Posted from the hellscape that is reddit, but it works here none the less .
The Zapatistas has a society based on direct democracy, solidarity, and community I would consider that Anarchist. one big US military base in Syria has a similar society, but there still property among other things. Both societies are Libertarian Socialist it's up to you if you would label it Anarchist.
Most revolutionary ideas have the same goal, you can call the societies socialist, communist, libertarian etc doesn't really matter. These societies aren't explicitly Anarchist, but most Anarchist agrees with their struggle and the society they're trying to build.
We just want to skip the socialism, and military ,to create local militias,and wage a world wide Vietnam with you guys
I too have read my fair share of Orwell. Being anti-Stalin doesn't make you anti-communist but as it's not a position you hold in a vacuum. Being anti-soviet definitely makes you anti-communist though whether you like it or not.
Anarchy and communism generally are so good that even when you do them poorly you still get pretty good results.
Leo Young
Might I direct you to the part of this back, and forth were i said i'd critically support them? Leninists are also extremely based, and I have no idea where you got the idea I was anti Soviet as most unjustified behavior happened under Stalin's watch.
Based,and some great points are made, (i.e newspeak being an inappropriate metaphor that speaks to Orwell overreacting to some simplified English, and thinking it means alternative facts will somehow develop. Orwell being slightly an-prim level hater of tech while also criticizing his, they'll instantly change their minds if the party acts thing are brought up.) but the soviets doing something as based as shooting Nazis, doesn't exempt them from criticism for a dictatorship. and please don't hit me with that "Hurr durr you need the state to be firing on all cylinders, so you should centralize power to an extreme degree, Vietnamese farmers were so low on supplies they fought with rocks a lot of the time,so an incredibly large elite army isn't necessary His opinion on Animal farm wasn't as good imo tho. He states that the book only focuses on the farms themselves being normie capitalist countries that buddy up with Stalin, when they should have a Hitler like character to make them buddy up, when that wasn't the point. He was simply trying to say rule by a political class of elites hadn't ended due to Stalin's cronyism. Also claiming that the reason the Spanish Anarchists didn't come to power in the republic due to the CP being more organized as all are is laughable
Sounds like Asimov misinterpreted 1984 in the same way that all the other libs did. It’s more about Britain than it is about the Soviet Union, Orwell himself said that he wrote it based on his experiences as a BBC propagandist during the war.
