Anarcho Communism

any decision making body with a monopoly on military force within its borders is a state by definition

Why is it ridiculous?

Thanks, I will try to find info on them

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikhail_Bakunin
>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Kropotkin
>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murray_Bookchin

Can you recommend any books they wrote that can give me a good understanding? (PDF's preferrably bc I am of poorfag)

Vanguardists are political children. They are well meaning but don't understand history of politics very well. The idea that the state will simply whither away is ludicrous.

Those examples were working until they got shut down. The problem is how does an anarchist society defend itself from nearby states who are scared shitless by something that threatens their hegemony.

theanarchistlibrary.org
Lots of free stuff here. The bread book is the one that's touted the most.
theanarchistlibrary.org/library/petr-kropotkin-the-conquest-of-bread

because you will be crushed. Global capital will never be kind to anarchist communes, and anarchist communes are not strong enough to resist. The only way to achieve anarchism is by dismantling the socialist states, after worldwide socialism.

Here you go friend.

libcom.org/library/anarchism-reading-guide

Pierre-Joseph Proudhon - What is Property?
Mikhail Bakunin - God and the State
Peter Kropotkin - Mutual Aid; a factor of evolution
Peter Kropotkin - The Conquest of Bread
Murray Bookchin - Social anarchism or lifestyle anarchism: an unbridgeable chasm

Those are some essentials. I think that has everything you'll need. Also check out these sites for further reading on all sorts of left-wing topics:

marxists.org/subject/anarchism/

theanarchistlibrary.org/special/index

The books in the anarchist section of pic related are good too.

Thanks!

It literally can't. Literally the only way it would work would be if every single state and capitalist institution just stopped existing all at once, but good luck trying to make that Utopian pipe dream become an existence while us "tankie scum" are actually trying to make a way for Socialism to come into existence.

It's important to first note that most revolutions fail. That goes for any ideology that is backing said revolution: they usually fall on their face and are forgotten or are only mentioned as historical footnotes for being "rebellions" or "revolts."

If we are talking within the context of the 20th socialist revolutions, we have one big exception to this: Russia. This was in large part due to the material circumstances of the time and place, but it succeeded and institutes a central state model in a fairly conventional setup (I'm oversimplifying here, I'm aware). In its early days, it was dead-set on expanding as well, which is what it should have done: communism cannot exist in isolation alongside global capitalism. It has some moderate successes in pushing out, but fails to spread to the places it really matters. In the meantime, attempts at revolution happen elsewhere in Europe, but fail to take hold due to lack of support while the Soviets are sorting out their own civil war.

So eventually you get the Soviet Union, a mostly stable post-revolutionary institution that operates on a classic state model and (to HIGHLY debatable success) adheres to Marxist ideology. Revolutionary workers movements start developing elsewhere, and the Soviets take the opportunity to support those movements. Problem being they usually were selective on who they supported: they usually wanted the revolutionary movement in question to follow the ML party line. Most of these revolutions probably would have failed (be it before or shorty after the revolution came to its conclusion) without that support, so you see the subsequent successes working on modifications of the soviet model.

Then we have anarchism. It didn't have an October Revolution to get its foot in the door. In Ukraine you had a fairly well organized but geographically isolated force; Makno later admitted that the failure to spread outside the Free Territory had doomed them long before the Bolsheviks were at the gates. Catalonia did better and did take measures to push out from its home region, but could not sustain a two-front war (few movements could). Then you had the approach of Kronstadt which, while wanting to establish some degree of regional autonomy, mostly wanted to see the reversal the Bolshevik's trend of taking power away from the soviets. They were less a revolution and more a rebellion, with a finite number of men and arms at their disposal and only some prior entrenchment in the communities they fought from. There are a lot of other examples of anarchist uprisings, but ultimately they have the problem where the material conditions are not set to have a full-fledged takeover and no foreign force to supply the resources/means to make up the difference in actual power vs power necessary to succeed.

In the post-Cold War world, you're already starting to see a lot more diversity in the socialist revolutions that have thus far arisen. There's no reason not to: there's no carrot on the stick from an established socialist force to incentivize a specific model of organization or governance.

Read a fucking book

No problem. Always happy to help a new comrade.

nice Gondola

Rojava

It isn't ludicrous at all. Read actual theory for once.

Anarchism isn't ludicrous at all. Read actual theory for once.

that's a work in progress. let's wait and see how Syria pans out

Not necessarily, you have to consider the context, right between the USSR and Nazi Germany isn't exactly an ideal time and place for a new system.

But then you see places like the campesino syndicates in Honduras, and that's working out well for them. They've removed some Oligarchs and drug lords and reclaimed their land.

the idea is to make a syndicate at first not necessarily a commune

also that's a very cool flag OP

When, when will the state be abolished? Your problem is you think you can kill your way to communism, that you have to brutally put down every enemy with the utmost ruthlessness, but all that does is breed boatloads of reaction, like the world is full of react now. When you have a hammer everything looks like a nail. When you have a secret police everyone becomes a subversive. Thats just the way these organisations work and it always shoots itself in the food, look at Robespierre. You have to win people over instead of pushing them around. That is the true sentiment of socialism and the one authoritarian socialism lacks.

I would also like to point out that Anarchist militias where they have appeared in history have always accomplished great military feats. Their organisation is usually superior, they just become overwhelmed.

The PKK/YPG rescue of thousands of Yazidis for example, evacuating them from deep inside ISIS lines over hundreds of miles.

or Nestor Mahknos infamous regiment, ultimately crushed by betrayal rather than anything else

So long as the proletariat is actually in control of the state All Power to the Soviets aspects of the state will be removed by democratic process as they become extraneous. The failing that the Marxist-Leninist state suffers from is that it allows their bourgeois state to dominate the proletariat thus making it not a dictatorship of the proletariat at all. Class conflict is the fundamental issue, and in order for socialism to take hold the proletariat must be unquestionably the dominant class.

Yes, there will be a revolution, and that requires unrestrained violence. The aim is not to destroy the opposing thought process. Such an plan is ultimately futile and can only produce immaterial gains. Socialism is a material reality, not a state of mind. It can only be realized by way of material means.

None of which include winning a war.

Get more guns and don't let the commies undermine you

What is a state? A state is a (I prefer to say) collection of organs to institute a dictatorship of one class over another, therefore a state exists so long as their are class contradictions, be it external or internal contradictions of a particular country and once there are no class contradictions anymore then the state will start to 'wither away' through (real) democratic processes.

If Anarchism requires there to be world wide revolutions to be successful, then you're just an anti-state Trot, because this simply sounds like the idea of permanent revolution.

This almost sounds like your blaming the current wave of reaction on communists. Revolutions are not tea parties, they are incredibly violent and the most authoritarian thing any group can do, because you are imposing the will of that group onto everybody else, whether or not they want what that group wants. How will you contain and combat dissent if not through repression and force?

But it's okay to work with the liberals.

This.

You fags want permanent revolution but can't stop your own groups that largely agree with each other from splitting. Even leftcoms who don't do anything have a better shot at establishing socialism than trots.

should clarify that from my understanding, what was tried in Spain was, in fact, anarcho-syndicalism.

What was tried in Ukraine was a sort of variant of anarcho-communism. Ukraine's legacy is a bit more contraversial than Spain's. People often characterize Makhno's Black Army as a gang of bandits. Makhno later developed platformism based on his experience in Ukraine, which as I understand is something like anarchist vanguardism.

leftcoms are sexy. They have the best theory of any communist tendies I know of.

States aren't a real problem.

It's your fellow ancoms you need to worry about as the Paris Commune and numerous other socialist revolutions in the Middle East for example have shown. It always devolves into others executing or assassinating others. In the end the state isn't what the problem is. The problem is people.

Anyone who thinks splits are a bad thing has not studied the history of revolutionary movements.

Splits are what separated the Marxists from the Anarchists, then the Revolutionaries from the Reformists, then the Stalinists from the Trotskyists. Splits are essential to the history of any well developed thought. Splits are the process of new ideas being developed, and correct ideas being found.

This is why cuckservatives don't tend to split; they don't bother to update their ideas, to develop their theories. Groups that do not have a history of splits and have existed for that long, are usually wrong.

The problem is not that simple. That's like when anarchists say they could win if it weren't for all those marxists holding them back.

global revolution isn't utopian

Most Trotskyist splits are not particularly productive, theory-wise. To be honest, I think Trotsky had some interesting ideas but Trotskyists that came after him just made Trotskyism worse just like Marxists did with Marxism after Marx.

Are there any books on anarchism you recommend? I'm already planning on reading some of Stirner's works but i'm sure that's not representative of anarchism as a whole.

That depends: what have you read so far?

Also Stirner is alright, but he's more peripheral to anarchist theory rather than anything of importance to the current or historical movement.

by that definition a large household is a state

Not that guy, but if you're completely unread, I strongly recommend marxists.org/reference/archive/henry/1894/conciergerie.htm

It's good, even for illiterate fags like me

Very very little, just the basics

thank you, i'll definitely read this

Hows that Cold War going? We lost man, we all lost. I know its hard.

hurf durf muh dad belted me as a kid that means hes a military!!!!!

Anything with the Anarcho prefix is a meme

All those dead Ukrainians was just a meme

Anarcho-Communism Must Read List:
-Kropotkin: Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution, The Conquest of Bread, Anarchy, Modern Science and Anarchism
It looks like I force Kropotkin but no, he was the brightest revolutionary ever lived in anywhere. Read Kropotkin even if you don't have anything to do with anarchism. You will benefit a lot.
-Malatesta: Anarchy
-Alexander Berkman: What's Anarchist Communism?
-Emma Goldman: Anarchy and other Essays

the list can go on. but you will find your own way even if you read 3 of these books.

If you are also interested in Insurrectionary Anarchism (we can roughly say that it's a variant of Anarchist-Communism but more like the individualist kind. It's against formal organizations and wants the revolution (anarcho-communist revolution) of informal organizations)
you can read Alfredo M Bonanno, Nechayev and Renzo Navatore

you can find the books i listed or any other books on anarchism in these websites:
theanarchistlibrary.org/special/index
dwardmac.pitzer.edu/anarchist_archives/

if u can't find the books you are looking for come and ask us. good luck.

How well did the state withering away work for the USSR?
>We can't give our workers the MoP and dissolve now evern though everything is ready we just uh need to make some "improvement"…y-yeah that's it haha…now give me your fucking toothbrush grain you kulak
Trots fuck off

...

You're dumb.

How come anarchism always fails? How come there's no anarchy in anarchism? How come people were forced to fight in bourgeoise Catalonia?

anything with the Marxism prefix is a meme

Your heresy is a threat to this board. Repent.

you guys are the ones who give "history" a holly statute. even in marxist understanding of history shows who failed miserably and will only reestablish as farce. are you actually denying historical materialism bruh? MLism is the biggest meme of the revolutionary wing.