The meme below was recently posted on Facebook with the following comments by a proponent of “anarcho-coalitionism”:
#AnarchoCoalitionism is militant panarchy. It’s the only way forward. The elites LIKE the masses fighting amongst each other, and that doesn’t change, no matter how “woke” you are. You are not an island, and neither am I. Wanna win? Be #AnarchoCoalitionist.
Shake some hands. Find some agreements. You don’t have to compromise to move forward. But working with many you called “enemies” is going to be a first step.
And to anyone who sees this, feel free to use the banner pic.
They call it a banner for a reason, and the more people flying it, the more obvious it will be that we are coming, we are many, and we are not going away.
I responded with the following comments:
I’ve been thinking and writing about these kinds of ideas for years. I think the first problem is that there are too few anarchists at present for anarchism to exercise any real impact on the wider society, so anarchists tend to spend a lot of time in their own ideological enclaves fighting with each other. A second problem is that many anarchists of the hyphenated varieties are essentially the hyphens first and anarchists second. So the first goal probably needs to be to grow the number of anarchists of whatever kind, period.
A second goal probably needs to position anarchism as a kind of “revolutionary center” that is 100% anti-establishment, but also an alternative to the far left and far right, rather than just a variation of the far left and far right, i.e. a form or radicalism that anti-establishmentarians can belong to while avoiding the drama and dysfunction, and danger associated with communists, fascists, religious fundamentalism, etc. I am very “big tent” in the sense of favoring an umbrella approach that is inclusive of all anarchist philosophies, ideologies, movements, tendencies, organizations, causes, strategies, etc, while recognizing that “anarcho-sectarians” will always be with us on some level, and that complete anarchist unity is likely impossible.
Once these issues have gotten off the ground, the next step is the issue of how to build actual movements that impact the wider society. This is what a Facebook friend recently suggested:
“The commies were on the right track by offering direct material improvements to the proles, even if the promises ended up false and nightmarishly totalitarian in execution. Who cares about some libertarian moral imperative concerning the absolute sanctity of private property if you’re some kind of feudal serf who can never participate?
The biggest expenses most people pay are for housing. I’d imagine people would put a lot on the line for the prospect of having their mortgage payments cancelled permanently or never having to pay rent again, and having all student loan debt nullified. Then you concede to the free marketeer deregulators every other thing they want.”