RedKobra
14th February 2015, 10:47
As far as I'm aware Anarchism implies piecemeal liberation. By that I mean the fact that only as individuals and communities reach revolutionary consciousness do they liberate themselves. No one else can do it for them. Anarchists don't believe in movements such as vanguards that would, according to vanguardists, drag some of the less conscious sections of society along with them, thus creating a mass movement and negating the problem of patchy revolution.
So, if I've understood correctly then what is the difference between Anarchistic ideas of piecemeal liberation and Socialism in One Country? In the sense that it implies isolation amidst a sea of Capitalism. If we can only reach revolutionary consciousness in our own time and cannot be swept along by a vanguard then in what sense is the revolution a mass uprising? In what sense is the revolution broad? In what sense does the revolution create anything more than pockets of liberationists amidst oceans of pre-consciousness workers still slaving for Capitalism?
So, if I've understood correctly then what is the difference between Anarchistic ideas of piecemeal liberation and Socialism in One Country? In the sense that it implies isolation amidst a sea of Capitalism. If we can only reach revolutionary consciousness in our own time and cannot be swept along by a vanguard then in what sense is the revolution a mass uprising? In what sense is the revolution broad? In what sense does the revolution create anything more than pockets of liberationists amidst oceans of pre-consciousness workers still slaving for Capitalism?