Changing a system is an evolutive process through generations and education, no one of revolutions. Revolutions can change the system but not the mindset of the people, because of this it’s corrupted and betrayed in a short time, always. See history.
Human society is very young, with the equivalence of a child in puberty (current human behavior with wars and conflicts shows it). An anarchic society requires a mature population with self-responsibility to work, if you don’t want that it is turned in an opressive dictatorship (result of a lot revolutions before). The society is converging towards to more freedom and autosovereighn, but not through revolutions, but generations.
What you’re calling a revolution, is a coup. A violent one off that amounts to a power grab of one affinity group over an entrenched power.
What a revolution actually is, is a fundamental change to the social structure of society, it is the “evolutive” process that you describe.
This is a widely adopted paradigm all over the revolutionary left that includes anarchists, Marxists, and left socialists. The revolution of capitalism took hundreds of years, and occurred unevenly all over the world. There were wars and coups, sometimes those wars were progressive, sometimes regressive, sometimes a war starts progressive and ends regressive, and sometimes the opposite occurs. The mindset of the people must be changed, but often these changes occur in messy ways. The mindset of the masses is not something that happens only in peoples minds, any more than a “evolutive” change can’t occur as a legal legitimacy. I’m not sure why you want to reframe revolution as the conservative definition.
The part of your comment I’m most critical of, is that it amounts to a gradualist theory of change. This really isn’t descriptive of progressive movements which assert themselves on history, dragging along the regressive elements kicking and screaming. Often this elicits a counter reaction, but this doesn’t indicate a historic failure of progress. It is IMO a failure of progressive movements to not push far enough into their demands, accepting compromises from the center that amount to huge losses for the mass movement.
I agree that there is an incredibly important role for our movements to try and educate the masses, before, during, and after the revolution. Some of the great failures of revolution, such as the German revolution 1917-1925ish, was a failure to educate, which led to a tendency for movements to become coopted, or putsch, which definitely demonstrates the parts of your comment that are correct. Other revolutionary moments, such as the self-emancipation of black slaves during the USAmerican Civil War, are much more complex. The planter class was effectively abolished, but Reconstruction was halted and partially rolled back by extremist reactionaries. You wouldn’t advocate a policy of gradualism against the KKK.
Decolonization is inherently a violent process that is messy and fraught with contradiction. The indigenous people are absolutely justified to fight for their freedom and sovereignty against colonial forces which dominate and rob their lands directly. How these movements degrade into neo-colonies is a subject in and of itself, I’d only mention that the imperialism of capitalism has a persistent character of violence and class war that victimizes the masses every day. The gradualist approach is nakedly ineffective against this persistent hegemony and dominance.
I’ve never met an Anarchist with views quite like yours, I know Anarchism is not a totality but a plurality by nature, and though I am not an Anarchist I admire this kind of commitment to plurality and individual freedom. But I’ve never met a non-revolutionary Anarchist on the left.
Agree mostly with you, I’m not an Anarchist nor fitting in other boxes, I’m very old and know well the human nature, this made me, well, an maybe somewhat fatalistic common sensist.
Human nature is a socio-historical phenomenon, fatalism is in part structural. I mostly agree with you in the form of what you think moves history forward, I just think its a little more descriptive than it is a theory of change. I guess, fatalism resists developing a theory of change, which is why it appears to us as consistent and logical. That little quirk is something I’m gonna have to think about more, thanks.
Peoples mindsets change gradually to align with changes in the way they live, produce, and distribute, because our ideas come from out material conditions. Revolution changes the mode of production and distribution, it changes which class controls society, but people’s mindsets change gradually after this. There is no way to this without revolution.
Secondly, socialist revolutions have not turned into “oppressive dictatorships” except from the perspective of the former ruling classes. Capitalists always see worker control as despotic.
Changing a system is an evolutive process through generations and education, no one of revolutions. Revolutions can change the system but not the mindset of the people, because of this it’s corrupted and betrayed in a short time, always. See history. Human society is very young, with the equivalence of a child in puberty (current human behavior with wars and conflicts shows it). An anarchic society requires a mature population with self-responsibility to work, if you don’t want that it is turned in an opressive dictatorship (result of a lot revolutions before). The society is converging towards to more freedom and autosovereighn, but not through revolutions, but generations.
What you’re calling a revolution, is a coup. A violent one off that amounts to a power grab of one affinity group over an entrenched power.
What a revolution actually is, is a fundamental change to the social structure of society, it is the “evolutive” process that you describe.
This is a widely adopted paradigm all over the revolutionary left that includes anarchists, Marxists, and left socialists. The revolution of capitalism took hundreds of years, and occurred unevenly all over the world. There were wars and coups, sometimes those wars were progressive, sometimes regressive, sometimes a war starts progressive and ends regressive, and sometimes the opposite occurs. The mindset of the people must be changed, but often these changes occur in messy ways. The mindset of the masses is not something that happens only in peoples minds, any more than a “evolutive” change can’t occur as a legal legitimacy. I’m not sure why you want to reframe revolution as the conservative definition.
The part of your comment I’m most critical of, is that it amounts to a gradualist theory of change. This really isn’t descriptive of progressive movements which assert themselves on history, dragging along the regressive elements kicking and screaming. Often this elicits a counter reaction, but this doesn’t indicate a historic failure of progress. It is IMO a failure of progressive movements to not push far enough into their demands, accepting compromises from the center that amount to huge losses for the mass movement.
I agree that there is an incredibly important role for our movements to try and educate the masses, before, during, and after the revolution. Some of the great failures of revolution, such as the German revolution 1917-1925ish, was a failure to educate, which led to a tendency for movements to become coopted, or putsch, which definitely demonstrates the parts of your comment that are correct. Other revolutionary moments, such as the self-emancipation of black slaves during the USAmerican Civil War, are much more complex. The planter class was effectively abolished, but Reconstruction was halted and partially rolled back by extremist reactionaries. You wouldn’t advocate a policy of gradualism against the KKK.
Decolonization is inherently a violent process that is messy and fraught with contradiction. The indigenous people are absolutely justified to fight for their freedom and sovereignty against colonial forces which dominate and rob their lands directly. How these movements degrade into neo-colonies is a subject in and of itself, I’d only mention that the imperialism of capitalism has a persistent character of violence and class war that victimizes the masses every day. The gradualist approach is nakedly ineffective against this persistent hegemony and dominance.
I’ve never met an Anarchist with views quite like yours, I know Anarchism is not a totality but a plurality by nature, and though I am not an Anarchist I admire this kind of commitment to plurality and individual freedom. But I’ve never met a non-revolutionary Anarchist on the left.
Agree mostly with you, I’m not an Anarchist nor fitting in other boxes, I’m very old and know well the human nature, this made me, well, an maybe somewhat fatalistic common sensist.
Human nature is a socio-historical phenomenon, fatalism is in part structural. I mostly agree with you in the form of what you think moves history forward, I just think its a little more descriptive than it is a theory of change. I guess, fatalism resists developing a theory of change, which is why it appears to us as consistent and logical. That little quirk is something I’m gonna have to think about more, thanks.
Peoples mindsets change gradually to align with changes in the way they live, produce, and distribute, because our ideas come from out material conditions. Revolution changes the mode of production and distribution, it changes which class controls society, but people’s mindsets change gradually after this. There is no way to this without revolution.
Secondly, socialist revolutions have not turned into “oppressive dictatorships” except from the perspective of the former ruling classes. Capitalists always see worker control as despotic.