It just makes sense, right? The ultimate form of liberty without coercion by unfair heiarchy. Being truly free, living with no masters. Isn’t it a beautiful idea? Sure capitalism has proved efficient with regards to producing wealth, but aren’t these power structures imbalanced and evil? Can’t we just admit that states, in general, undermine the freedom of the self? Can you Marxist-Leninists admit that socialism in one country never works and we have to push for a worldwide revolution?

To all you so called communists, why do you think your vanguard party is exempt from tyranny of the minority and the slow poisoning of corruption? Thomas Sankars may have been a good leader, but at the end of the day he was just a good guy with a state, and any form of authoritarianism or stateism always leads to tyranny.

because i’m not in middle school anymore

What makes you think of it as a juvenile idealogy, I’m seriously non-ironically interested

Because it’s never accomplished anything and is basically just edgy liberalism

my disappointment with the anarchist orgs in my area when i tried to start get organizing as well a better understanding of what imperalism is

So the Zapatistas never accomplished anything? What about our brave brothers and sisters in Rojava? Have Syndaclist Unions not fought for the 40 hour work week? I don’t see how you can say anarchism hasn’t ever accomplished anything, in my mind it’s simply the purest reconciliation of leftist thought.

There’s no serious political a***ysis beyond the state being bad

It relies on philosophical idealism and has no coherent strategy for building political power (or is even hostile to building power)

It is an ideology of the privileged, anti-social navel-gazer

also i never got the arguement since the marxist leninist states failed what does that say about anarchist who cant even get through the revolution read the The Bakuninists at Work on how the anarchist f***ed up the spanish revolt in 1873

Well first of all neither the Zapatistas or Rojava are anarchists, western anarchist just like to project their beliefs on to them

And I have criticisms of both those projects anyway, but they’re certainly not anarchists

And historically syndicalists largely became fascists lol

I think the idea of confederalism and municipal power structure building (dual power as Lenin might describe it) is a perfectly legitimate means of achieving power. As far as the navel gazing…lol.

Zapatistas aren’t anarchist and don’t consider themselves anarchist, Rojas’s isn’t anarchist either think they’re trying democratic confederalism. 40 hour work weeks wasn’t just fought by Syndaclist it was a unity of left forces that did that

They certainly -are-, they may not have completely withered the state aparatus but they have built societies on horizintal power structures in ways that empower commonly disenfranchised groups like women and minorities. Even Ocalan would tell you he was directly inspired by famous anarchist Murray Bookchin’s ideas of democratic confederalism and communalism which is what the idealogy of Rojava is built upon

Democratic confederalism is anarchist though, and the zapatistas may not see themselves at anarchist but its easy to see theyve developed horizontal power structures

Yes westerner you definitely know better than the people actually involved in those movements

Neither are anarchist movements and the Zapatistas have written at length about this

Anarchists have always been undermined by authoro’s like fascists and so called Communists, thats why I don’t even like organizing with ML’s because they’re so at odds with the ideals of freedom and liberation

And what organizing do you do exactly

I’m just saying sef-designation while useful isn’t the be all and end all of what constitutes someones political thought. I mean centrists don’t call themselves right-wing puppets but they are, and the zapitistas have organized their society on more horizontal lines which is an important part of anarchist thought. What percentage anarchist or how anarchist they are isn’t really important, what is important is that they’re taking positive steps towards a more inclusive and liberated society

How is democratic confederalism anarchist ? genuinely curious on that.

As well none of these organizations manage to build the t power to threaten capitalism globally like the marxist leninist states did at some point.

Also what makes the failed marxist leninist states are permanent failure rather than temporary failures ? that we must give up on that path and trend towards anarchism who had less success overall. Even with the development of the marxist leninist states we see a path way on getting rid of the contradictions between the vanguard and masses like the GPCR

So have you heard of M.O.V.E? My family has been influential in the liberation of the Move 9 and Mumia Abu Jamal as well as the Scott Sisters. I’ve been working with these movements since I was a kid, don’t undermine my Praxis I’m really out here, my main focus always been the freedom of political prisoners

Then what makes anarchism even worth while if they can’t even defend against fascist which any capitalist state in the period of crisis would use to negate their democracy to protect capital.

If anarchist are so easily undermined then they’re just useless

and the source i was talking about it was the anarchist resistance to heirarchy that ended up f***ing the whole left up and leading to the right forces winning

It’s a self governing and directly democratic* which is in line with Anarchist schools of thougut. And these failed ML states will always be failures because absolute power always corrupts, and because the state never really withers away and gives way to full communism, meaning that these states will always be, at best, state-capitalisy in nature

The interesting thing about a hypothetical peoples defence force or whatever you would call a self defense force not governed by the state is that it’s hard to quash due to its decentralization. In my world an Anarchist explosion of consciousness wouldn’t come from a revolution or violent overthrow like in Spain, but a system of dual municipal power that slowly builds and offers a legitimate alternative to capitalism or state socialism

But the party didn’t have absolute power? Look at Mao China member's of the party was attacked by the masses during the GPCR for taking the capitalist road. Even in Stalin USSR the great purge was to get rid of the capitalist readers within his party both failed but due to different reasons.

The question on how the state withers away is a question on what the state is as well. The state being the tool of one class struggling against another. In China after the revolution, China was full of different classes so some concessions were givin to the rich peasents and national bourgeoisie. and we can see the state fighting against the rich peasants in the development of Chinas agriculture movements from land reform to co ops to communes. Which also shows the economic mode of china agriculture also changing so the state doesn’t always stay state capitalist and does change.

Once these class divisions are done with the crushing of capitalists and its allies and ending the division between the proletariat and peasants, the state will wither away. the problem is this is much easier said than done.

it’s this ignoring of class reality what makes anarchist so weak to communists and fascist as well and never succeed in their revolutions.

Zapatista’s live under Mexico’s state in an uneasy tension, they don’t have independence so i don’t consider their revolution done. Rojava is still fighting their revolution as well.

that’s my problem with anarchism right there in their thinking like you said in your world but we don’t exist in that world, your strategy must conform to what works in the real world and so far the communist have had the most success with that.

Philosophical idealism like what Althusser avi said is my biggest problem with anarchism as well