"How long do we have to stay friends with these people? How long should we continue to consider them as viable and prospective members of our fledgling communities? I don’t remember any major proletarian revolutions which were established on the foundation of convincing the most backwards, least likely sections of society to join the team. These are the people that usually end up fighting us in civil wars. Unfortunately, this is also how the very familiar pattern of reprisals begins to form."
Is this true? Are the backwards people typically against the revolution historically? I thought Bakunin made it a point that anarchism was bigger than Marx's vision and included attempts to rally those who might be considered backwards peasants. I know according to the Narodnik experience things typically didn't go so well, with many ratted out to the police. Success came where there was already a history of revolt.
Are we that local in our thinking? Is backwards-ness enough to prevent us from attempting to see if there are rebels among them...or perhaps we need a different approach? The Redneck Revolt approach, despite the author's aversion to it, isn't all that bad. If one were attempting to find the anarchists among the reactionaries, because people are typically more naturally anarchists, if talked to in the right way, can expose agreement.
So I do think the author has a point, but I also don't think Redneck Revolt necessarily has a bad approach. It might be easier to not go into the belly of the beast and attempt to turn reactionaries away from reaction, but it also can work. It might not be activist anarchists, but instead anarchists that want to be left alone to farm and not get taxed or bothered by the government. The problem with this approach is it starts to look like left wing national anarchism, which might surprise people that it can happen, but I already started creating the logic, so its easily there. Redneck proletarians don't need the bosses coming onto our land! See? Like a national liberation for rednecks against the awful big city corporations.
The author is correct that challenging patriarchy might be the big thing in this environment. The families are male centric with male dominated activities tied with misogynistic attitudes on female participation. And that's just the fun!
So I wanted to talk about if and how the author is correct and other approaches people might have. Extra points for anarchist (not anarch) responses, since I want real opinions and not the opinions of a bad cartoon.