Read on Twitter
It& #39;s difficult - and disheartening - to try and imagine how some global simultaneous anarchist revolution could possibly take place - unless you start to think more creatively about what such a "revolution" would actually have to look like in practice. https://twitter.com/AntifaPill/status/1391835592049057799">https://twitter.com/AntifaPil...
I like to imagine that we& #39;re actually still in the middle of it. There are "revolutions" - regime changes, new systems, civil rights struggles, changes in public opinion and values - and then there is a "meta revolution" which is their legacy of freedom that is ongoing.
It& #39;s easier to believe as internet culture (with its memes of resistance and oppression) continues to globalize. Bookchin& #39;s idea about a meta-revolutionary "legacy of freedom" vs a "legacy of domination" feels accurate seeing the diversity of struggles over/against authority now
I keep plugging it over and over, but something in group study of FARJ (which sticks to a pretty traditional view of revolution but has a less conventional view of anarchist method) has helped me expand my imagination in this area. https://libcom.org/library/social-anarchism-organisation">https://libcom.org/library/s...
Thinking in terms of meta-revolutionary movements can also be a nice tool for sidestepping sectarian hindrances to seeing the big picture. Graeber& #39;s writing here is also very good at this.
An "anarchist revolution" much less an "anarchist society" is probably not one in which most participants consider themselves "anarchists", but one which embodies the ideals anarchists have theorized and advocated as an active (and often annoying and unpopular) minority.
In this sense, anarchist theory fits "inside" the world of meta-revolutionary social movements rather than trying to fit them inside itself. It helps them achieve their own goals for freedom, and by doing so actualizes, co-evolves and reproduces itself in its practicioners.
