There has never been a socialist revolution in a bourgeois liberal democracy (no civil wars or any type of war...

Maybe not necessarily under a right-wing dictatorship, I think extreme economic hardship and/or war is a more important condition. Then again these things tend to go together.

Anarchist movements usually are run by a sort of Gurus and thought-leaders, who create informal hierarchies that are based on who can argue to be the most un-hierarchical of them all. Catalonia still had formal hierarchical structures, they even had bureaucratic offices. But mostly local ones, few regional and no national ones. They basically will get picked off sequentially by any statist power structure. Even by ones that are vastly inferior in technology. Just look at the anarchic tech stack. Anarchco-tech-thought has been influential since the late 70s, so about 40-50 years. And what has come-out of this in terms of defensive capacity, compared to Early 20 century statist socialism basically which had slide-rulers, and pre-calculated tables for engineering.

Obviously civilisation cannot only be won by firepower, there's also economy, diplomacy and cultural paths to victory.

It doesn't seem like a decentralised localised economy can even begin to hope to outcompete a centralised one. It might even be impossible given that resources aren't distributed uniformly. The only case where anarchic model has won a economic victory is open-source software development, but only in certain areas. It seemed for a while that culture production could have been a win for anarchic open-source as well, because video-games could have been produced by large online-swarms of content producers. But that didn't happen. The modding scene (technical side) and the users of stuff like Second Life (artistic side) never seemed to have found a way to unite. The none-currency side of the Block-chain development went into the direction of creating legal structures for contracts, but had no diplomatic ambitions what so ever, this could still be viable, if they could manage to attract diplomatically minded people to their platforms that can bridge the gap into meat-space, and start to outcompete other diplomatic channels.

So if you think that developed countries will drive towards anarchic models, well then you need to start developing models for that. Consider that anarchists usually seek out the sense of diffuse order, something that even open-source projects suck at most of the time. I would say that the proposals made by Paul Cockshott to have a central state planer with a lottery election system, will actually better accommodate the sense of diffuse order than any of the historic and present anarchist models.

most Anarchist thought can be summed up and explained in terms of the failings of the free-libre-source-software movement. Where most of the utterings are complaints about proprietary software and open-source software with proprietary bits in them. As a strategy this is about as effective as religions telling people not to give into temptations of the devil.
Going back to the late 90s when free-software started to become a real movement, the main strategy should have been about creating tools to make reverse engineering proprietary binaries increasingly easier. Which in Marxist terms would be reversing the the enclosure of the commons.

Attached: plasticpeashooter.jpeg (812x849, 154.82K)

20th century socialism was dominated by Leninist praxis, and said praxis was designed to deal with right-wing dictatorships.

Huh, interesting. I hadn't looked at it from that analysis. So at least today for the first world a new development in theory would have to be how to deal with liberal democracies and welfare states?

Well there are springlings of ideas about praxis in liberal democracies, but the issue is that the world isn't just dominated by liberal democracies anymore. We also have to contend with the issues of illiberal democracies (á la Russia, Hungary, Turkey, Israel, Poland etc.). Also the EU as an institution needs to be dealt with and IMO nobody has come-up with a proper way of doing so (aside from Varoufakis, perhaps).
But as for what has come up, there seem to be some concepts: unionisation of precariat workers and tenants as a means for progressing class interest, municipal socialism as a means of resisting neoliberal policy from central governments and building supportive structures, horizontal collectivism in regions where rule-of-law has collapse [like Chiapas, Rоjava], and general union militancy. Still, no coherent strategy as-of-yet.

jesus Godot Marx has to show up one of these days. For now we wait comrades.

Leninism was designed to deal with revolutionary conditions. Every "democracy" will become an open reactionary dictatorship when it is under serious threat of communist revolution. If there is no "right wing dictatorship," there's not going to be a revolution.

So as proper leftists should work to get the fascists into power then?

No

Except the revolutionary conditions of Russia were never going to happen in a liberal democracy: a situation where the ruling elite had been toppled but a new one had not been emplaced. This cannot properly occur in a liberal democracy since the ruling elite aren't inherently tied to those in power at this moment.
Take Euromaidan, where the ruling government of the day was overthrown but the Ukrainian elites remained in power.

Guess we're accelerationists now

That happened in Brazil in the 1930s and the communists got destroyed afterwards. So no.

Vroom vroom.

I was being facetious. I think leftists should realize that the violent economic revolution meme is outmoded as the violent protestant revolutions of the 1600s.

Hell even ISIS cant even truly gain traction in the middle east. A ~five year caliphate?

Violent uprisings are a meme and nothing more.

Daily reminder that Allende disarmed the worker's militias to appease the military. What a weak fag lmao.

Lmao, he got what he deserved.

Should have listened to the Soviets.

And he was offered multiple times means to leave Chile, both by some of his party members and the military itself. And he refused all of them, while choosing to fight until death instead of surrendering or leaving. Something you two most likely wouldn't have done.

What if instead of waiting for a brutal dictator to rise up against, people organized within liberal democracy to build socialism beforehand through parallel development, secession from capitalism, communization, direct action/labor activism, and even some electoralism and reform?

Don't wait till the iron is hot to strike, but make it hot by striking, and so on.

lmao @ "fighting until death" armless.

Won't happen, too much conformism and retarded people that have nothing to fight for and stand for nothing but their relative well being. People are so easily pleased, as long as you make things a little bit better they will stop demanding more, humanity is pathetic right now

Read on what happened the 11th of September 1973 you absolute brainlet.

It's not quite that simple. The linked paper has more information. While the Red Army presence was a necessary condition for the Communist rise to power (except maybe in Czechoslovakia), it was not necessarily sufficient. Basically, a lot of things about WWII's aftermath in EE were favorable to the Communists.

As for Czechoslovakia in '48, this is a decent article (jac obinmag.com/2018/03/czechoslovakia-1948-communist-party-repression). Czs was the only country occupied by the red army that had a significant CP during the interwar period, and was the only one to have a full-fledged industrial economy and proletariat. The CP didn't necessarily have majority support, and certainly a majority weren't hoping for the dictatorship they eventually got, but they had very real and enthusiastic support from a plurality of the Czechoslovak people who were ready for all-out socialist revolution. In a country of 11 million, 2.5 were actively on the street taking part in the revolution.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Czechoslovak_coup_d'état

No, proper communists should try as much as possible to strangle the fascists in their crib, you fucking idiot. It's just a fact that we will have to face and FIGHT the fascists eventually, no matter what "democracy" we think we live in right now.

The revolutionary conditions of Russia were not solely in the political realm, you have to be a brainlet to think so.

Oh yeah, the bourgeoisie will just let you get voted into power, no fighting necessary.

A fascist NATO proxy army can't be compared to revolutionary movements. Terrorism distances its practitioners from the masses.

You're dead right, they also resulted from the rapid industrialisation of Russia and it's incredibly unequal development along with the failure of the state to adopt a bourgois form of government. These are all things not found in modern MEDC liberal democracies.

How many bourgeoisie have you killed today comrades?

Attached: 544.png (373x327, 219.69K)

Neither of those statements were done in an edgy manner. And he's right you know. While many advancements for the socialist cause are possible in peaceful ways (electoral victories, peaceful protests, etc) the actual seizing of property will always be violent.

The very exercise of imagining your role in an imaginary revolution is pure edgyness.

Attached: 1556204425383.jpg (591x330 68.9 KB, 107.61K)

Larping won't get you anymore, revolutions aren't ever going to succeed in the 21st century, reforms won't either. Socialism will only be built after capitalism collapses and brings the whole world along with it.

get you anywhere*

But what if capitalism doesn't collapse?

Attached: 216259036.jpg (450x258, 31.5K)

Then we're fugged :DDDD

Oh shieeeet
Don't you think we can get pretty far by playing bourgeoisie politiks with little help of economic crisis? We both know that capitalism isn't going to end in our lifetimes by itself, or rather by the time it's ended there won't be much left.

None of us have even implied anything about our roles in a revolution.

I doubt if very far but I definitely don't reject electoral means if it means furthering our goals ever so little by little.

The revolutionary conditions that will arise in the western lib democracies will be a combination of climate crisis and deep economic crisis.

>>>/liberalpol/

socialism is inevitable. the way I see it there's sudden and gradual. either it comes about through revolution against a far right or intensely bourgeois society, or it comes about through reform of a tepid liberal democracy and technological innovation.
this is why demsocs are okay for now, though their message needs a shitload of work, less about "free" and more about "us" and nationalizing. any revolution in a liberal democracy is only in the prevention of authoritarianism that would cause the slow march to inevitable socialism to be impeded. otherwise it's just keep voting for people further and further to the left.

Attached: breeki.jpg (214x166, 18.45K)

I don't know much about software at all but in general i agree with what you are saying. I meant in terms of there was a larger anarchist presence in Catalonia , you could say perhaps due to more developed petit bourgeoisie. We in the west currently have an extremely well developed petit bourgeoisie.

I used to be an anarchist and i still think the soviet union, mostly collapsed from above , had there been a more open democracy perhaps this wouldnt have happened, although i do realise why this was done at the time, i think ultimately the purges etc may have protected in the short term but in the long they laid the way for the state to be sold off. Most people still supported socialism.

So when i say err towards anarchism i mean in the sense of a higher level of democratisation and decentralisation than the soviet union, but i would advocate for, as you say what is laid out in towards a new socialism, which while Cockshott is firmly a leninist lays out the foundations the society that anarchists often describe.

This.

Also most working class people don't want free stuff.

I mean, they'll take it, but they've got to hustle. Even the freaking CPUSA has a better message when dealing with working class black people in the city than the D*SA does, and I've seen it because they'd be out tabling and random dudes would walk up and be very supportive, talking about the daily struggle and the multiple jobs they need to get by, trying to get a small business off the ground, etc. The word communism doesn't freak them out. At least as a start let's nationalize the banks like the Chinese and then steer investment into productive purposes that benefit working people so everyone can make a living. Who cares what whitey thinks.

Since we're talking here, I'd like to ask you about how the Eastern European post-WW2 interim governments gave way to communist regimes, specifically about whether each of the countries were working democracies or not, and which ones had popular movements behind the new regime or had just gone through a palace coup or whatever:

These are hardly anarchic due to network effects. While you can theoretically fork any project and make your own spin on it, in reality there is not just inertia (huge code base, hard to modify) but also gravity that pulls you back to the main repo (it becomes very difficult to keep your downstream changes up to date with upstream changes because upstream will break systems your changes depend on, as they are unaware of your changes). This is why there are really no prominent forks of major browsers, kernels, GUI toolkits, etc.

Yes most OSS projects would require to use a much more modular code structure, to fully satisfy anarchic principles. maybe we could say it's "actually existing" anarchic production, because it still isn't formally owned or exclusively controlled.
As for your point about the scale of the code base, i would have to a disagree about this nessecairly being akin to mass causing a gravitational pull that captures programmers like a planet might capture a natural satellite with it's gravity well, because you are making assumptions based on current programming tools. There is a giant pool of open-source code, that could be used for scientific study, that could result in better programming tools, that drastically reduces this dynamic. To fair better tools may not change the situation because it could just shift the scale of the code base with it, but it also might not because processors development might not keep up.