1. Back when I was an anarchist I assumed revolution wouldn't come through vandalism but by popular revolt against the system. A mass majority of the people would become discontent to the point where revolution occurs spontaneously (sort of like the yellow vests except more violent and direct). This could be energized by constant agitation and propaganda that would help spread the message. I mean its pretty idealistic to see today's climate and assume that spontaneous revolution is even possible anymore. This is why I changed over time to becoming more ML.
2. Anarchism is the practice of going straight to full communism and skipping the dialectics with socialism. So I would assume that it would be a decentralized system. With healthcare I could see it and other public services pop up a lot like in Cuba, but more on a city to city decentralized level rather than a large state run project. Other than that im not entirely sure how it would look.
The idealist part is what I'm hung up on. I love the idea of a communist society being achievable sooner rather than later, but I have yet to see a plausible (or what I perceive to be) anarchist solution for revolution this far along in the neoliberal world.
Would you consider the Zapatistas or the Democratic Confederalists a more viable "libertarian" communist solution?
I would be happy for about anything right now if they actually have a common goal they want to achieve. The only reason I claim idealism is because of the lack of organization, and I believe you need at least quite a bit of organization and planning to actually make a difference. What I could see is building local duel powers rather than large ones that arent centralized. All this is up for debate because I think revolution and revolutionary strategies should be different for material conditions of said place, level of education of the proletariat, and so on.
The person who answered wasn't a very good anarchist it seems. I'm not one either but I enjoy reading their works. I suggest reading the ABCs of anarchism. It's a short read, but a good one for an introduction into Anarchism. Anarchists and Marxists both oppose capitalism but for different reasons. Marxists oppose capitalism by understanding the social relations of capitalism, the contradictions of capitalism, and how that will lead to socialism. Anarchists oppose capitalism because anarchists oppose any form of authority being enforced on a non consenting body. Private property enforces authority over workers, so capitalism much be opposed. Because of this view, anarchists see the state as just another form of authority that enforces authority over non consenting people, so the state must be opposed.
You are betraying the revolution
Yeah, im well aware I wasn't. I was more interested in the social relations of capitalism from the start but I also didint want to call myself a Marxist because it holds baggage.
I honestly believe genuine MLs would side with anarchists over the likes of Tito, Khrushchev, Brezhnev,Deng,and Xi
What if we just give anarkids a small town to do their shit in after we achieve DotP? Anarchy kindergarten of sorts, that way they wouldn't fucking bomb us, right?
Wouldn't be opposed honestly. I'm an ML whos not a big fan of the Bolsheviks squashing the Free Territory. If they left it be I think it would've been fine
When workers in the cities on free territories asked Makhno for food he went "lol grow your own", he's Pol Pot tier
Entirely disagree. He was not a dictator or even a government official. He was the leader of the army that was protecting the soviets and the communes in the area from the Whites and eventually the Bolsheviks. Saying that he "denied" food to anyone is "Stalin killed a bagillion Ukrainians" tier
user I have news for you, food literally grows out on trees
This is incorrect. There was no malignancy towards or disregard for the workers on Makhno's part, rather (theoretical) incompetence. They did in fact trade with neighboring cities, albeit only occasionally. Legitimate criticism should point out that he – as far as we know – did not initiate systematic trade of goods between the rural areas under their control and the cities. It should also be pointed out that what we know about the communes under their control are very vague, not because they wanted to keep it a secret, but exactly because they had a rather spontaneous and naive understanding of economics, similar to this genius, btw:
It's not a matter of disagreement. What he states is unfounded. Really depends on our definitions. It should be pointed out that Makhno chaired almost all committees and governmental bodies formed under his guidance. You could interpret this as some kind of dictatorial vein of his (I wouldn't) or as a realistic response to the realities of the situation (high illiteracy, high % of peasantry in his territories, etc.) And the (centralized) propaganda department founded by him, and several workers' committees, and of diplomatic functions, and… the list really goes on.
I recommend for both of you .pdf related on the limitations of Makhno's practice.
I hope these boomer "theorists" of "social imperialism" are happy now that the USSR dissolved, was nowhere near in catching up to the US and that we are living in a neoliberal hellscape right now where a girl sells her bathwater on Instagram to cater to pedophiles.
Fucking cunts. I swear to god these people were the equivalent to modern Leftcoms.
It depends on the branch. Ansyns organize mainly through radical unions/radicalizing unions, Platformists through explicitly anarchist organizations that attempt to influence and direct other organizations and movements, Insurrectionists through cells or affinity groups. Could you clarify? Under communism healthcare would be freely available and be a priority as it would be under production for need.
I don't think I've come across any anarchist theorist whose strategy was "spontaneous revolution", many anarchists in fact think heavy organizing, educating, and agitating are necessary for change.
Question of my own: How could anarchism possibly address the imminent crisis of catastrophic climate change?
Thanks for your response. On question #2 I was referring to the lack of a centralized system so how would vaccines and pharmaceuticals be distributed on a mass scale?
You mean lifestylists?
By abolishing the present state of things and creating an economy where production is based on need. I know that's a vague answer but you have a vague question.
Why would a centralized system be necessary for that? They would be distributed the same way any other good would be, i.e. there would be people who produce the goods and other people who would see where they'd need to go. Systems that measure supply and demand don't have to be under one central, all-powerful entity.
In regards to the gilets jaunes, if I understand the situation correctly, their assemblies could form a basis for an anarchist revolution, if influenced in the right way. Essentially it's about building these power structures, be it unions, affinity groups or whatever, and making sure they're democratic and follow anarchist principles.
You either build them up or turn already existing ones into anarchist structures. Praxis is really about adapting your ideas to the situation at hand, and compromise is alright as long as it doesn't thread on basic principles.
Lifestyleists and people not organizing in such ways aren't that useful, their only contribution could be shilling. And if they do shilling wrong you end up looking like idiots who just smash stuff. But that's not organizing, so it's dumb.
Personally I'm a syndicalist. Where I'm at there's like 0 revolutionary potential, so over the net I'm shilling for any kind of anti-capitalism. The only thing to do here is build unions and wait for shit to go down.
I consider myself a Libertarian-Marxist, But I don't know how without a militant organized proletarian state I would protect myself against capitalist states that want to invade.
There is a 1955 (i.e. before the 20th CPSU Congress) book titled "Peaceful Coexistence" whose third chapter gives numerous examples of the concept's application under Lenin and Stalin: archive.org/details/PeacefulCoexistence
To quote page 50:
Khrushchev's main "innovation" on this subject was to argue that wars between capitalist states were no longer inevitable due to the menace of nuclear war (whereas Stalin held that wars between capitalists were inevitable, though like Khrushchev he specifically stated that wars between capitalist and socialist states weren't inevitable.)