Is forcing Anarchism wrong?

Question

Is it wrong to seek, through revolutionary action, an Anarchist revolution on a people who do not wish to live in a condition of Anarchy?

Comments

i think that advocating for the devil/asking difficult questions is a skill that can take some practice, and that it is worth practicing.
yay difficult questions!
and the question of desire, and forcing change on people, is a good question.

---

I up-voted this question (even though it is naive, absurd, moralistic and/or bedeviled lol!) only because I have once encountered this very same challenge. Also reading it, rather than hearing it, has helped me to see it's Achilles heel. I would have otherwise forgotten this absurd argument. Plus reading dot's and lawrence's comments is like watching my heros slay yet another clay-footed-giant! Cheers!

---

a shorter text that addresses violence briefly but i think cogently is terror incognita

http://cloudfront.crimethinc.com/pdfs/terror_incognita_reading.pdf

also: skitter: lol (and yay for the use of bedeviled! awesome word. :) )

---

"is it wrong to attempt a revolution that is counter to what some people in a given society"

to me, your framing of this question seems to assume a single, mass "society" is the only option for human life, and the whole of it must live under some single set of ideas. i find that assumption flawed. (if i am wrong about your assumption, do tell). if some folks in your society want to live as anarchists, and others don't, why wouldn't those folks simply remove themselves as best they can and create a life outside that mass society (whatever that might mean geographically), one where behaving anarchistically is more the norm (and surely the desire).  that is an alternative to mass "revolution" that attempts to impose one way of living on all, which cannot possibly be anarchistic in my world.

as dot mentioned above, if others want rulers - and they can have them without impacting my life - go for it! (fat chance they wouldn't eventually impact my life).

---

My opinion on this matter has changed quite significantly since I asked this question, partly through the things I've read and partly through reading other peoples opinions on here(always a good thing to challenge ones opinions). I think when I asked the question, I was rather of the opinion that the only way an Anarchistic society could truly be achieved would be through a mass society revolution, now I'm not so sure that this is the *only* or even a desirable way to achieve liberation.

Answer 1

What is perceived as "forcing" or coercion on the part of anarchists or "Anarchism" is, in fact, the attempted undoing of a preexisting force and coercion wrought via state and capital. Most of the time it's not even attempted so much as desired and discussed among those seeking to change these social relationships.

Attributing this 'force' to anarchists in such an ahistorical, decontextualized, like-for-like manner utterly lacks proportion and perspective on quality, quantity, and frequency. The basic premise of this question is an incredible stretch and (judging from all the comments discussing this) it seems to have snapped. The logic implied can be questioned metaphorically and with equal absurdity; Is it "wrong" for a slave to "force" her desire of freedom onto her master?

Edited for grammar.

Comments

Defensive force is not wrong and does not violate the non-aggression principle. So, if you are asserting your right to defend yourself against the aggression of the state, it is not wrong. I don't know any other reason an anarchist would want to use force against people.

edited to make a comment.

---

The "non-aggression principle" is a contradictory and useless concept and "rights" don't exist.