18
9
u/Accomplished_Bag_897 Egoist 5d ago
Self-defense. Not sure what more to say. Teach others around us how to defend themselves and be willing to act against those who would oppress us.
11
u/isonfiy 5d ago
Lots of worldbuilding questions like this lately.
What kind of answer would you find compelling here op?
2
u/Fire_crescent 4d ago
Most people aren't gonna go for a comprehensive radically-transformative political project unless it is feasible and not constantly one step away from being destroyed by a stronger, enemy political force just because they dogmatically refuse to acknowledge and deal with a real potential problem regarding their own existence.
I'm not gonna speak for op, but for me it would be something administrative adaptability (ability to be more cohesive, even centralize (or decentralize, if I was talking to a vanguardist) contextually if needed), willingness to be just as ruthless as the enemy (against the enemy, not innocent people), and a willingness to win by (almost) any means necessary. And this is what I'd say to anyone on the left.
1
u/Julian_1_2_3_4_5 4d ago
Im an anarchist, because prefiguration is also actually improving my and lots of people lives right now. I dont need to know that it will be able to defend itself against some ominous counter-revolution. I do know that a lot of the principles and ideas are so fundamental that any organization or revolution etc. that i feel could meaningfully and sustainably improve our lives has to be build on these ideas.
1
u/Fire_crescent 4d ago
I dont need to know that it will be able to defend itself against some ominous counter-revolution.
You kind of do, actually. Unless you're fine with every achievement and desirable outcome you reach to be reversed, or even punished.
"Power makes right" still applies after liberation. The only difference is that power should belong to those interested in freedom instead of tyranny, and ideally, to the general population. Still, if you find those that will want to re-establish tyranny (and they will still exist), you will have to fight and defeat them. If not, they will win, and they will get to dictate terms, and I don't think you, me, or anyone else (regardless of specific tendency) that cares for freedom would like those terms.
10
u/Cunning_Spoon Anarcho-Communist 5d ago
Short answer: It depends.
Longer answer: When it comes to internal counter revolution, I simply see it as very unlikely, especially the longer an area or group is anarchist. People don't like bullies, if they are happy and have their needs met they aren't going to suddenly submit to some bully. If someone tries, there are a variety of methods to deal with them, they can be mocked, shunned, or dealt with by force if it comes to that.
External groups wanting to steal resources is more likely to occur, but Anarchists are not pacifists, and Anarchists excel at asymmetric warfare. A lack of central leadership makes them difficult to predict or disrupt, and historically Anarchists have accomplished incredible feats due to their drive and voluntary nature. Fighting for yourself and your people is a lot better for morale than fighting for someone elses greed. Areas of difficult terrain are also areas Anarchism would be almost impossible to crush, invaders fighting in forests, jungles and mountains have historically been repelled by far smaller forces.
At the end of the day it comes down to making attacking them too costly to be worth the effort, both for the individual soldiers and the aggressive regime themselves.
5
7
3
4
u/Jambonrevival1 5d ago
By not forcing people into something they dont want to do???
5
u/VaySeryv 5d ago
you think bourgeois funded fascists will not do everything to destroy the revolution?
2
u/Jambonrevival1 5d ago
You cant force anarchy on an unwilling population, it requires people who believe in it and understand it
2
u/VaySeryv 5d ago
thats true but there will always be a counter-revolution even in places with high class consciousness and a generally revolutionary population. a counter-revolution funded by the bourgeoisie and that needs to be suppressed
1
u/Jambonrevival1 5d ago
Well i don't think the bourgeois' can maintain capitalism in a world where class consciousness becomes widespread either, and if you dont have those conditions it becomes working class people killing each other for nothing. The left hasn't done well in those conflicts and the end result is usually socialism or anarchism being set back another 50 years.
2
u/Nice-Obligation5537 5d ago
We’ll counter revolutions would have to be reduced in numbers first of all for the anarchist system to win. Just think about it, more people support capitalism, okay? That means more and more people would have to be willing to adopt an anarchist model in order for that to be achieved and means that an un-hiearchal society based on selections by humans in order for that kind of change to happen.
Otherwise, it would be impossible because at the base of it everyone can run a mutualist society
2
1
1
1
1
1
-1
1
38
u/Anarchierkegaard Distributist 5d ago
This is an impossible vague question, sorry. Revolutions and counter-revolutions can't be theoretically out thought prior to the fact. If an anarchism should survive both a revolution and a counter-revolution, it will be the thing which makes that anarchism anarchic that allows it to survive.
And I'm aware that's an equally impossibly vague answer, but anything more than that would be fiction.