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.
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?
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 :)
Hmmm… I know you’re not trolling, and you’re just learning.
Definitely go ahead and read Engels if you like. But also read some Malatesta (Anarchy), Le Guin (The Disposessed), Gelderloos (Anarchy Works), Goldman, read about the IWW, Kropotkin (Conquest of Bread), Bookchin (Post-Scarcity Anarchism), etc.
If you’re starting a violent revolution before the working class is organised and have already gained the understanding, skills and built the infrastructure to manage their own workplaces and communities your revolution isn’t going to be sustained very long or remain in the interests of the people it’s meant to be in service of.
What need is there for an authority to dictate how people should behave if everyone is already working toward their own emancipation and a common goal that’s beneficial to all?
Anyway, I don’t think many are going to have too much of a dilemma applying force to those using force to maintain the status quo of authority by capitalism and the state.
I’m not sure if I gave much insight here, but hope you have some more ideas to think about.
Yes I think I understand now. I discussed on a Discord server about anarchism and they said the same thing. Thanks for all these recommendations, I already read some extracts of Bookchin, I will take care of the others.
There is a strategy that allows anarchism to slowly be adopted by voluntary choice, called panarchism. It’s based on the exact observations you just made. Please read Panarchy, a Forgotten Idea of 1860 by Max Nettlau:
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/max-nettlau-panarchy-a-forgotten-idea-of-1860
Relevant snippet here:
The frequently discussed question: “What ought to be done with the reactionaries, who cannot adapt to liberty?”, would thereby be very simply solved: They may retain their State, as long as they want it. But for us it would become unimportant. Over us it would have no more power than the eccentric ideas of a sect which are of interest to no one else. Thus it will happen, sooner or later. Freedom will break a path for itself, everywhere.
