Italian anarchists are very irritable because they are very conceited. Their longstanding conviction that they’re oracles of revealed revolutionary truth has become “monstrous” ever since the Socialist Party, through the influence of the Russian Revolution and Bolshevik…
The article focuses on the immediate task of organizing the working class to carry out a revolution. That’s a pretty important context that you’re ignoring. In order for a socialist state to wither away, it actually has to be created first. That’s the task the article is discussing, and that’s the task before the western left today. Only after a socialist state has been established is there any point to discuss how it will evolve and whether it will wither away.
That’s not how convincing people works, though. Their concern might be silly in the short term but telling them it’s stupid is going to get people rightfully angry at you
When you point out that the goal is to have the state wither away, it’s a lot easier to convince someone to side with you then just going “states good actually 4head”
My experience is that focusing on convincing anarchists of anything is a waste of time. Anarchists are difficult to convince because they’ve already formed strongly held beliefs, and they’re typically actively antagonistic towards communists. Meanwhile, both anarchists and communists combined represent a tiny fraction of the population.
The real focus should be on convincing people in the mainstream who are becoming disillusioned with the capitalist system, but haven’t yet formed strong political opinions. These people are much easier to convince and there are a lot more of them. This is the demographic that the messaging needs to be tailored to.
What Gramsci argues might not be terribly helpful for convincing anarchists, but it is a useful argument to explain why communist approach is the one that can achieve tangible results to people who haven’t yet formed strong opinions of their own.
In my experience, young anarchists in person can be reasoned with, but if you’re a full on adult and still believe in anarchism, you’re probably too far gone.
pretty much yeah
I think, as with most things, you have to know your audience. I find a lot of anarchist, especially those who are new to anti-capitalist ways of thinking can certainly have it explained to them and convinced.
Sure, that’s an important point as well. It’s always important to recognize where the person you’re talking with at and to tailor the messaging accordingly. I’m mainly just cautioning against spending a lot of time on trying to convince people who don’t want to be convinced. It’s easy to get sucked down the rabbit hole of arguing with them endlessly while that time can be spent better talking to people who are actually receptive to what you’re saying.
I had to learn that the hard way. Some people just like to argue for arguments sake.
indeed
This is a very sad picture you are painting. It is like saying that if someone doesn’t know about cars and this is the first time buying you can convince them to buy a Chevy, but if they already know about cars and have had a few they will never buy one. Alternatively if they have a BMW why trade it for a Daewoo?
No, I’d say you have to look at it more like eating habbits. You won’t convince someone who’s in his 50ies and all his life only ever ate fastfood to eat healthy. It’s objectively better for them, deep down they might even know it, but the force of habbit is just to strong.
There is a best choice, but not everyone want’s to hear it. You can’t convince everyone and have to pick your battles.
But that isn’t the demographic I’m talking about. A group of people who call themselves anarchists and can be reasoned with does exist, and refusing to cooperate with them (and instead yelling what you perceive to be The Truth at them until they agree with you) will result in them becoming the inflexible, habitually wrong anarchist.
I think we both agree on that. I just wanted to point out that that does not mean every anarchist can be reasoned with.
Again I am with you on that, but no one here advocated that. If I say “they don’t want to hear the truth” I am not saying that I tell them they are straight up wrong. If I debate politics with someone I try to point out logical flaws or present my reasoning. If they don’t find my reasoning relatable that’s fine, most of the time we still agree on a lot of other points.
Is the object of the revolutionary to tell people what they prefer to hear or what it is actually right, scintifically supported that is as a choice?