o_195qg5dto17o4rbc85q1ge61i84a.pdf

concluding remarks 173
naïve rebellion and (ultimately) purposeless action. Contemporary
anarchists can hardly be accused of lacking imagination or creativity,
but the emphasis that some now place on process and movement
risks playing into the hands of those who would suggest that
anarchists cannot achieve lasting goals: for these anarchists there are
no goals. Examples of anarchistic action – like that of the Zapatistas
– are inspiring to most observers, but anarchists – particularly in
states governed by fraud rather than force – must eventually
confront the nature of the rebellion in which they are engaged.
Grass-roots movements can and do bring about meaningful change.
But modern history suggests that they tend to succeed only with the
connivance of states. Anarchism challenges constituted authority –
even if it’s organized as a samba party. It might be fun, but what will
anarchists do if and when the hosts say the party’s over? As Buñuel
pointed out, it’s one thing to be an ardent subversive and revel in the
absurd, carrying out summary executions and fighting civil wars is
another matter altogether.
notes
1. O. Garnett, Tea and Anarchy! The Bloomsbury Diary of Olive Garnett
1890–1893, ed. B. Johnson (London: Bartletts Press, 1989), 107.
2. A. Grey, The Socialist Tradition: Moses to Lenin (London: Longmans,
Green & Co., 1946), 352.