Note that the site is in archived, read-only mode. You can browse and read, but posting is disabled.
Welcome to Anarchy101 Q&A, where you can ask questions and receive answers about anarchism, from anarchists.

Note that the site is in archived, read-only mode. You can browse and read, but posting is disabled.


+5 votes
If so is any step toward anarchy a step in the right direction?
by (2.0k points)
edited by
My answer is No, but I would like to point out that it seems your question is based on a false premise: that "society" does not exist in a state of anarchy already. Either there is such a thing as "authority" (the right to rule others), or there isn't. There can be no middle ground, or no "progressive transition," outside of the transition that takes place in ones mind while giving up the myth of "the state" and "authority."
the department of truth did not approve my answer, comrades
l0l, Redblood, go figure that libertarian capitalists aren't allowed to answer questions on an anarchist help site.

2 Answers

+2 votes
Yes, definitely. In my humble opinion, there is no end of the road anarchy at which point we can all sit back and live happily ever after. There will always be a struggle, just as there is now.

I may get shot down by puritans here or accused of being 'reformist', but I believe there is much to be said for what i call 'social prefiguration'. This is socially prefiguring the society (anarchy) we wish to see. So, forming workers co-ops, addiction support, free librarys, social centres, housing co-ops, collective farms and countless other projects are steps in the right direction. as is robbing the rich and giving to the poor, strikes, sabotage of oppressive institutions, slashing cop tyres and protecting trees.

It seems some people think that co-ops and such are 'not anarchist enough', but although they may not be perfect, they are a genuine effort in a better direction and should be supported.

I'm not sure there are any clearly delineated 'progressive stages' to anarchy, i think there is a very complex spectrum. but i think there is a lot more we could all be doing to prefigure anarchy.
by (250 points)
shit's a social relation, co-ops are can be aight but aint even barely a reform...
+3 votes
To me, it is a valuable question.

Malatesta used to talk about "anarchist gradualism". To sum it up quickly, it's the idea that any struggles and revolts, any insurrection or even action against the state, exploitation and authority brings us closer to our anarchy. I don't know what this implies exactly. It's seems to me that the idea is attractive. But gradualism has been criticized some times as something like a kind of "revolutionnary reformism" or "radical reformism".

Another question is : Do you aim to live "anarchy right now, tomorrow and for ever" and to fight for it as strong as you can, or the way you think it must be done ? Or, do you think that anarchy is a kind of "unattainable horizon" we may nevertheless try to achieve stages by stages ?

I don't have a closed opinion, and I don't really know whether it's one or the other that fits to the idea, even I tend to think that there is no such thing as "stages" . So I guess my question may seem a bit rethorical.

To be more specific, I think that the problem is how you define stages ? Who is going to say when we are done with one and have reached the next level ?

I think that historically, the big difference between marxists, traditionnal communists and the various anarchists is that these last ones -when they didn't reject the idea of socialism- tends to consider it as a permanent social phenomenon that abolish the existent society, and not like a "political process", or a defined "stage" or "step" to something else.

The same thing should be said about revolution.

I'd rather think what brings us closer to "anarchy" every day is in the same time a way to create a new kind of social relationship to the world and to each other, and a permanent revolutionnary process.  Or that it should be.

So it's never achieved but in the same time, we are not trying to "realise it" as a totality, or a political program.

I mean, at least, that's not what I am trying to do. But I think that most anarchists would agree on this last idea.
by (2.2k points)