Revolting With Rednecks?

From: Postproletariat

"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.

the revolutionary subject as the troubled redneck who desperately wants to prevent their becoming racist and cannot do so. they are yelled at on the frontlines of gentrification. this wretchedness must be included in an anarchist vision of the human. the little man is in us all. i think that today, conservatives against industrial society are less likely to turn fascist than left wing marauders against incorrect speech, less vicious than the organizers attacking the poorly made.

Forgive the short language. Not much time to post...

They're not just backwards amorphous "people". They've been proletarianized. All traditional forms of communal property are dead. Humanity has become the domesticated slaves of capital. People are the new gold standard. The era of Narodniks and the communal peasant village is long gone now.

The Redneck Revolt approach, and seemingly OPs, is something we at the p-p blog would categorize as "not good". We're not good neo-Kantians and we can't sit idly next to machismo, patriarchy, bro/rape culture, and racism. OP says (and I appreciate this discussion despite apparent disagreements),

"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."

But it can't work. This is the same old snake oil of "raising consciousness" and all that.

I'm all for working class rural folks, rednecks, what have you, lashing out against the system based on economic interests. Same with local movements like, I dunno, Vermont, or other place where municipalities are rejecting neoliberal austerity measures (not advocate Bookchinism by any means here) as a "town"-body. But our comrade Dankston got involved and reported it wasn't that. It's pure ideological garbage and weak antifa stuff.

Patriarchy has its benefits.

Matriarchy also has its benefits. Holistically we must include the trans genders, its a 3 way split, a complex intersectionality. No one is dominant in the turnpike autonomous zone.

Transgender patriarchy also has its benefits. Think of phallocrats posing as women or doing at best some gender blur in order to gain higher status and esteem among some liberal crowds... and use it to reinforce their phallocracy. Think about that, brah!

Yeah! Transpeople are the real patriarchy! (You're an idiot)

Add new comment

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.
Enter the code without spaces.