this post was submitted on 09 Oct 2026
41 points (100.0% liked)

Anarchism

3342 readers
69 users here now

Discuss anarchist praxis and philosophy. Don't take yourselves too seriously.

Other anarchist comms

Join the matrix room for some real-time discussion.

Banner by @Val@anarchist.nexus

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com
41
Militancy isn't joyful. Revolution is hard. (www.youtube.com)
submitted 4 days ago by db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com to c/anarchism@lemmy.dbzer0.com
11 comments fedilink hide all child comments
top 11 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] poVoq@slrpnk.net 10 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

Sometimes Anarc starts to sound a bit like a religious preacher 😏

As for the thesis itself that revolution can't be joyful... well it depends who you ask I would say. There are certain parts of militancy that some people have to be willing to do, where Anarc is certainly right, but for the largest part of the population, a successful revolution is done through non-cooperation. Not everyone can and should be part of an armed underground or something definitly un-fun like that.

So what does non-cooperation look like? Well, often it can be pretty fun, at least relative to grinding through a terrible full-time job. It does usually mean to forgo some material wealth though.

[–] db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 4 days ago (1 children)

The problem comes when the state realizes that non-cooperation starts destabilizing it, and begins cracking down on it. One needs to be prepared to stand up and fight for it. That part is never joyful.

[–] therealdries@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 4 days ago (1 children)

and begins cracking down on it.

Actually... all the state needs to do to defeat non-cooperation is to throw more and/or larger crumbs off the table. Bismarck and Roosevelt proved how easy this is to do.

Very little cracking down required.

[–] db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com 8 points 4 days ago (1 children)

That's true for people who do these things without an ideologically underpinning. This is why we need always explain how feeding off the crumbs is always harmful, even if it appears to have material benefits. I.e. it's better to be in a union, even if the wages seem to be increasing on their own. It's better to do a co-operative over a small business etc.

And as the system collapses from its own contradictions, its capacity to provide these crumbs drains, which why it's easier to agitate during these times.

[–] therealdries@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 4 days ago (1 children)

That’s true for people who do these things without an ideologically underpinning.

There is no such thing as a revolution with an ideological underpinning - Anarc essentially says as much in the video, and, for once, I agree with him.

It is the groups that attempt to hijack the revolution that bring the ideology.

even if it appears to have material benefits.

The left has absolutely failed to come up with an effective way to deal with liberal counter-insurgency even when said counter-insurgency comes with absolutely zero material benefit to the working class - as the (so-called) "Democratic Party" is demonstrating right now in the US - so I'm not exactly sure how explaining anything to the working class is going to change that (which the left has been doing since forever - with rather disappointing results).

I.e. it’s better to be in a union, even if the wages seem to be increasing on their own. It’s better to do a co-operative over a small business etc.

This is all fine and good - until the union (inevitably) gets hijacked by corporate interests and the co-ops are (inevitably) crushed by oligarchic business practices.

And as the system collapses from its own contradictions,

I don't see any real signs of collapse. You can argue that the liberal consensus is in crisis, but, then again, the times when the liberal consensus wasn't in crisis is few and far in between. It has proven extremely... adaptable.

[–] db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com 8 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

We've been having back to back "once in a lifetime" crisis since the early 2000s, if you don't think a collapse is coming I don't know what to tell you. I see the system on its death-throes and the collapse of the AI-bubble might just be the thing that finally pops the everything bubble.

Anyway I don't see any point in responding to nihilistic perspectives. I think organizing in non-hierarchical ways improves the lives of people who practice them in the here and now and have revolutionary potential. If you think nothing we do has a chance to succeed and the system won't collapse, even with a looming climate apocalypse, I don't know what's there's to discuss. Go ride off into the sunset or some shit.

[–] therealdries@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 3 days ago (1 children)

We’ve been having back to back “once in a lifetime” crisis since the early 2000s,

And people on the left has been predicting the collapse of capitalism since before WW1. Are you certain you are not making the same mistake they did by completely underestimating the liberal consensus' flexibility and resilience? Something, something, know your enemy... how does that line from Sun Tzu go again?

Anyway I don’t see any point in responding to nihilistic perspectives.

It is not nihilistic to turn away from magical thinking... especially if said magical thinking has delivered no tangible results for more than eight (that's 8) decades now and still counting.

If you believe that the libertarian left has no option but to tackle the future with the same woefully orthodox theory and consequently misguided praxis... well now that is what I would call nihilistic.

I mean... doesn't it ring any alarm bells for you that the two libertarian projects in recent history that anarchists got most excited about - Rojava and Chiappas - wasn't instigated by anarchists at all but by tankies that decided to dump Marxist-Leninist orthodoxy in the rubbish bin and go back to the drawing board?

Are you trying to tell me that anarchists cannot - or simply won't - do the same?

If they can't, they have nothing to offer the working class.

[–] db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 3 days ago

It must be windy that high up in your soapbox.

And people on the left has been predicting the collapse of capitalism since before WW1

I don't mean to tell you, but the world order completely changed after WW1 and WW2. In case you missed the millions of deaths, the years of poverty and famine, the collapse of colonialist powers and the rise of the USA as a global hegemon. The system DID very much collapse, and a new one was built in its place. I never promised that anarchists would be the one who will come on top in a collapse, I merely said that it's during a collapse when people's minds are more malleable to new forms of organizing.

It is not nihilistic to turn away from magical thinking... especially if said magical thinking has delivered no tangible results for more than eight (that's 8) decades now and still counting.

It's wild to accuse people of suggesting a radical change of being ineffective because people are too propagandized to perform said radical change.

If you believe that the libertarian left has no option but to tackle the future with the same woefully orthodox theory and consequently misguided praxis... well now that is what I would call nihilistic.

This "misguided praxis" is the only thing that has shown it can work when put into praxis. Whether it can be put into praxis is an entirely different thing and what we agitate for.

I mean... doesn't it ring any alarm bells for you that the two libertarian projects in recent history that anarchists got most excited about - Rojava and Chiappas - wasn't instigated by anarchists at all but by tankies that decided to dump Marxist-Leninist orthodoxy in the rubbish bin and go back to the drawing board?

No? Why would it ring alarm bells? I'm not there to tell you for sure how much anarchist influence there was and neither were you. I'm just happy they functioned in a more libertarian approach and once again proved that libertarian socialist approaches work when left to do their own thing.

Are you trying to tell me that anarchists cannot - or simply won't - do the same?

What is "the same"?

[–] mortalblade@lemmy.dbzer0.com 8 points 4 days ago

Hes just checking the poseurs.

ofc it is good to be wary: anyone engaged in militancy is sure to face persecution, punishment, sacrifice. Is better to know that right off than to discover pain later and decide u prefer the chains.

If by joyful militancy they mean like a masochist tendency then sure, but even then, the ultimate goal must be to make the world better .

[–] punkisundead@slrpnk.net 3 points 4 days ago (1 children)

I havent had the chance to watch the vidro, but I wonder, is it an answer / review to the book Joyful Militancy?

[–] punkisundead@slrpnk.net 4 points 3 days ago

Watched the video. Seems like someone asked a question redarding this specific term, but either he hasnt read the book or he really understood it differrently than me.

From my understanding the term is the opposite of some of the problems we face in struggle, when meetings get stale, when we just go through the motions, when instead of really learning from each other we judge & police each other. And that doesn't mean fun, easy or no risk, instead joyful stands for feeling alive in all possible ways, truly connected to you comrades, actually experiencing how the struggle might liberate us. And militancy doesnt just mean violent, but instead a fierce and steadfast opposition against the system.

When I read the book I really related with some of the points there, so I think its worth reading if like the kinda "intellectual" style it has.