Add new comment

anon (not verified)
"When reading about Rojava,

"When reading about Rojava, they commented that in the middle of armed combat is a context where hierarchical command was useful to them, to keep them alive and achieve their goals. It may be possible that imagining effective global responses to global problems like world hunger or infectious diseases would necessarily require governments or NGO's or philanthropic millionaires.
In a world of committed realist pragmatist busy problem solvers there is very little room for anarchy. If anarchist don't prioritize anarchy, who will? In the end this is what will always make anarchist a very marginal minority, there are many pressing issues for survival, comfort etc that people value more greatly and preoccupy them more than freedom, and would happily use violence, or coercion, or command structures for its effectiveness and expediency."

I'd like to clarify a few things that may muddy the point I was trying to get across, imprecisions that stem from speaking off the cuff. I'm not implying in any way that any bureaucratic scheme is actually the solution to world's problems, or that hierarchies are always more efficient than horizontal or decentralized schemes, etc. Power knows this, and is flexible in allowing for agency and wiggle room for anarchic behavior to make things work, incorporating more liberalization when it's convenient. Autonomy, mutual aid, abolition are among the many buzzwords (along with last season's flat-hierarchies, horizontalism, decentralized networks, resiliency) that have been appropriated by liberal activist and insurgent populists that are the flagship for a new (re)constituency.

As anarchists we know that governments produce, manage and perpetuate many of the problems it claims to solve, and generalize anarchy might solve or ameliorate many of them. What I meant is that a criteria of efficiency or effectiveness, and other utilitarian criteria might conflict with anarchy. For example, if you want to #win as a movement, or be many, or win in combat, then you will have to resort to power and hierarchy and demagogy etc. Discipline among many requirements and compromises. The question is how much are you willing to compromise for effectiveness before any notion or mention of anarchy becomes farcical and meaningless? How much and for how long can you concede and submit and still call yourself an anarchist? The flip-side of the question is also valid: What are you willing to sacrifice, which losing battles are you willing to die for, or rather which battles and problems will you forfeit for the sake of being a consistent anarchist? Or does your anarchy forsake consistency and everything goes, even being a politician or a serf, a soldier or a bootlicker every now and then when convenient?

Filtered HTML

  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <blockquote> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Enter the code without spaces.