Anarchists Must Say What Only Anarchists Can Say

by Monsieur Dupont

Unknown Binding

About the author

Librarian Note: There is more than one author in the Goodreads database with this name.

Reviews

[Luke · Rating 4 out of 5]

Revolutionary agency is not the anarchists’ appropriate function, this belongs to a non-political proletariat. That leaves their true political mission which comes in two parts and is dependent on the accidents of economic events. Firstly, in the present, anarchists must intervene in political debate with the intent of destroying false hopes for reform by showing how proposed solutions alter details but retain the general social relation. The role of the anarchists is that of the popper of balloons, they must be agents of anti-ideology. They must say what only they can say, they must refuse the script written for them by leftists and liberals — there is nothing to be gained by repeating easy leftwing slogans, truth and not recruitment should be the decisive factor . . .

. . . Anarchists must undermine faith in all proposed solutions to war, repression, cheap labour etc and not promote their own. They must demonstrate how rubbish all left wing solutions really are and how there are no solutions that do not end in compromise with the generality. There is no relief, there is no peace, there is no reform; so long as the system remains there is only intensification of productivity by whatever means and that includes both war and ‘people’s governments.

To be against capital in all its forms is sufficient, there is no need to tack a utopia at the end as some kind of golden handshake, all such solutions smack of religious falsity. To say ‘we want a better world free of this or that’ plays into their hands, it’s so easy for politicians to say, ‘we agree, we’re all working together’ when really there is no commonality of interest, the class system from its very origins robs some to pay others. To say ‘we are against capitalism in all its forms’ is enough. The specifics of what comes next is not ours to propose.

[Rui Coelho · Rating 3 out of 5]

The first part is an amazing illustration of how power works in societies of control. But the main part of the text is a pessimist perspective on revolutionary politics. I think the authors may be onto something here, but their idea is not feveloped to its full potential and so leaves a taste of impotence. Nonetheless, now I want to read more from this collective.

[Ⓐnna · Rating 2 out of 5]

"there is no hope, is that why I'm so optimistic?"
In anarchists must say what only anarchists can say, Monsieur Dupont establish, that anarchists have no impact on bringing about a revolution.
"They can attempt to control every detail of their life and make it as alternative as is possible but the system itself remains out of reach, capital is untouched. When they're saving the environment by recycling their rubbish someone else is making a profit from their unpaid labor."
"revolutionary agency is not the anarchists' appropriate function, this belongs to a non-political proletariat"

They argue, that the primary task of anarchists is criticising all attempts of changing the social order and therefor staying true to their beliefs.
"the role of the anarchist is that of the popper of balloons, they must be agents of anti-ideology"
"anarchists must intervene in political debate with the intent of destroying false hopes for reform by showing how proposed solutions alter details but retain the general social relation."

Very fun to read and super consistent. Regarding their pessimism of direct action, I think that in the long run they're probably right and there's no hope for any significant change through individual actions but we can't just not do anything, might as well do everything even if there's no point...

Also super whack take:
"anarchists, being mostly young men , still have not learnt that only young men like to fightback on the streets"
- so cringe to talk about criticising everyone else and not tolerating anyone else's ideas but having such sexist views. Maybe the authors should start by criticising themselves...