Add new comment

You can't be approaching history by rejecting mythological narratives without being nihilistic at the same time. Even an history of "anarchism" leans toward the reproduction of myth, even if it is often a mythology of "history's losers".

The thing is that there's so many, near-endless perspectives from which to look at part stuff that happened or people did, but there's a lack of proper materials to verify/negate claims as you go further back into the "past". Like there's evidence that literacy was way more widespread among the "laymen" during medieval times than it is assumed, but since paper is hard to preserve, most of the remaining texts were on the cow skin used by the priest and aristocratic class, that still looks good today.

A relation with the world is also a relation with history; that cannot held separately. If people no longer can read anarchist texts and news (pun intended) in decades from now, then you can claim that anarchism, at least as a political and social paradigm pretty much has ceased to exist and it must be recreated all over again by the a new generation. But on the other hand, the State still going to be dominating, just as capital and its commodity, upon people's lives. So why this "burden"? Because after the civilizational cataclysms of the 20th century, authoritarianism is still seen as a solution for many people. Of course not out of their reason but inculcated convictions. People still don't fucking get it, that we're living under a system of made-up bullshit we call "society", and cannot separate this society from "life".