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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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 .

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.

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.

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.

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"?

It must be windy that high up in your soapbox.

Standing on a soapbox is still much better than having your head in the clouds.

I don’t mean to tell you, but the world order completely changed after WW1 and WW2

Sooo... these collapses you speak of - I'm assuming absolutely none of them resulted in the liberal socio-economic being any less resilient and dominant than it actually is today?

Last time I checked it certainly hadn't.

I'm not sure what point you are even trying to make by defining these crises as "collapses."

because people are too propagandized to perform said radical change

So the propagandised working class is to blame for the left's abysmal failures, eh?

Okay... let's assume that is the case - just for the moment. The first question that comes to my mind... how is the left's counter-propaganda theory and praxis coming along, then?

Over the last decade (or so) I've seen lots of (so-called) "debunking" media on libtube... oops, sorry, I meant to say breadtube - and even some of it here on lemmy - which, as any competent propagandist can tell you, is essentially useless for waging a war of narratives.

If I were to ask any (self-described) radical on lemmy to explain liberalism to me - which is where any competently thought out counter-propaganda narrative (ie, one that acknowledges the working-class' actual political experience) would start off from - using only one, succinct sentence... would any of them be able to manage that?

If the answer is "not many can do this extremely basic thing" then... you have a problem - it would be extremely premature to blame the working class' propagandisation for the left's failures if it were to turn out that the left is hopelessly incompetent at counter-propaganda.

And yes - before you ask - my background is in propaganda.

Lots of libertarian leftists (including, of course, anarchists) assure me that they do, in fact, listen to Bakunin's proverbial bootmaker... but I'm not seeing all that much of it.

Would you like to modify your statement, perhaps... and blame the left's failures on something else?

Standing on a soapbox is still much better than having your head in the clouds.

If you think that's a good comeback, it's very very sad.

Sooo... these collapses you speak of - I'm assuming absolutely none of them resulted in the liberal socio-economic being any less resilient and dominant than it actually is today?

The system and the world order itself completely transformed. Its resilience is not what we're talking about.

I'm not sure what point you are even trying to make by defining these crises as "collapses."

That during these collapses is when radical leftists have more chance to push through the propaganda which is powerful while the system is stable?

So the propagandised working class is to blame for the left's abysmal failures, eh?

No? You should know better than to put words in people's mouths.

Okay... let's assume that is the case - just for the moment. The first question that comes to my mind... how is the left's counter-propaganda theory and praxis coming along, then?

As always, we're outnumbered and outgunned, but we do our best with the shit show we've inherited.

And yes - before you ask - my background is in propaganda.

I'd love to hear what tactics you actually suggest, because tearing things down in theory is easy, but I don't see you suggesting anything better.

Sorry for the late reply - the health isn't what it used to be.

If you think that’s a good comeback, it’s very very sad.

I wasn't trying to be clever... I was trying to be charitable - a courtesy I only extend to the libertarian left. Your hearts seem to be in the right place... where the rest of your parts are is open to conjecture.

Its resilience is not what we’re talking about.

That is exactly what we are talking about - considering that you are forlornly hoping that a few bottom-of-the-pecking-order capitalism-cosplaying techbros getting their hands badly burnt by a prophesised AI bubble imploding will (somehow) lead to another crisis for the liberal socio-economic order. A liberal socio-economic order that, to be clear, has consistently proven far, far more resilient than leftist predictions have claimed throughout the last two hundred years.

That during these collapses is when radical leftists have more chance to push through the propaganda which is powerful while the system is stable?

When an actual collapse strikes it is too late to rethink your narratives. That is something you had the chance to do before the artillery shells started coming down and the death squads burst through your door.

You know... like now?

As always, we’re outnumbered and outgunned,

Outgunned? Sure.

But outnumbered? For an ideology that purports to be of the working class and for the working class that is a serious and debilitating flaw, methinks.

If you are outnumbered, the obvious question that comes to my mind would be... why does the working class have so little faith in you?

Are you absolutely certain the reasons are all external to the libertarian left?

If I had to judge based on the often contradictory and often dead-end narratives I see anarchists use to engage with the working class online I have to say the answer cannot possibly be in the affirmative.

I’d love to hear what tactics you actually suggest,

Absolutely not - you don't fix a headless chicken problem by adding more headless chickens.

If narratives can be equated to tactics when it comes to the counter-propaganda battle, then perhaps it is the strategy these tactics are based upon that requires rethinking - not the tactics themselves.

If it helps, we can examine the common arguments anarchists often find themselves trapped in when liberals predictably start going "blue-no-matter-who"-crazy as the US electioneering cycle starts spinning up - if you wish to continue this, that is.

So you don't have anything better to suggest than anarchism?

What did you think I was trying to do? Convince you to not be an anarchist?

To answer your question, though - that depends... will anarchists start listening to the bootmakers or not? Ie... does anarchism still have the capacity to, once again, evolve into a true threat to the liberal status quo?

I'd say it probably still does - but it's going to have to do a lot of evolving first.

Are you going to tell me or just continue with sophistries?

Oh well... so much for that.

Let's try not to waste each other's time and energy ever again, okay?

Yep, just what I expected.