Total Destruction 4XDonX, the gay, anarchist/communist, vegan, straightedge lad from Kentucky put out the summer issue of his zine Total Destruction awhile ago and I've read it now. It can be downloaded/read here: http://www.impassionedinsurrection.info/p
amphlets/td4.pdf
In this edition, Don seems to be feeling socially/ideologically lonely and a bit sorry for himself. Like previous issues, this is word and heavy on theory and this one includes reflections on anarchist direct action, being friends with marxists and hating leftists and wanting to 'slit their throats'!? Something/one called Monsier Dupont kept being referred to, and unless I read to quickly it was never actually explained. Don also reprints an essay by a 1930s US left activist on the futility of revolutionary movements because of the conservatism of the proletariat. So a sombre tone to this issue then. It's a ranty one that gets the brain going. Don is hoping to get new radical/queer penpals.
XTDX 4 made me think a lot about what works and what doesn't in the cause of revolution. In
Maximum RockNRoll's 25th anniversary issue, Lefty Hooligan wrote that he stopped being an anarchist (20 years ago) and has now stopped being a communist (after 20 years) because both ideologies have failed. He pointed out that anarchism is now 200 years old (counting from Godwin, which I don't think is justified), and since in all that time anarchists have not succeeded in their goals, we never will.
What I believe will never succeed at this point is a mass confrontational uprising against capitalism, and this is because 1. capitalists are so overwhelmingly powerful and 2. mass movements are so prone to internal weaknesses like factionalism, personality cults, corruption etc. as well as 3. being undermined by their enemies. At any rate, there is something patriarchical and top-down about revolution by force, and since the means create the ends, could that possibly create the society we desire?
I think the traditional anti-capitalism/authoritarian movements have failed to realise their goals because they started with ideology and not with what makes a good life. Yes, it sounds like the same thing but the difference is that the latter begins with personal action - one person living as she wants everyone to live. By setting this example, one person can be a concrete example of a revolutionary who succeeded. Good examples always influence other people (though not of course every other person), and both inspire and create more favourable conditions for the pattern to continue.
Collective action makes the process above more effective, but the mistake to avoid is the collective itself becoming the goal: 'carry on recruiting'. In fact collective action with the sole intention of winning hearts and minds is less effective than art. Artists are far from perfect, but they are prophets even if not intentionally. Anyone from the punk scene knows that a great music performance can change lives and boost or even create a social movement. This is another reason it is vital that music not be co-opted by capitalism, but that's for another essay.
Positive social change progresses like a virus and is brought about by individual
action, art, and collectives that
support the other two.
Here endeth the lesson.