Anarcho-Syndicalism?

They were probably interfering with what he was trying to do. It makes sense that they would try to go off and do their own thing and he couldn't have that if he was trying to consolidate political power and maintain stability.

This is why left unity is a joke, honestly. Anarchists will try to destroy a Marxist state just like any other.

And Marxists will try to crush anyone who disagrees with them about anything.

They should just go their own separate ways.

That's not Marxist syndicalism (IWW; largest revolutionary union in the US), non-tankie Marxist communism (KPD, KAPD, PCd'I) or even Titoism (Yugoslavia; a dictatorship largely built from the Russian model, but formally disassociated from Stalinist/ML).

Anarchism literally just has three states-not-states to its name, a few quickly shot down insurrections and, depending on whether you appreciate their autism or not, daily spergfests on the street.

That doesn't really work when you both want control over the same plot of land.

take historical context into account. this was when solidarity had millions of members.

Dumb Marxist

Solidarity wasn't ansyn though

No. A world revolution will honestly make sectarian infighting obsolete as the scale of conflict will force us to fight together or die. A new post-capitalist society will be created based on its unique conditions and you can bet that it will probably not be your specific flavor of socialism.

I am also sure that we can agree on having designated areas for anarchists and Marxists. :(

Which had anarchists involved since the beginning and is obsolete now anyways.

So we have extinct parties and failed states compared to the anarchist failures and the eventual fall of Rojava. Which is nice if you want a pissing contest over corpses, but not very good if you're interested in establishing socialism.

There should be a reverse of this where Bakunin declares his intention to inspire the masses with his theory and then absolutely nothing happens at all.

...

To Buckonin's credit, daily spergfests on the street definitely are a happening.

You can bet literally all the other things I stated had anarchists in them. Point being that anarchists either fail to do anything, or get guided by proper organizational forms and things actually happen.

I like how you desperately try to minimize the achievements of the Marxism/communism-inspired experiments, because it's virtually the only way to make them appear as equals in failure, outside of maybe sheer longevity and amounts which you can't really contest at all.

Dumb marxist

Enjoy your failed state nostalgia while workers coops and mutual banks are emancipating workers around the globe

Stay BTFO

You can't solve the inherent problems of capitalism within the framework of the capitalist network.

Ethical capitalism, which BTW originated under feudal communes (which had primitive accumulation, ergo proto-capitalism) in Prussia, developed by aristocrats in 1472: hohenraetien.ch/HR-Web-2008/web-content/HR-08-Materialien/Viamala_Brief_vollstText.pdf (get your Old German goin').

Ethical banking, a form which predominantly comes in the form of original mercantile-capitalist models as they were developed by literal bourgies: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Duncan_(minister), en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Wilhelm_Raiffeisen, but given you're that mutuautist/Proudhon dicksucker I'm sure you're not unfamiliar with petit bourgeois aspirations.

I guess Mondragon, the paradigmatic ethical corporation that masks class divisions with a horizontalism it can only symbolically sustain in face of the market, which also spends most of its time nowadays exploiting Polish and Chinese labor for its logistics and manufacturing, is something you can be proud of, but sadly I'm not sure ethical capitalism will make you very popular among literally any actually principled anarchist: dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/malatesta/ForgottenPrinciples.html.

...

take off that flag and read some theory, you're an embarassment to anarchists worldwide

Kek. Your achivements are several failed sovdem states, a failed market "socialist" state, several extinct parties, and an obsolete organization that has always had anarchists involved and ties to anarchist orgs but that doesn't count because muh anarkiddies. I guess this is cool if you want to pretend there are sovdem states still around and reminisce about a 50 year old space program, but not really good if you want to establish socialism that doesn't collapse. But muh anarkiddies r dum so let's continue to venerate failures and corpses.

Muh coops are a bandaid that will get crushed eventually. Right now in burgerland they're better than unions but it's only a matter of time before they get destroyed by competitors. You're a fool if you think they can achieve global emancipation.

Ansyns were generally opposed to state ownership, preferring, say, the dock workers to own the docks and the barge workers to own the barges etc. Lenin argued against this because, from his perspective, socialism was about the means of production belonging to everyone (through the state) rather than it merely being the ownership of those who work it. I haven't read about Sankara, but doubtless he knew Lenin's views on this and that reflects the slogan.

I'm just triggered by the fact that Anarkiddies think Bookchin is theirguy.

Communalism is a distinct tradition you obsolete fucks!

Bookchin was an anarchist himself you excuse for a human being.

Bookchin was an anarchist for most of his life and then decided to start pretending his ideology was something totally different because he finally got fed up with how dumb and annoying most narchos are.

Bookchin distanced himself from anarchists later in life. That's why he came up with his whole libertarian municipalism concept.

He never per se rejected anarchism, he merely saw libertarian socialism as the way forward for the anarchist movement.

Current-day anarchist thinkers largely followed Bookchin, although he was rejected in his time, in moving away from their staunch rejection of any sort of elections and governmental organization.

t. Bookchin

That was only because Bob Black was a huge faggot.

Forgot to link:
new-compass.net/articles/communalist-project

yes which is what anarchism is: anti-democracy, autocracy and rule by anyone ever for any reason no matter how benign

so therefore he's not an anarchist, just a fag like Chomsky who would be swallowed up by State Socialism or Welfare Capitalism

At its most modest form anarchism merely rejects the state. Any sort of characteristics you attribute to it are, like, your personal opinion, man.

*Any further sort

Makes sense. Could anarcho-syndicalism work without the syndicates becoming hostile to each other?

That he's a red fascist.

It's important to consider the historical circumstances surrounding Burkina Faso at the time. The state itself was not born of revolution: it's ruling authority was brought in by coup and was largely forced to operate within the confines and limitations of the existing government. That still permitted Sankara and company to do some truly astounding work towards improving the lives of working people in Burkina Faso, but it also meant that the actual transition to a socialist society was to be nearly impossible, as the underlying structure of power was still that of bourgeois design. Given this understanding, it makes logical sense that ansyns and other movements advocating direct workers control were incompatible with the society as it was currently structured. Sankara, while in many ways transcending what it meant to be a government leader, still had his role to play in defending institutional power.

Certainly, considering that ansyn, unlike other ideologies like mutualism which also advocate for direct workers ownership of the means of production, does not generally operate on market economies. Its usually a type of bottom-up planned economy, with the most macro-level operations being organized at the federation level (the meeting between the aforementioned syndicates). There exists in that form of organization an economic necessity for cooperation between parties, as many of the more crucial operations of a well-developed industrial or post-industrial society require scale and specialization that even the syndicate level of organization simply cannot accommodate. It's a matter of collective self-interest for all parties involved, though other provisions may be agreed upon to further solidify stability.
I'm simplifying mind you, but going more specific is going to depend on the specific composition/organization of the syndicates themselves.