I just noticed something, revolutionary anarchism doesn’t make sense in some way. Anarchism is against authority, but if a revolution happen, anarchists, by destroying the actual system, will force people to adopt a new lifestyle against their freewill.

What do you think about that? Isn’t this a paradox?

EDIT: Just to note, this is not a troll post, I am really asking myself this question. I am discussing on Discord about the same topic and I forgot to mention that I am only talking about a VIOLENT revolution.

  • T34 [they/them]
    4•3 years ago

    You’re right. Here’s Engels, On Authority:

    But the anti-authoritarians demand that the political state be abolished at one stroke, even before the social conditions that gave birth to it have been destroyed. They demand that the first act of the social revolution shall be the abolition of authority. Have these gentlemen ever seen a revolution? A revolution is certainly the most authoritarian thing there is; it is the act whereby one part of the population imposes its will upon the other part by means of rifles, bayonets and cannon — authoritarian means, if such there be at all; and if the victorious party does not want to have fought in vain, it must maintain this rule by means of the terror which its arms inspire in the reactionists. Would the Paris Commune have lasted a single day if it had not made use of this authority of the armed people against the bourgeois? Should we not, on the contrary, reproach it for not having used it freely enough?

    • SnowCodeOP
      3•3 years ago

      This is a very interesting comment in deed. I am not sure about the last sentence though. Violence is not the best kind of way to deal with stuff. Antifascists now know that (ref, “The antifascist handbook”)

      I may look at Engels a bit more :)