Add new comment

from the pleroma

I think I'm uncomfortable with using the current cycle of struggle in Chile as the example here, because I don't know much about it, really, and (I am presuming, perhaps wrongly) that you also don't know too much

that said, I definitely think this is a broadly applicable critique of, say, a normative "participant" approach to struggles/upheavals. in my own context, during the heights of different upheavals and after the crest of them, the focus on the "front" on the part of anarchists has been absolutely counterproductive to what those same anarchists are presumably trying to accomplish. the aggregate array of forces that comprises the social movement becomes protagonist, and anarchist participants lose sight of their own, smaller goals, which need not be contingent upon the viability of the larger upheaval/cycle/movement/whatever

in other words: critical thinking is good, losing sight of oneself in the maelstrom of events is bad

again, I think speaking of the SCW, Chile, or Maoism... it has the effect of distracting from this essential point, which is a good one, because it reduces these complex events, societes, and phenomena to, like, their most problematic essences. which I probably don't even mind with respect to Maoism, lol, but for the sake of fairness, I would say that even Maoism is not a singular thing