzer0.com 8 points 1 week ago

Regroup to potentially take the city back later. (Of course they would stand no chance but obviously they would think differently)

Wrong. The logistics is on the side of the capitalists - they will absolutely be able to take your city at a later date. If logistics is on your side it means you are winning the war, and have no reason to accept such a silly deal.

[–] outhouseperilous@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Why would they care about casualties?
Yeah but they want all of it, and will not be satisfied.
Yeah. Of course they would. Theyre authoritarians.
Would it? Do they care
They don't want that, though. They want to punish, make examples, and have slaves.

[–] anaVal@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I imagine the state as more a liberal representative democracy. Some place that has freedom of speech and relatively fair elections. The kind of country that actually needs public support to enact their rule. Not an authoritarian hell-scape, I wouldn't trust any deal they make anyway.

[–] outhouseperilous@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

I (barely) remember the 90s, when most people would say i lived in one of those. Nah, still dont trust it as far as i can throw it.

[–] rumimevlevi@lemmings.world 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Regroup to potentially take the city back later. (Of course they would stand no chance but obviously they would think differently)

I would not take any risk

[–] anaVal@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I expanded on the scenario in the other comment in this thread. But what If you wouldn’t have a choice? If it's between fighting to the last person or taking the deal?

I would rather compromise and trust that the spirit that started this is strong enough to withstand any future attacks. With this time you have the opportunity to build up your defences, reach out to the people in the state and build networks that will keep you safe in case they attack again.

[–] masquenox@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 1 week ago (1 children)

With this time you have the opportunity to build up your defences, reach out to the people in the state and build networks that will keep you safe in case they attack again.

You can't. You have allowed them to isolate you in what is essentially a reservation - a bantustan. You ensured your inevitable collapse when you took that deal.

[–] anaVal@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 1 week ago (1 children)

So you would rather keep fighting a hopeless war? Slowly losing people until they break through your lines? Alienating those in the state by allowing the state to paint you as warmongers? Instead of accepting a refuge and using what you have to keep fighting?

And is being a reservation really a problem? Why must it lead to collapse? You can start leeching all of the radicals from the state. Slowly building up a collective industry, maybe have some of those collectives/syndicates operate inside the state. If they pay tax why should the state mind.

I think there could exist potential in a dual-system. Obviously I don't like it, and would fight against it, but if it could be a path forward to practically achieve our goals should we not at least try to examine it?

[–] masquenox@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

So you would rather keep fighting a hopeless war?

The fact that they are attempting to negotiate is proof that there's nothing "hopeless" about it.

Alienating those in the state by allowing the state to paint you as warmongers?

You mean that thng they are already spending untold amounts of treasure doing?

Instead of accepting a refuge and using what you have to keep fighting?

No enemy will ever provide you with "refuge." You pose an existential threat to their precious status quo - they have no intention of peacefully co-existing with you. They want to destroy you utterly and this (supposed) "offer" is designed to put them into a position from which they can eventually do exactly that.

And is being a reservation really a problem?

Why don't you ask all the colonised people of the world that?

You can start leeching all of the radicals from the state.

Are you typing this from within Rojava? Or Chiappas?

Now that is what I would describe as "hopeless."

Political tourism is not going to compensate for you giving up the fight when you had the capitalists on the ropes.

Look, I understand what it is what you are trying to get at... complete victory is an impossibility, even if this hypothetical scenario results in a Dien Bien Phu-style defeat for the capitalists.

But if you're going to negotiate, you're going to have to be in a position to get something more than simply being isolated into a nice, compact target that they can destroy at their leisure once they have recovered from the shock (which they will, because logistical capacity is on their side - not yours).

It's like ole' Sun Tzu says... don't waste your energy trying to figure out what the enemy's intentions are - concentrate on understanding what it is that they are truly capable of and base your strategy on that instead. That is how you avoid traps like the one you have hypothesised here.

[–] anaVal@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I find it interesting that with just the description of "A state" you have immediately imagined a worst possible enemy for yourself.

they have no intention of peacefully co-existing with you. They want to destroy you utterly

Against a state like that I'm inclined to agree with you. If they truly have no intention of coexisting then obviously the deal would be a trap. However I would immediately ask how, in such hostile environment, did you manage to get a revolt started in the first place. My original scenario imagined a lot more liberal state that would not have enough power to stop the movement before it grew to open revolt, however with the monster you've imagined I don't think it's possible.

You pose an existential threat to their precious status quo

Do we? Is every person in the world capable of being an anarchist? What would you do with the people who don't want to be? To say we pose an existential threat to states is to say that no person would voluntarily choose to live in the state if they have the option. I don't know if that's the case but I do think that states think that some people will always be loyal to them.

Why don't you ask all the colonised people of the world that?

There is a crucial difference here they owned the land before. Our revolt is carving it out. Obviously being forced to a reservation by a colonial power is wrong. But I don't see this like that. It's closer to a revolt down-sizing in order to maintain cohesion.

[–] masquenox@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Against a state like that I’m inclined to agree with you.

They all are like that. There are no exceptions. I truly hope that the pretentious fakery of these (so-called) "liberal democracies" has not lulled you into seeing these entities as something which they are definitely not - place the ruling elites of the most "liberal" state in jeapordy, and it won't take long for them to reveal what they truly are and always have been.

If they truly have no intention of coexisting then obviously the deal would be a trap.

They don't. Let's give one of these "liberal democracies" the benefit of the doubt (rather unrealistic of us, so only for the sake of the argument) Let's say you're dealing with a regime that has a Bernie Sanders at it's head - they offer the deal in good faith, you take it. In four year's time, you are now dealing with a regime headed by a Ronald Reagen - voted in literally because of the "weakness" of the Bernie regime when it comes to dealing with the threat posed by these "anarchist terrorists" - and now suddenly you have well-funded armies of right-wing paramilitaries perpetrating genocide on your enclave while property developers are lining up to sell it's land to the highest bidder. And that's just the start.

Have you never wondered why liberalism is so much more effective at maintaining imperialism than fascism is? That's why - the fascist is our weakest enemy.

Is every person in the world capable of being an anarchist?

That doesn't matter - an anarchist society (or something close enough) doesn't require anarchists. It only requires a society that has normalised said society being run from the bottom up - whether the people in such a society call themselves "anarchists" or not is irrelevant.

There is a crucial difference here they owned the land before.

That, too, is immaterial because the capitalist status quo will see and treat your revolt no differently. If they can isolate you, they can destroy you. If they can dictate what you can do economically, they can destroy you. If they can control you industrially, they can destroy you. If they can hamper you socially and politically, they can destroy you.

I truly wish anarchists would read about warfare with the same enthusiasm they read political theory - for an anarchist, it comes with the territory... figuratively as well as literally.

[–] anaVal@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 1 week ago (1 children)

voted in literally because of the "weakness"

For that to happen there needs to either be majority in the state that think that way or a powerful enough propaganda machine to sway the general public. Not all states have that. If you are dealing with a country that has a well-educated population tactics like that simply won't work. This also outlines why it's vital for every anarchist movement to involve themselves with the general population as much as possible. So large portions of the population will think "oh those are the people that organise that game-night/open kitchen/workshop thing". At this point it becomes a lot more difficult to paint them as violent terrorists because people know them and have had direct interactions with them. It also becomes a lot more difficult to walk back your deal without spreading discontent.

that has normalised said society being run from the bottom up

Everyone in that society is by my definition anarchist. When you give up your dependency on authority you become an anarchist. I'm not using the term as they would I am using it as I would. So to specify: Do you think that every single person would be willing to give up their dependence to authority? Because if they won't they will form a state, when they do you need to coexist with that state.

That, too, is immaterial because the capitalist status quo will see and treat your revolt no differently. If they can isolate you, they can destroy you.

Reason I brought that up was to explain why I'm ok with political reservations and not native ones.
In this scenario you already are isolated. If the city they are giving you is no different from the land you already occupy and is just smaller then you aren't giving away any advantage. If there is some advantage in the area (Sea access, Narrow passing) I would try and argue that they give that instead.

[–] masquenox@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

a powerful enough propaganda machine to sway the general public.

The one follows the other... and a gigantic propaganda machine is no hypothetical. It already exists. And as you can see happening right now in Gaza, they don't actually even need that propaganda machine working very well to prosecute a war of extermination against you.

At this point it becomes a lot more difficult to paint them as violent terrorists

I hope you don't mind me saying this... but that's extremely naive. Being "involved" with the general populace didn't help the anarchists that was so deeply rooted in immigrant populations of the US during WW1. It didn't help the Black Panthers who were deeply rooted in US urban communities during the Civil Rights movement. The Ukrainians barely remember the Makhnovists - the memory of the Torch Brigade and the SECC has been completely wiped from South African's minds. All of them were deeply "involved" in the general populace.

Everyone in that society is by my definition anarchist.

That's no different than saying everyone in the USSR was a Marxist, or that everyone in the US is a liberal.

Consider this... when the Makhnovists decided to replace the civilian section of the Kontrrazvedska (the Makhnovist counter-intelligence network) with the KAD (Commission for Anti-Makhnovist Activity) because the civilian section of the Kontrrazvedska was found to be too heavy-handed, they had to go look far and wide for people that actually understood anarchist political theory well-enough to make it a properly anarchist organ - the vast majority of the people working and bleeding under the Makhnovist flag actually knew very little about anarchism apart from a few slogans.

If your anarchist society relies on the ideologically pure, your society is screwed - in fact, if you rely on the ideologically pure it will nnever come into existence in the first place.

When you give up your dependency on authority you become an anarchist.

I don't understand what this means... I don't go to the doctor to tell them how to be a doctor.

I’m ok with political reservations and not native ones.

Native reservations are political. They are designed to imprison and contain - and that is exactly what the capitalists are offering you in this hypothetical situation of yours.

In this scenario you already are isolated.

No, you are not. If you were isolated, they wouldn't be negotiating with you because they'd be too busy exterminating you and crushing your revolt. Isolation means inevitable destruction.

[–] anaVal@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 1 week ago (1 children)

That's no different than saying everyone in the USSR was a Marxist, or that everyone in the US is a liberal.

Those are states. Top-down civilisations that overwrite peoples wishes. They don't need everyone to follow their framework to enforce it, that's what the police is for. Anarchy isn't like that. You cannot force a person to be anarchist. Any anarchist society that exist must by necessity be populated by people that don't follow the statist framework. Who don't follow authority. Who are Anarchist.

The example you gave is perfect. Normal people who did not understand anarchism were too heavy handed with their judgement and thus actual anarchists needed to be found to help manage that society. People who haven't stop their dependence to authority are a problem to an anarchist society, they don't conform to our framework, our culture, our decision making process and our way of life.

Anarchism isn't just a label you put on yourself. It's a culture you pick up. It is a way to look at situations and people around you. Decide things both internally externally. It's a way of life. A way of life that opposes authority.

Anarchism is a way of looking at the world. And I cannot see an anarchist society function without most of the people most of the time acting and living anarcicly. Essentially when I say anarchist I mean someone living in a culture of anarchy. And that culture needs to exist for anarchic social structures to exist.

[–] masquenox@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 3 days ago (1 children)

You cannot force a person to be anarchist.

Why would I want to?

Any anarchist society that exist must by necessity be populated by people that don’t follow the statist framework.

You mean... what people were doing for thousands of years before states were invented? None of those people thought of themselves as anarchists, you know.

Normal people who did not understand anarchism

Anarchists are not "abnormalities" - I'm going to assume you don't have a third arm growing out of the top of your head or anything like that.

And you are not understanding why I used that example - I used it because it was an extraordinary thing for the Makhnovists to do. And, just FYI, the KAD turned out to be pretty heavy-handed too - anarchists are not "abnormalities."

Anarchism is a way of looking at the world.

Anarchism consists of a critique of hierarchy... and not much else. It is not a way of "looking at the world," it is a way of understanding hierarchy - it has absolutely nothing worthwhile to say about that which isn't hierarchical. And it is absolutely not anything that can be called "cultural" - no matter how hard you squint.

[–] anaVal@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 3 days ago (1 children)

You cannot force a person to be anarchist.

Why would I want to?

That was an assertion that needed to be true for the following to work, and another way anarchism differs from "liberalism" and "marxism". Because while you cannot force anyone to become those things too you can force them to be faked. You cannot fake being an anarchist.

it is absolutely not anything that can be called "cultural"

And there is the fundamental disagreement between our "anarchy"s. For me it is a culture. and not much else. Everything else comes from this cultural root. The critique of hierarchy is just this anarchic culture applied to political science.

When I see the black flag it fills me with a sense of belonging. Seeing a Circled A on a street corner frequently makes me smile. Reading anarchist literature gives me a sense of being a part of something bigger and what word could there be for that other than culture? Shifting through the near incalculable amount of stickers in an anarchist space with all the ACABs, black cats and antifa. What is it if not culture?

Although now thinking about I imagine you could call cultural anarchism "punk". I don't think I can. punk is too different. It's backed by the music genre which has a very specific sound and perhaps because I doesn't gel with me I don't consider it the anarchist sound. It's punk. It is anarchic, but it's only one side of it.

I wonder what it is that you consider culture, that it doesn't contain the collective effort needed to build anarchic structures.

Anarchists are not "abnormalities"

The current norm in almost every country is to be a worker in an industry and vote in elections, (even if they don't matter). That's quite far from anarchy.

When I use normal I mean the current mainstream. Or to give more examples: being an artist isn't normal, being self-employed isn't normal, not voting isn't normal (or voting is normal if you remove the double negative). Not working isn't normal. I could go on but I think you get the idea. Obviously anarchy is natural and exists in society but it certainly isn't the norm. But I probably should have used "mainstream" because it seems "normal" seems to invoke concepts of "accepted", "good". not "average"

You mean... what people were doing for thousands of years before states were invented? None of those people thought of themselves as anarchists, you know.

They weren't. Anarchy is the conscious opposition to archy. If those societies didn't have any interaction with archic structures then they didn't know to oppose them therefore they weren't anarchists, but they did live anarchicly and their culture was anarchic, and through that culture you could call them anarchists, because that culture probably had their own methods of dealing with archic structures that tried to impose themselves, which could be considered opposition, but it wouldn't be conscious, or would it... And this is getting out of hand, isn't it.

But that's words. imperfect abstractions over infinitely complex ideas. Shame anarchy is one the most complex ones, since it's entire concept defies singular meaning. The only one you can safely ascribe to it is "against authority", and even that's only if you have a specific meaning of "authority".

[–] masquenox@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 2 days ago (1 children)

You cannot fake being an anarchist.

You sure about that? Piggy manages it all the damn time. And if a pig - the worst of the working class - can do it, anyone can.

What is it if not culture?

Counter-culture does not win wars. It sure as hell doesn't win (or even start) revolutions, either - never mind building workable and sustainable societies afterward.

Seeing a Circled A on a street corner frequently makes me smile.

I see them, too - but it doesn't make me smile, because I know the teen who made it doesn't know what it even means.

The current norm in almost every country is to be a worker in an industry and vote in elections,

I live in a country with a 40% unemployment rate - perhaps you should reconsider your conception of "normalcy." There is a big difference between merely rebelling against "normality" and posing an existential threat to the status quo - the risk profile of the latter comes with real bullets, real torture and lots and lots of real death.

[–] anaVal@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 2 days ago (1 children)

counter-culture there’s the word I was looking for when describing punk. That's what I meant with "only one side of it". Counter-culture is only one side of anarchist culture. The side called punk. But there are so many other facets to anarchy that punk doesn't cover. I agree that counter-culture can't build up social systems, which is why I don't call anarchist culture counter-culture. It's something different. Not simply about opposing what exists but also building and imagining what can.

I know the teen who made it doesn't know what it even means.

Are you sure of that? They might not know the theory but just by drawing it they showcase a willingness to act against the established rules. That's a good first step towards learning about anarchy, and while they could "grow out of it" they could also find actual anarchist movement and go deeper into it.

The person who drew it also doesn't matter. It doesn't change what I think when I see it. It doesn't change how much it matters to me. The symbol lives it's own life and even if the person who drew it didn't know that, the people who see it might. Some more curious might find anarchism because of looking up what the deal with them is.

perhaps you should reconsider your conception of "normalcy."

My "normalcy" is the direct result of the environment I was raised in and the people I interacted with. It is an idea that changes and evolves constantly as I interact more. I don't only reconsider my conception of "normalcy" but of every word I use as I grow and learn. But in the context that I exist in normal people do not act anarchically.

There is a big difference between merely rebelling against "normality" and posing an existential threat to the status quo - the risk profile of the latter comes with real bullets, real torture and lots and lots of real death.

Which is scary, which makes it unappealing, which makes it actively detrimental for outreach. There are many ways to fight battles, many ways to oppose the status quo and culturally is most certainly one of them. It's not inferior to military action just because people don't die doing it, but I also know it wont be enough on it's own. Just like militancy won't be enough.

One of the joys of anarchism is getting to choose where you belong. Being able to dictate what you do and how you do it. I am a pacifist. My aversion to violence is one of the foundations of my anarchism. I could never be on the front lines. It scares me. But I know I can do other things, help out in other ways, and that me being able to do that is foundational to anarchism.

[–] masquenox@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

It’s something different.

If you're going to cast anarchism as "culture," I just have to ask... what does this "culture" actually offer the rest of the working class?

Are you sure of that?

Yep. The rebellious teens who drew it everywhere here back in the nineties was doing so because the anarchy symbol was "popularised" during the Satanic Panic of the late eighties - and I can assure you that most of the kids who did so are now full-blown fascists.

But in the context that I exist in normal people do not act anarchically.

Neither do anarchists - I have yet to meet an anarchist who has successfully "opted out" of the capitalist mode of production. If they could there'd be no need for anarchism, would there? There may be some extremely privileged ones who gets to do so... but I have no interest in what they have to say. Politics that aren't rooted in the experience of the working class is less than useless to any leftist.

One of the joys of anarchism is getting to choose where you belong.

But do you? Anarchists can pretend that they are "choosing" this or that... but their choices are subject to the mathematics of the capitalist mode of production no differently than the (so-called) "normies" in the working class. Counter-culture can provide a safe-space socially, but it cannot provide you with an economic one - unless you're Chumbawumba, I suppose.

I could never be on the front lines.

Well, neither can I... my health isn't what it used to be (and it wasn't really all that good to start off with), but that's not what this is about. It's about understanding the true nature of revolution... and the inevitable counter-revolution.

[–] anaVal@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 4 hours ago

what does this "culture" actually offer the rest of the working class?

Anarchism. Although I understand that that term means different things to us so I'm going to use the meaning you gave it a few comments back:

Anarchism consists of a critique of hierarchy

And this cultural anarchism is taking that critique and applying it to culture. To everyday situations. To the way children are being raised and workers are being hired. To song, writing and all the other arts. What it offers to people is anarchism. A way to live your life without archy. Or as AFAQ calls it: "social revolution" https://anarchistfaq.org/afaq/sectionJ.html#secj7

This is what I mean when I say revolution: A complete change to the entire social structure. The biggest driving force in any society is culture. While economic forces to play a part they can only exist as long as they are reinforced by culture. The value of money exists in culture. The concept of property exists in culture. An anarchist culture is about looking at these concepts in a way that consciously opposes archy.

Also participating in capitalism does not yet disqualify you from acting anarchically. It's not a all or nothing scenario. You do what you can, where you can. Obviously you should be on the lookout for better alternatives and constantly keep in mind what it is your participating in every time you shop, but as long as your thinking about it, considering your actions in an anarchic framework, you are acting anarchically.

And the more people keep doing this the more they start considering alternatives, at which point anarchic spaces become a vital component to in the process to collectivise the economy. You connect people with skills who don't like having to shop for food and some of them might start their own farm, and because they already have connections to other people in that space they start being able to benefit from that venture as well.

The social/cultural isn't separate from the economic which isn't disconnected from the political. Society is a collection of all and in order to effectively dismantle one we need the help of others. And culture is the easiest by far because all you need is for people to listen and consider the things you say. Culture is nothing more than the ideas we hold and ideas are a hell of a lot more easier to change than political or economic realities.

But that's just the framework that I use to think about anarchism and society at large. You probably have your own.

[–] Lyra_Lycan@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 1 week ago

Sovereign states can die

[–] punkisundead@slrpnk.net 3 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Well in the best case the participants of the revolt already have a clear framework of actions for these kind of situations. So we would just follow those. Examples might be things like "never make deals with the state" or "prefer peaceful solutions" etc.

If not, this would be a really good point to start doing this as a community via meetings and discussions. And from the sounds of it, the opponent is willing to give us that time via a ceasefire etc.

Personally, looking at the stae of the world right now, I would think a ceasefire would be benificial to to our side because we could rally global solidarity and invite folks to live on our land and in this way raising our collective power.

[–] ScoffingLizard@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 6 days ago

Make a deal with the state. Have a secret society blend in with them. For decades, plant enough traitors everywhere to destroy the state. Perform psyops so they all attack each other and then be the savior with your promise of anti-establishment freedom. Enable the traitors to destroy everything in the state so you can take power. If you're truly evil, you can even make scapegoats out of those you find undesirable or easy to ignore to create a sense of furious unity and finaticism. Oh wait...

[–] anaVal@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Weird that yours is the only comment willing to take the deal, justifying it with the same point as I.

Obviously this would be something decided by a collective meeting. I like to imagine that this post is that.

[–] punkisundead@slrpnk.net 2 points 1 week ago

Weird that yours is the only comment willing to take the deal,

Maybe I could have been more clear, but I would be willing to negotiate. Of course you dont take the first offer and especially not when other alternatives (limited or unlimited) ceasefires are possible. I think a state recognizing an insurgent force and also granting it land is something that shows how good the conditions for negotiations actually are. State usually do everything to not have to do that.

Obviously this would be something decided by a collective meeting.

For sure, I just wanted to point that out because not everyone reading this post will have that in the back of their head / have much experience with anarchist thinking and decisionmaking

[–] punkisundead@slrpnk.net 2 points 1 week ago

This questions seems semi related to the plot of the book A Country of Ghosts by Margaret Killjoy. I think the book an interesting interpretation of how anarchist communities would maybe act in the case of a war against a state.