Crossposted because I think it’s an interesting take, but I don’t fully agree with the part about protests having no quantifiable goal.

Not all protests for Gaza were meant to gain engagement, many were organized to cause direct economic disruption to those that profit from the war, that is a goal.

https://www.a15action.com/

  • poVoq@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    6 months ago

    He means that they cannot participate in state power as an institutional apparatus, be it as reformists or revolutionaries.

    You realize how funny it is that you post this in an Anarchist community?

    Anyway, I do get that point by Bevin, but it is the typical false argument MLs like to make, which is why I stopped reading the book when it became clear that this is really all he has to say.

    • theluddite@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      I once again disagree with your characterization of the book.

      You realize how funny it is that you post this in an Anarchist community?

      That’s stupid. Anarchist revolutionary theory and historical practice are full of ideas that are perfectly compatible with this analysis, even if Bevins himself is clearly not an anarchist. There is no more legible act to the state than organized violence, for example.

      I’m not sure why you’ve taken this unpleasant posture towards me. I’m genuinely here for a discussion, but this is my last response if you keep acting like I’m some sort of uncultured idiot that needs you “to start from the basics 😒”

      • poVoq@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        6 months ago

        Ok sorry, I did get a bit carried away, because usually here on Lemmy you get to discuss with hardened MLs that really do deserve all the ridicule they can get.

        That said, sorry but no. That analysis is completely incompatible with Anarchist thought. Participating in “state power as an institutional apparatus” is exactly what Anarchist warn against, because as soon as you do that you have lost. The state apparatus, regardless of the ideological paintjob is gives itself, has one primary goal, that is perpetuating its own existence no matter the cost.

        And that there “is no more legible act to the state than organized violence” is exactly why it is so easy for states to instrumentalize violent protests and turn them against themselves. Violence and the threat of it can be a necessary tool, but it needs to be done in a way that makes it illegible to the state, otherwise it will not work as the state is the master of violence and will always win in an open confrontation.

        • theluddite@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          6 months ago

          To be clear, I wasn’t advocating for organized violence as a good tactic. I was just picking a simple example.

          I still think that Bevins’s history and analysis has merit, even if you disagree with his conclusions. I’ve read at least two books by anarchists that put forth similar concepts of legibility: Graeber’s “Utopia of Rules” and James Scott’s “Seeing like a State” (which I actually read to write this post and have a bajillion opinions about, but that’s a post for another day). Regardless of your stance on whether your movement should or shouldn’t be legible, you have to understand legibility, both to the state, and to other capitalist powers like, say, social media (to pick one at random 😉 ).

          • poVoq@slrpnk.net
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            6 months ago

            Indeed understanding legibility is important to become illegible. Which is exactly why Bevin’s interpretation is so incomplete and misguided. He genuinely seems to believe that this was a problem for these protests when in fact it was a defining feature that led to their (relative) success.