Note that the site is in archived, read-only mode. You can browse and read, but posting is disabled.
Welcome to Anarchy101 Q&A, where you can ask questions and receive answers about anarchism, from anarchists.

Note that the site is in archived, read-only mode. You can browse and read, but posting is disabled.


+1 vote
What do anarchists mean when they speak of "the crisis"?  Is the meaning the same as when the phrase is used in the capitalist press?  And by communists?  Is there a "crisis of capitalism," and if so, is this a desirable situation for anarchists?

1 Answer

0 votes
i have read two anarchists on forms of crisis. one is jason mcquinn:
"a structural crisis that is far more serious and long-term than has been generally acknowledged. And the predictable effects of the collapse of neoliberalism--the end of empire for the u.s.... the upcoming collapse of neoliberal empire may be even more spectacular [than the u.s.s.r.'s], though it will be likely to last for decade or more of increasing retrenchments, unlike the rapid Soviet collapse. whatever else we can expect, there is no actual neoliberal "recovery" in sight as the eurozone disintegrates, structural unemployment continues to grow throughout the industrialized world... and much of the world's financial systems and stock markets collapse. with peak oil, the effects of global warming, and the impending declines of the world's agriculture, fisheries and fresh water supplies, combined with still growing population and onrushing worldwide industrialization, there is no hope for economic stabilization under the rule of capital over the coming decades." [etc]

the other is from *Desert* (on the anarchist library), from which i can't find the best quotation because the entire pamphlet is an explanation - but which discusses environmental devastation as an unavoidable crisis for the entire planet.

while it is possible that these or any other "crisis" will create ruptures that would open more space for resistance, it would come at such an intense cost (of species extinction and pain and suffering on all levels), that to call it desirable doesn't really make sense.

but whether it's desirable or not is also probably irrelevant. it does seem to be the direction that we're headed in, and have been for a long time.

edit: if by "desirable" you are questioning whether we should be trying to delay these breaks, there is an argument that the longer it takes to get to this rupture, the worse it will be -- the more people there will be, the more creatures will be dead, the more polluted the air and water will be, and the longer it will take for any possible recovery (assuming that's even possible in any way that is relevant to us).
by (53.1k points)
edited by