Ontology:Q4989

1. [S2] (pronounced [S2]) Anarchism is over 1:(-)1:(-)1

Characteristics in draft

Properties

item type

S2 (C (pronounced C)) 1:(-)1:(-)1

label (en)

[S2] (pronounced [S2]) Anarchism is over 1:(-)1:(-)1

alias (en)

Anarchism will never work

Anarchism will never liberate the proletariat from capitalism

Anarchism will never produce a successful revolution

anti-anarchist proposition (Marxism-Leninism)

QID references [Item] 1:(-)1:(-)1

[S2] (pronounced [S2]) Trotskyism is over 1:(-)1:(-)1

[F2] (pronounced [F2]) Liberalism is over 1:(-)1:(-)1

color swatch references [Item]

mainstream Marxism-Leninism

sub-case of [Item]

--

case of

--

super-case of

--

consists of components [Item]

--

Appearances

appears in work

--

Wavebuilder combinations

[P] (pronounced [P]) Wavebuilder (pronounced Wavebuilder): forms result [Item]

--

along with [Item]

--

forming from [Item]

--

--

--

Usage notes

This claim is a difficult one to unpack because although it is historically sound, it does not successfully anticipate or explain historical processes as they have occurred after around the 1960s. Up to the year 2000, it is quite reasonable to say that no particular describable Anarchism had ever had success permanently transforming a country. But at the same time, anyone who has been observing the United States since 2000 would notice that somewhere within the period between 1950 and 2012 there was an apparent great shift in the United States in which the United States at least became psychologically convinced it was transitioning to Anarchism whether that was actually happening or not. A particular phenomenon occurred where anticommunism was never defeated and in fact continued to blossom and get stronger, but people still needed to convince themselves they were part of some vague thing called "The Left", so they began to construct strange new definitions and models of what the United States was transitioning to. This led to growth within what is tentatively referred to here as the "Existentialist-Structuralist tradition", a loose cluster of many apparently-different philosophies which all revolved around a certain heap of recurring themes. At the same time, it also led to some amount of growth in people who simply called themselves anarchists. The real-world relationship between the Existentialist-Structuralist tradition and anarchisms is not necessarily clear. Some anarchists dislike the concept of theorists enough that it seems doubtful they would bother to read any of the mounds of academic Existentialist literature just to know how to do anarchism. Other anarchists may define anarchism in such a way that it would sound almost exactly like Deleuze and Guattari's introduction to schizoanalysis, making anarchism and Existentialism more or less the same thing. The inconsistency within definitions of anarchism, sometimes intentional, can make it difficult to properly distinguish any particular Anarchism from things which are not anarchism. Either way, Existentialism and anarchism together have been the bulk of non-reactionary organizations in the United States which are not strictly tied to the day-to-day definition of center-Liberalism within the Democratic Party.

This has led to a complicated relationship between anarchism and demographic-based movements. Every racial movement in the United States is anarchist or Existentialist. It isn't clear if this is because anarchists have taken over the stage of racial movements or because anarchism itself is conducive to creating the movements more than other ideologies are. Anarchisms preoccupy themselves with culture and "community" and the concept of small subpopulations having Freedom to exist independently of larger things and generate their own local culture unimpeded by larger things. Historical racial struggles are full of instances of alterity, the totality of various abusive actions diminishing people's ability to express themselves and hold an intact self-image as opposed to internalized prejudice. It isn't difficult to see why non-White people would have such an attachment to anarchism, when effectively the most central themes of some Anarchisms overlap exactly with their major complaints about global empires. And yet, no matter how much anarchism there is, structural racism and global empire keep happening.

It is difficult to say at this time whether this proposition should be labeled true or false. On one hand, anarchism would not seem to be effective. On the other hand, a great number of people are likely to take that very statement as a direct insult to racial movements due to the current prevalence of racial Anarchisms and perhaps due to beliefs that Anarchisms are the only way to put an end to racism. The most reasonable answer is probably to say that although this proposition is not true or false it still fails an agenda test as it will leave different movements fighting each other if Marxists have not studied the behavior of anarchist movements as separate uncontrollable countable Cultures.