Post #2741520

2026-05-21 09:52 UTC

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?

Replies (3)

@GimmeUrBelt@lemmy.today 2026-05-21 09:56

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.

Open ##2741519
@TRAHR@sh.itjust.works 2026-05-21 10:25

They don’t understand that we prefer transient groups over permanent monolithic entities.

Open ##2741609
@schipelblorp@sh.itjust.works 2026-05-23 10:50

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.

Open ##2825067