Evolution vs Revolution

33 posts / 0 new
Last post
Ben
Offline
Joined: 19-09-03
Nov 10 2003 10:31

A fair bit of both I imagine.

I don't think it's a 'one or the other' type thing.

nihilista
Offline
Joined: 6-10-03
Nov 10 2003 10:58

more like a bit of neither I'd say. The 'revolution' will not only not be televised it won't be actualised!

Rob Ray's picture
Rob Ray
Online
Joined: 6-11-03
Nov 12 2003 14:51

It'll take a great deal more than revolution to persuade the population of Britain to believe in Anarchy wholeheartedly enough for it to work.

phoebe
Offline
Joined: 20-09-03
Nov 13 2003 10:34

do a bunch of people pissed off with being fucked have to all believe in an anarchist manifesto (or some other centralistic document) written ahead of the revolution to get together and make society work? I don't think so. Anarchy won't be what you or I make of it here and now but it'll work (should the revolution come) because people have to survive, and have to work together to do that.

solitage
Offline
Joined: 21-09-03
Nov 14 2003 11:30

I also think it's not a question of one or the other. Sow the seeds of resistance practically now for when the state and capital goes into meltdown

smile

Rob Ray's picture
Rob Ray
Online
Joined: 6-11-03
Nov 18 2003 19:58
Quote:
do a bunch of people pissed off with being fucked have to all believe in an anarchist manifesto (or some other centralistic document) written ahead of the revolution to get together and make society work?

Only if you fancy changing anything, and who said anything about a written document?

Yes people revolt to change their circumstances in times of extreme need, but don't kid yourself that this somehow changes their long term views. People in third world countries often convert to Christianity when they're starving to get bread from the missionaries, but they'll throw the cross and bible away once they're done eating.

In the case of revolution, how long do you think an Anarchist area will survive before all the bandwaggoners go back to screwing each other over? In Spain it was about two months I think before the Communists and Republicans fucked over the CNT, and they were still at war! If you haven't fully converted the vast majority of people before you try anything, it simply wont work (and if you've done it, you wont need a bloody coup at all).

WeTheYouth
Offline
Joined: 16-10-03
Nov 18 2003 20:41

I think revolution is the only way to abolish capitilism for these reasons.

1. Evolution of society would controlled and dogged with the cancer of capitalism therefore not progressing and people still being more and more mis led by the mass media by the means of commodities and indoctrination through socialisation.

2. If society is controlled by the people who benefit by a capitalist sytem they would not let themselves be slowly removed from the infrastructure of society.

3.Evolution is slow and do we really want the mass exploitation to continue? IMO no.

4.Evolution of society has imbedded capitalist values in every aspect of life even going to the toilet in a public place you have to pay for.

5.A revolution will show that things can change for teh better quickly and not over a lengthy process of 'social enlightenment'.

airbrush_rush
Offline
Joined: 5-12-03
Dec 22 2003 18:50

I would say that there needs to be both evolution and revolution before an anarchist society can succeed. Evolution not just biologically (improvements to the way we think and behave) but also culturally (especially education wise) If an anarchist society is to function everyone in that society must be aware that they have a duty, their actions effect the whole community. This is not realistic at this time. The majority of schooling doesn't encourage crtical thought, the promotion of individual thought. The majority of people must be able to think critically, for themselves, in an anarchist society.

Revolution will not occur under the conditions we endure. Capitalism demeans an increasing media of cultures. By stealing them, and diluting them. As described by the situationists, people have an increasing amount of free time due to an increase in machinery at work, better services etc and don't have a clue what to do with this new found time. In every person there is is potential creativity and intellect, but it is wasted. Until some sort of revolution occurs things will remain the same. It is this revolution we should fight for.

An increase in individualism and critical awareness. The majority aren't ready for a proper anarchist revolution. Evolution does need to take place and the only feasible objective is to make this possible in the future.

brizzul
Offline
Joined: 7-10-03
Dec 22 2003 19:27
Saii wrote:

In the case of revolution, how long do you think an Anarchist area will survive before all the bandwaggoners go back to screwing each other over? In Spain it was about two months I think before the Communists and Republicans fucked over the CNT, and they were still at war! If you haven't fully converted the vast majority of people before you try anything, it simply wont work (and if you've done it, you wont need a bloody coup at all).

As little Makhno said let's not be a spanish recreation society.

But. The CNT fucked over the CNT, not the communists or republicans. Anarchists and their comrades in other trade unions controlled everything (in Catalonia at least) but they a) allowed the state to remain in existance, b) joined it. Someone else can explain this one though cause i'm sick to the teeth of arguing about it.

Both anarchist and reformist trade unionists took part in the autonomous collectivisations. So the anarchists didn't need to convert the others it just made sense in an atmosphere where anything could happen. People want freedom deep in their hearts and when it might seem possible then it will be possible.

By the way the CNT was the majority union in Catalonia.

anarchist.
Offline
Joined: 19-09-03
Dec 22 2003 19:34

Do you actually believe that there will be an anarchist revolution in the traditional sense?

I really cant, it's such a fantasy, and I think that as long as anarchists believe in it i think it detracts from doing some really constructive work. In the sense that what do you do to start a revolution? I really dont think you can, if we are talking about revolution in the sense of an armed uprising of the working classes against capitalism and for anarchy.

I still say that dropping out of capitalism into self-sufficiency and then defending what we have is a far more viable option. Creating microcosms of anarchism, like john moore suggests, is all we can do, and hope the idea catches.

I just find the whole leftist/classical anarchist view of revolution to be horridly warped and dream like. If there ever was a violent uprising against the state, i doubt it would be anti-state or that it would be inpregnated with wholey anarchist ideas.(or even lefty ones)

nastyned
Offline
Joined: 30-09-03
Dec 24 2003 11:03

Anarchist have been trying to set up little anarchist communes for donkeys years. There's even a pamphlet by Kropotkin critiquing them (online at http://flag.blackened.net/daver/anarchism/kropotkin/). They don't usually last for long.

We need to build a culture of resistance where we live and work, here and now, to struggle against capitalism, the state and all oppression. Through this struggle we can 'build a new world within the shell of the old' but it will lead to major confrontation with the ruling class. Revolution is the only way I can see to break their power and create a free and equal society.

AlexA
Offline
Joined: 16-09-03
Dec 24 2003 12:26
anarchist. wrote:
I still say that dropping out of capitalism into self-sufficiency and then defending what we have is a far more viable option. Creating microcosms of anarchism, like john moore suggests, is all we can do, and hope the idea catches.

Then why is it hardly anybody does this?

Cos the idea is so totally unattractive! And if it's totally unattractive to anarchists imagine what "normal" people think of it!

Apart from this, even the briefest look at the history of communes will show you that as a tactic they're utterly useless! Small numbers of people get sick of each other very quickly, and they disintegrate. And a "movement" based on a geographical area would be incredibly easy for the state to crush. So if the idea did ever start to "catch on" they'd crush you very fast, and this task would be made easier as you had isolated yourself so much from society.

888's picture
888
Offline
Joined: 30-09-03
Dec 24 2003 14:31

There has to be a complete break with the old society, therefore revolution. What does "it won't be actualised" mean? It won't happen? So what then? Creating microcosms of anarchy is horribly isolationist and utopian.

Revolution has to spring from the majority of people acting directly for themselves, taking power into their own hands. This will involve barricades and guns. This will only happen after anarchist ideas are sufficiently widespread and self-organistation in the workplace and community is common, which will take many years, and isn't progressing very well at the moment (looking at the world, not the UK where it's hardly progressing at all).

anarchist.
Offline
Joined: 19-09-03
Dec 24 2003 19:20

im not talking about these 'microcosms' being isolationist, or even that seperate from society as we know it. more a gateway from life as it is now to anarchism.

as for alexa's point that they arent good because no one has done them on a large scale before, the same could be said of anarchy itself.

do you actually believe that one day the working classes will all, as one, suddenly realise their mistakes and rise against capitalism, the state and for anarchism? then go back to doing shitty jobs without their bosses nor money?

888's picture
888
Offline
Joined: 30-09-03
Dec 24 2003 20:47

Primitivists argue against the best capitalist distortions of anarchism.

solitage
Offline
Joined: 21-09-03
Dec 24 2003 22:27
nastyned wrote:

We need to build a culture of resistance where we live and work, here and now, to struggle against capitalism, the state and all oppression. Through this struggle we can 'build a new world within the shell of the old' but it will lead to major confrontation with the ruling class. Revolution is the only way I can see to break their power and create a free and equal society.

Yep the more the 'new world is created within the shell of the old' - the more we act now to create and sustain the working class culture of resistance, and define the contradictions - the closer we move towards turning the anger into insurrection, and then who knows what.

eek did I really say that? wink

AlexA
Offline
Joined: 16-09-03
Dec 25 2003 02:20
anarchist. wrote:
im not talking about these 'microcosms' being isolationist, or even that seperate from society as we know it. more a gateway from life as it is now to anarchism.

as for alexa's point that they arent good because no one has done them on a large scale before, the same could be said of anarchy itself.

do you actually believe that one day the working classes will all, as one, suddenly realise their mistakes and rise against capitalism, the state and for anarchism? then go back to doing shitty jobs without their bosses nor money?

I sometimes wonder why you say things like that - I could understand you saying it infront of a, say, trotskyist or general capitalist even to try to smear anarchism, but what's the point of trying to mis-represent it to people who already know what it is?

And back to your post - you're arguing against your previous point now! You're saying that now people shouldn't go and set up anarchist communes cos as they'll be small they'll fail - which is true. So I guess you're back to square one then.

anarchist.
Offline
Joined: 19-09-03
Dec 25 2003 20:15
Quote:
And back to your post - you're arguing against your previous point now! You're saying that now people shouldn't go and set up anarchist communes cos as they'll be small they'll fail - which is true. So I guess you're back to square one then.

when did i say that? i just meant they wont be isolationist, as in they wont just seperate themselves from society and live without any intention of getting other people to take the same course of action.

also every movement starts small, it isnt going to be a massive anarchist city/and eventually id want them to be small in an anarchist world.

Quote:
I sometimes wonder why you say things like that - I could understand you saying it infront of a, say, trotskyist or general capitalist even to try to smear anarchism, but what's the point of trying to mis-represent it to people who already know what it is?

im not trying to misrepresent anything, i guess ive just got a bleak view of the anarchist movement, especially leftist anarchism, and yes i admit the way i described it was very dogmatic and over simplified im just doubtful of the traditional idea of working class revolution. (its all Tommy Ascasos fault)

anarchist.
Offline
Joined: 19-09-03
Dec 25 2003 20:37
Quote:

Yep the more the 'new world is created within the shell of the old' - the more we act now to create and sustain the working class culture of resistance, and define the contradictions - the closer we move towards turning the anger into insurrection, and then who knows what.

i guess this is what i mean, just the idea of creating examples of anarchism and the idea of building a culture of resistance, but i believe that to make the jump from this to insurrection i think there has to be an element of self-sufficiency and for people to be motivated to take part in an insurrection they must have something to defend rather than be offensive, i guess that's where my view of it departs from the traditional idea of revolution.

captainmission
Offline
Joined: 20-09-03
Dec 25 2003 23:19
anarchist. wrote:
(its all Tommy Ascasos fault)

its funny cos its true- Tommy Ascaso is greatest froce for an anti-left anarchism going tongue

nastyned
Offline
Joined: 30-09-03
Dec 27 2003 13:55
captainmission wrote:
anarchist. wrote:
(its all Tommy Ascasos fault)

its funny cos its true- Tommy Ascaso is greatest froce for an anti-left anarchism going tongue

the words 'what the fuck is "anti-left anarchism"' spring to mind. though come to think of it i can only remember seeing the term 'left anarchism' used very occasionally and usually by supporters of so called 'anarcho' capitalism.

and to get back to another point i found a bit bizarre, 'anarchist.' said : "do you actually believe that one day the working classes will all, as one, suddenly realise their mistakes and rise against capitalism, the state and for anarchism? then go back to doing shitty jobs without their bosses nor money?"

Who ever actually said this? you seem to be missing that whold 'class struggle' thing. and how could society stay the same without bosses or money? I think you're missing just a tad about the whole idea of social revolution. roll eyes

Lazlo_Woodbine
Offline
Joined: 26-09-03
Dec 27 2003 14:23

In barcelona 1936 after the workers had taken over the factories they started to leave their jobs in droves. Well, you would, wouldn't you? The Anarchist activists were among those tring to get ppl back into the factories. I think this is a kind of 'left' anarchism that we need to be critical.

Having said that, most modern anarchos are VERY critical of the Spanish CNT's role in the 1930s...

nastyned
Offline
Joined: 30-09-03
Dec 27 2003 15:12

I think you're talking a load of old toot laz. (Sorry couldn't resist it! wink )

This maybe not the place to get into a 'spain' discussion but the spanish anarchists were facing a fascist coup - their comrades were being slaughtered in other parts of spain. There were mistakes made by the spanish anarchists but I really can't see how abandoning the factories in barcelona would have helped them.

why do you think this would have been a good idea?

anarchist.
Offline
Joined: 19-09-03
Dec 28 2003 14:58

Tommy Ascaso, i think you are forgetting im an anarchist still, and that i firmly agree with your view on capitalism, the state and that simply 'dropping out' isnt enough. however, i think just asking people to go from what we have now to taking up arms against the state and capitalism is pure fantasy.

my whole microcosm idea was to be a gateway between what we exist in now and insurrection, it doesnt detract from anarchist thought at all.

besides these days, the fall of the roman empire(yes that movie) has made me think otherwise....

"a civilisation cannot be destroyed from outside unitl it has destroyed itself from within" capitalism isnt weak enough to be overthrown yet, hence people lack of will power to do so.....

thats a load of shit, but it seems to be stuck in my head....

Kete
Offline
Joined: 19-09-03
Dec 29 2003 04:33

anarchism is all about evolution, but the state will force us into a revolution.

ffaker
Offline
Joined: 7-10-03
Jan 1 2004 13:39
Kete wrote:
anarchism is all about evolution, but the state will force us into a revolution.

Nice! That statement sums it up for me. Very good.

Lazlo_Woodbine
Offline
Joined: 26-09-03
Jan 1 2004 20:17
nastyned wrote:
I think you're talking a load of old toot laz. (Sorry couldn't resist it! wink )

lol laugh out loud

Lazlo_Woodbine
Offline
Joined: 26-09-03
Jan 1 2004 20:20
nastyned wrote:
I really can't see how abandoning the factories in barcelona would have helped them. why do you think this would have been a good idea?

<backs away from encroaching Spain36 debate>

This is *one* example of anarchists trying to impose industrial modes of organisation on ppl who were rejecting it, and it illustrates the similarities of some anarchism with some leftism. I'm not saying that abandoning the factories would have been a good tacitcal choice, if there I prob would have been one of those advocating war work...

nastyned
Offline
Joined: 30-09-03
Jan 2 2004 16:40

I don't really get what you're saying Laz.

You think the Spanish anarchists forced people into factories but if you'd been there you'd have supported it? :?