This is the annoying part of talking with non-anarchists about anarchists. You see anarchists choosing a different structure and abandoning the old structure, and your hierarchy-pilled brain treats it like a total collapse because the top of the structure is different.
The people in this picture are still out there. Whether they joined Têkosîna Anarsîsta, or a different guerilla group, or they switched to doing more useful labor when the threat of violence wound down, or something else still. They are still doing work to improve the world, motivated by ideas improved from those they had while in this movement.
Collectives exist for their people. If a collective no longer fits the needs of the people it shouldn’t exist anymore. You wouldn’t criticize a pupa for lasting so short before producing a butterfly, so why criticize a collective?
I’ve noticed that the unwritten first and most important goal of every organization I’ve been in–regardless of the designated mission–was to continue to exist. Further, the goal of every administrator was to justify their own existence.
Right now I’m in a place that probably shouldn’t exist, but the guy who runs the program loves running a program and going to meeting and sucking cock up-the-chain, and the people that are getting their cocks sucked love having him sucking their cocks and having an organization that they are controlling below them.
Humans aren’t insects. And I’m not criticizing anything. I was just pointing out how short-lived their movement was. I can’t truly criticize that which I do not understand. And, anarchists, I do not understand.
You’re still assuming a movement dies when an organisation dissolves. I tried to help you see through analogy with the butterfly. I trust you’ll figure it out in time.
This is the annoying part of talking with non-anarchists about anarchists. You see anarchists choosing a different structure and abandoning the old structure, and your hierarchy-pilled brain treats it like a total collapse because the top of the structure is different.
The people in this picture are still out there. Whether they joined Têkosîna Anarsîsta, or a different guerilla group, or they switched to doing more useful labor when the threat of violence wound down, or something else still. They are still doing work to improve the world, motivated by ideas improved from those they had while in this movement.
Collectives exist for their people. If a collective no longer fits the needs of the people it shouldn’t exist anymore. You wouldn’t criticize a pupa for lasting so short before producing a butterfly, so why criticize a collective?
I’ve noticed that the unwritten first and most important goal of every organization I’ve been in–regardless of the designated mission–was to continue to exist. Further, the goal of every administrator was to justify their own existence.
Right now I’m in a place that probably shouldn’t exist, but the guy who runs the program loves running a program and going to meeting and sucking cock up-the-chain, and the people that are getting their cocks sucked love having him sucking their cocks and having an organization that they are controlling below them.
They don’t understand that we prefer transient adhoc groups over permanent monolithic entities that overstay their welcome.
Humans aren’t insects. And I’m not criticizing anything. I was just pointing out how short-lived their movement was. I can’t truly criticize that which I do not understand. And, anarchists, I do not understand.
You’re still assuming a movement dies when an organisation dissolves. I tried to help you see through analogy with the butterfly. I trust you’ll figure it out in time.