Say an anarchist revolution takes place

It doesn't

Curious?

Just Google Bookchin….

...

By using the state apparatus to repel bourgeois threats.

Smaller societies should kiss up to larger ones while working in their own interests. Find out what a big society needs that will make you indispensable and that is the best defense. Assuming it is also something that cant be taken by force.

DFNS (aka Rojava) is not exactly anarchist but they have managed to form a popular front with Arab tribals (i.e. Shammar's Quwwat al-Sanadid), other minority groups (i.e. Syriac MFS/Sutoro) and disaffected former FSA (especially during the battles of Kobani, Tel Abyad and Manbij). At the same time, however, they have collaborated with the government at times (i.e. battles of Hasakah, formation of joint force SNR in Kafr Saghir near Afrin, current cession of territories as buffer against Turkish-backed ES rebels)

They also curried both Russian (see Manbij buffer) and US (Kobani, Hasakah, Tel Hamis, Manbij → Raqqa) support. Also before the PKK-Turkish peace deal fall through, they also used to have contacts with Turks (even head of PYD, Salih Muslim, has visited Ankara at times)

This sounds very shakey and precarious. What's to say rather than forming alliances, a powerful state decides to raze the anarchist society and take what they want?

keeping organization confined to terror cells and global revolution

How does a Marxist revolution stop from happening?

It doesn't anarkiddies have no theory. Marxism is best.

We form a state under the dictatorship of the proletariat and prepare for war.

Also, we would foment revolution in other states.

There is nothing stopping pro organisational anarchist or communalists from doing the same tbh

lol

Protip: an army is not just guys with guns.

QUICK ANARCHISTS, YOU JUST GOT RID OF THE GOVERNMENT AND SOMEONE IS BEATING THEIR KIDS AND THERE IS NO CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES, WHAT DO

This is why nobody takes you faggots seriously.

Have to community intervene the same way that they would when there were no police. The whole "mob justice is random and police justice is fair" is just a pro-cop meme. That's not to say that mob justice is fair, just that it's no less fair than police justice. The only thing the police offer any random citizen is a (false) sense of security.

Really made me think.

...

Say an tankie revolution takes place.

How does the proletariat defend itself from another Stalin taking power?

ftfy

QUICK ANARCHISTS, TURNS OUT THE LITTLE TURN WAS LYING, AND YOU JUST LYNCHED AN INNOCENT PERSON, WHAT DO

Can you tell me how your organization would differ from that of a state? Are you not going to have conscription? Are you not going to have a code of military justice to prevent shit from falling apart? Are you not going to appropriate supplies to feed your army?

Read the rest of my post you turbonigger. I address what you say. There's also nothing stopping a community from having courts or "laws". It's almost as if when talking to you people about this you really just want things to remain how they are forever. Do you think there will be cops in communism?

Top kek, m8.

So then, how does your shit differ from a state? You seem to have the same organization and function as a state. How is this not a state again?

sure, highlight exactly how your dream revolution would take place

because I'm sure Lenin started his revolution dreaming of gulags and millions of starving people.

I'm sure Mao started his revolution dreaming of his country decades later abandoning communism for capitalism. Same goes for Vietnam

And I'm sure you can vote the revolution in. I bet those bourgeois governments will be more than accommadating to your radical propositions.

The whitest kids you know did a skit about anarchists that owns them pretty hard and makes them mad all

youtube.com/watch?v=NKERC6F7mSM

Who said the response to a claim of child abuse is lynching?

No. If the people won't voluntarily fight to defend their homeland they're going to fall anyway.

Can you explain how order requires a state or do you make this claim a priori?

Similarly to the conscription question, if people don't decide policy such that the military or other collective efforts are well-supplied then they're going to fail as a society. It's in their immediate interests to supply the military well in a world where military might is a major factor.

How is it a state? A state is an entity that exerts power over a population and justifies that power by virtue of the fact that it has power. Anarchist organizations are answerable to the people who can replace their representatives any time. The point of anarchist organizing is to delegate decision making so that people with more expertise can make better decisions. The point of a state is for the people in the hierarchy make decisions according to the interests of the people above them and enforce those decisions on the people below them.

because it is largely decentralized. Obvious other anarchists may disagree, but bookchin's libertarian municipalism was heavy on direct democracy. In other words, people vote on policy.

That includes, in the confederalist sense, the people directly voting on representatives that are beholden to represent their voices.

Workers kill the bourgeoise and take control of the means of production, establish the dictatorship of the proletariat and coordinate with revolutionaries abroad while establishing an economy that eliminates the need for the law of value.

We're not living in a backwards shithole like Russia at the start of the 20th century. Maybe try thinking for a second next time. Lenin did nothing wrong.

Mao was a dumbass that had shit theory.

Wow, you sure got me, you clever anarchist man.

Okay, so you're going to get fucked when you inevitably have the world turned against you, and you'll have no way to coordinate, since supreme command is probably not anarchist or some shit.

It's called the tragedy of the commons, you stupid faggot. Everyone will think that their little share won't make a difference.

And it's also in our immediate interests to stop pumping CO2 into the atmosphere, and yet unless people are forced to do it, nothing will change.

Yea except provide the provisions within his state to allow for a Stalin to come about in the first place

And I'm not a proper anarchist, I'm a Bookchin style libertarian mutualist, so I'm all for:

But I really don't trust an authoritarian body controlling the transition to communism

No, a state is an entity that exercises supreme power in a given area. Justification can be from sheer power, or from consent of the governed. But nice try with making up definitions. You propose to use state apparatus in every way, and yet you still think this isn't a state. Are you just dumb?
So you still have a government that can force people to do shit. That's a state, famalam.
Not at all. There is such thing as a worker's state. You're trying to draw distinction where there is none because you are, in fact, advocating for a state. You just really don't want to call it that.

You can have federation. What, you think there's only one way to make a state?
And if one guy doesn't agree? Oh, I guess you have to force him. That sounds an awful lot like a state to me.
Again, you are describing a different sort of state, but still a state.

Perhaps, the distinction is largely semantics, the purpose of which is to contrast with what we currently consider to the a state, such as a representative republic or an authoritarian regime. At least in a direct democratic "state" you have the right to stand up, debate, make you points and voice heard, and put the policy itself directly to vote.

In a representative republic, you vote for a person to do this for you, under the guise of a campaign in which the candidate promises you shit they probably won't keep to. And an authoritarian regime, well you have no choice, obviously.

It wouldn't have mattered, and it was necessary at the time. There is no other way this could have gone. Sometimes you can do everything right and still fail.

Meme philosopher.

but I will say that it is different from a state in that a state exists as a body that exerts power from above to below, whereas the direct democracy of libertarian muncipalism is below to above. You may think that voting members into this body you call the state is the same thing, but the distinction is once they are voted in they have the reigns, and they make the policy for whatever their term limit is. This is not a feature of libertarian municipalism

Again, that's still a state, famalam. You basically want a worker's state, but can't call it that because muh Stalin.

And in your system you could have the vast majority of people vote against their interests. Simply put, no system is perfect. Immediate recall fixes some things, but not all. Either way, you aren't suggesting anything wildly different, and it is you who is playing a semantics game based off made-up definitions. Maybe read more Marx.

Definitions that you made up don't count. A state is an entity that has monopoly of force and wields authority over a certain geographical area. It doesn't matter how it comes about or how it is structured. You're advocating for a state.

And yet it's still a state. Just because you made it nicer, doesn't mean it stopped being what it is. There's nothing wrong with a state, fam. Just get over it.

And so what, you believe that none of the pitfalls, none of the issues Russia had wouldn't happen to America because we have these magic means of production and have had capitalism for awhile?

You think that a strong state with ultimate control of the economy won't be co-opted by the greedy and ultimately corrupted, just like current governments with capitalism?

It's just surprising to me that you don't see the exact same shit happening here in the first world. I think that line of thinking is incredibly limited

I guess you are correct, yes it is a state, though highly decentralized.

Well, because the vast majority of people aren't literally illiterate and because we've solved the information and coordination problems. I mean, it's not like history has advanced or anything.

Again, you seem to be conflating state with "things I don't like". A worker's state will still be democratic, and no one man or any group small enough to coordinate can control the economy of a modern nation. Not only that, but we will still have laws and independent groups to police these people, as well as making sure nobody is a life-long bureaucrat.

I don't see it happening because the material conditions are totally different and because we don't have a need for a government ruled by a small sect of elite like the USSR did, due to the vast majority of their people being unable to even read. It's surprising to me that you fail to see this.

And there's nothing wrong with that. At the end of the day, we're basically on the same page. The only thing is that we Marxist advocate for a worker's state and dictatorship of the proletariat and some anarchists circles think those are bad words. Glad we're in this together, fam.

Revolution is already incredibly unlikely, you have to go and demand it be made even more so. There's nothing wrong with DemSoc revolutions in countries/regions that then form a new leftist bloc with each other until the rest of the world follows suit.

It has to take place world wide.

Same way any other system would: through people with guns defending themselves while the people not fighting make guns for them.

The idea that you need a coercive state to organize people or that violence is necessary to convince people is something so absurd it can only come from the mind of a statist.

Sounds like the guy you're responding to isn't a very good anarchist if he's willing to create a state. You're right, if the organization has the sole monopoly on the legitimate use of force and uses coercion to enforce compliance then it is a state, and is something I wouldn't tolerate.

I'm a communist first man. Capitalism is primary enemy #1.

I'll think about what you said, I'm a few beers deep and too tired to debate right now

If you keep drinking, all will become clear.

Command over the military is perfectly fine. Stop arguing with the meme version of anarchism in your head.

I never said that. Everyone can legitimately use force, so a "monopoly" only forms when people jointly agree to support the actions of a particular entity. It's not an actual monopoly though because people can remove their support. During a war, they wouldn't do that because it's in their interests to have a functioning military.

This meme only happens in the context of private property. When resources are managed communally, it's not an issue. As far as military goes, everyone would be aware that a stronger military is in their immediate best interests. The "not my problem" issue is easily solved by "taxes" being levied evenly as a portion of production with the portion being decided democratically.

It's in the interests of any given person, but currently no person is in control of this situation. Multinational corporations are in control, and they function according to quarterly profits. If the people were in control (which they are not because we live in global capitalism, how did you miss this?) we would stop the CO2 emissions.

That's a meme. Stop buying into American capitalist propaganda. If the exercise of power requires someone else's consent then it's not supreme.

No, you have the community as a whole that can force the "government" to do what they want. It's the opposite of a state. The reason you can only see this as a state is that you're missing the power involved in a state. The notion that the people are in control is empirically false.

You can organize without having a state. Do you think a union is a state?
You are ignoring a crucial distinction because you want power to rest in someone's, anyone's hands but the people's and you want to pretend like no other form of social organization is possible.

top kek. out of beer though…

then what is consensus, and how do you coordinate social issues without some sort of cooperation. if by "very good anarchist" you mean rugged individualist, then no I'm not

Never said anything against cooperation or consensus; I'm a communist because I believe in cooperation. I'm an anarchist because I believe people shouldn't be threatened with violence to comply, whether it be the wishes of the minority or majority.
The individual is the only thing that truly exists; to have rights for a collective of individuals but not individuals in general is arbitrary and absurd. I believe that people should sacrifice parts of themselves for everyone else, and that people should work together and that alone they are weaker, but I believe all of this has to be voluntary otherwise it's meaningless.

anarchist in 'just don't call it a state' shocker

So, again, if you act just like a state, how is this different from a state?
So if one guy doesn't agree with the laws, you can't do anything to him?

People would do that because people are fucking stupid and irrational.

No, it doesn't. It's specifically about the commons and self-interest. This doesn't go away under socialism. Marx understood this and it seems you don't.

Unless an asshole decides to take more than his share, but I guess you can't do anything to him, unless you have state apparatus like the police.

So now you have taxation even with those that don't want to support the military. Can anyone levy taxes, or is it only one entity. If it is, then how is this different from a stae, and if it's not, then how can anyone take you seriously?

And under your system no person would either, since you think a state is unnecessary.

Are you saying people won't polute because there are no international corporations? People will stop burning oil? Digging up coal? How? Who is going to make them?

What if some guys don't want to stop CO2 emissions? How do you make them?

Yes, it's still supreme. It still has absolute authority and monopoly of legitimate use of force. Or can anyone use force legitimately?

The government is a collective entity by its very nature. But now you are saying you have a government, that it has monopoly on legitimate use of force, and that you can levy taxes. How is this not a state? Because you like it? This is not how state is defined, as much as you want it to.

You can have bourgeois states and worker's states. I don't know how you keep missing this. I'm not saying that worker's have control right now. I'm saying that you can have a state under worker control, and so far you don't seem to be advocating any different.

When you turn it into a complete government that exercises supreme power over a geographical area, yes, that's a state.

Yes, that of the workers. It's the dictatorship of the proletariat, after all.

Except I didn't say that. You can have a worker's state. You keep ignoring this possibility, and yet you advocate for the same, but don't want to call it a worker's state, just because the word offends you.

Power must always be wielded in the context of a revolutionary society. The most pressing question to arise from this necessity is how that power is wielded and by who.

Anarchism is not necessarily opposed to the wielding of power in the face of counter-revolutionary forces; quite the contrary, in many ways it was historically the least likely to make concessions to such forces almost to the point of fault. Likewise, organization of the working class in revolt requires organization (there has not been a true revolution (ie completely overturning the existing social and political order) on earth that has occurred without an organized revolutionary body involved), and there too anarchism has not shied away from forming such organization. The key matter is how such organizations are structured and by what principles they adhere to. In the case of anarchism, those organizations stand behind principles of anti-hierarchy, mutual aid, direct worker participation, direct action, and so on, with their organizations being structured and acting in a manner reflecting those goals. It is through such organization that defense against global capitalism can be planned and facilitated
The alternative to this of course is traditional stateform as the means of organization, which is what the anarchists generally oppose for being in opposition to many of those aforementioned principles. The traditional state is an organization built for the perpetuation of class domination, not its abolition.

As usual, a lot of the conflict over this issue arises primarily from semantics when it comes to defining what a state is. If the basic definition from something like the Marxist perspective is (and I'm simplifying mind you) that the state is simply an apparatus of class domination, then a revolutionary anarchist society would fit that definition, as it is the empowerment of the working class to collectively become the dominant and only political force while at the same time rapidly pushing to dissolve all other classes. Likewise, if we are speaking in terms of the ability for an organization/people to exercise force over a given area, then anarchist organizations would at least in part fall under this understanding of state (with a great degree of fluidity dependent on what organizations in question a given community/area associates with, the details of which would only be describable in the context of an actual revolutionary society). It largely comes down to the discussion of hierarchy as a foundational principle of the organization itself: a political structure whereas all individuals freely participate on (relatively) equal footing with all those acting within the same body (council, syndicate, etc) becomes largely indistinguishable from the type of more informal interactions we partake with others on a day-to-day basis based on sociability and common goals, while organizations based on hierarchy place such crucial interactions into the realm of abstraction where it inevitably is at risk of coopted by what need only be a small number of people that have a structure capable of imposing policy that is against the interests of the society at large.

So if I want to produce child porn, it's okay? After all, you shouldn't threaten me with violence, and what if the child consents? :^)

I guess you'll have to get the bourgeoisie to voluntarily give up the means of production.

The democratic-confederalist (or anarchist-lite, if you will) councils existed before. The challenge is to find a way to make sure that they live on after in a form conducive to rebuilding.

The greatest failure of anarchists in the Spanish Civil War wasn't that they "recreated the state" (which is something only someone ignorant of anarchist literature would say), it was that there wasn't a good plan for how to go back into lowkey growth mode in the event that Franco or Stalinists won.

To more directly address OP, any truly thought-through attempt to build anarchy in one place would be accompanied by attempts in other places, connected by unions and cooperatives spanning countries. War machines function poorly when workers strike.

Not the other ancom you're replying to btw
Not really sure what he meant by command, but having an voluntary army isn't the same as a statist army. Soldiers will follow orders without being threatened if they respect their commander and believe in what they're doing and aren't there because men with guns forced them to be there.
If he's being violent, respond with self-defense. If he's just being uncooperative, reason or persuade with him and if he refuses ostracize him until he decides he wants to be part of the community by cooperating with the community.
Yet you want people to rule over other people because people are stupid and irrational? This doesn't even include how the people in power will be there because they want power and the people who want power are the people you least want to give it to.
The Tragedy of the Commons isn't valid when there are no commons but instead communal property. People don't deliberately fuck up their own shit, and if they are being retarded then the rest of the community will tell them to stop fucking up their property.
Peer pressure is extremely effective. No one wants to be thought of as an unproductive leach if they actually like and respect their peers.
You're correct, he's effectively advocating for something statelike there.
People tend to not like smog and pollution in general, they don't even have to think about something distant like global warming. It's impossible to predict what people will do in a post-statist/capitalist future, there's so many factors involved that support the present system that it's difficult to see how it'd change.
I guess you could create a new technology, that would likely already exist if the profit motive wasn't king, that would nullify his need to use fossil fuels. Or if he's dumping waste in your river and he won't stop you go burn down his factory.

You're correct with all you're arguments about how he's advocating for a state, btw.

That's such an absurd hypothetical that I'm almost sure you're arguing in bad faith. How about this: child abuse is violence against the child, therefor violence to defend the child would be legitimate if no other options are available.
The bourgeoisie possess the MoP through the violence of the state; once the state is gone then their power is gone.

an anarchist revolution is not a glorious uprising on a massive scale that ends up stablishing a similar repressive state, thats for marxists

An anarchist revolution is better explained in phases, eliminating hierarchies not by foce but by eliminating the need for them, for example the bourgeoisie firm, there is no necessity to revolt against it if its transformed into a cooperqtive one, the banking system can be abolished by stablishing mutual banks and so on

Not that I'd expect retarded marxists to know about anarchist theory but w/e

Militaries are more than some guys with guns. This is the 21st century. Without a state apparatus, a capitalist military could eliminate you in a day without putting boots on the ground.

Marxism-Leninism has the same fault. Some Marxist-Leninst states lasted a decent length of time, but eventually collapsed or adopted state capitalism.

So you're a communist, but as anarchist you don't believe in any realistic means of achieving communism. Got it.

1/2

Why does having a military necessitate a state in your mind?

You can exclude him from protection under that law. If someone objects to murder being illegal then that means nobody gets punished for murdering them.

People behave in ways that seem stupid and irrational when they're under the thumb of a stupid and irrational system. Stupid and irrational systems do also tend to produce stupid and irrational people from the people internalizing the stupid and irrational elements of the system.

What part of "when resources are managed communally" is unclear? If everyone "owns" the resources, and has a say in managing them they will have all the power and incentive they need to prevent the tragedy of the commons from happening. Tragedy of the commons depends on the absence of information that results from a system of private property, such that people are unaware of the extent to which the resource is being used. Even a modified form where everyone has perfect knowledge and would still exploit the resource due to self interest depends on their self-interest being independent from that of the community and from the sustainability of the resource. All of this changes if the resource is managed communally.

If the resources are managed by the community they can be denied to members who hurt other members by overusing the resource.

A military requries taxation to function unless it acts as a conquering force. The community or multiple communities depending on how the society is organized collect "taxes" decided upon democratically by its members. The difference from a state is that the people are in control of what proportion of production goes toward what. You're laboring under a simplistic and dysfunctional concept of state which seems to be "whenever people organize"

States don't have to coerce people to act in self-interest. They have to coerce people to act against self-interest.

I'm saying people will rapidly reduce pollution and restructure the economy to avoid harming the environment because doing so is in their interest and nothing like quarterly profits is getting in their way. "People won't pollute" is not the same thing as "People won't engage in our current historically unprecedented scale of pollution based on short-term but massive financial gains for certain multinationals". It's like I'm arguing with a 5 year old in all honesty.

2/2

Who would want to continue emitting CO2 and at what levels? CO2 isn't some great satan that must be purged form the atmosphere. It's a common chemical that's harmless in small concentrations. Nobody cares if some fucker wants to make a bonfire. Under anarchism or communism there would simply would not be CO2 emissions on the scale that we currently have because it's a bonehead move that would only be made by entrenched private institutions that maximize profit on the margin and so try to pump every cent out of a venture before investing the resources to restructure and pursue another venture (even if the latter one would pay off more in the long run).

If its authority requires the consent of the governed then it's not absolute. If someone not consenting to the authority won't stop it, then the power is not derived from the consent of the governed. There is nothing difficult or complicated about this particular point at all.

No I'm not. The scare quotes around government are there to indicate I'm talking about the rough analog of a government that would exist in a different context.
No it doesn't. Every person can use force. They can pool their capacity to use force to be more powerful as a group. That is not the same thing as relinquishing the power to use force.
No, the people as a group can decide what and how much to supply whatever projects they organize communally. This only has the rough appearance of taxes, which are levied through a monopoly of force, so I refer to them as "taxes" again using scare quotes for brevity on these long fucking posts. They are not actual taxes because the "government" does not have a monopoly on force that it can use to enforce the taxes. Rather, I'm describing voluntarily supplying a social project with resources because the people recognize that the project is in their interests. When you have some friends over and split the bill for pizza you don't have to pull out a gun and force them to do it as your right because you're in your house. Everyone understands that splitting the cost enables them to continue enjoying the benefits of doing so.
Because all the things you claimed are false and you are reading into what I say to arrive at your predetermined destination that I support a state.

Sometimes people lose morale. I don't know if you've ever been in the military, but it happens, even when the soldier believes in what he's doing. And sometimes soldiers need to be told to do something that will kill them. This is how war works.
So if he refuses to stop dumping filth in the drinking water, or burning toxic material, you have to reason with him instead of arresting him?
A simple instant recall will fix the problem of power hunger, and the political won't become a class of its own. This still doesn't answer the question. Let's say we need most of the milk in the country to go toward the war effort. How do you solve the problem of people wanting to keep milk to themselves?
It's the same thing. You're playing semantics again. It's shared property in which self-interest contradicts collective interest.
How? Are you going to force them?
It's like you don't know people in the real world. Plenty of people are proud leeches. Just go to r9k.
One thing is for sure: self-interest will still rule. This is why I am a communist, because this is conductive to my self-interests, however, some of my immediate interests may contradict the whole. There must be a mechanism to push back against selfish individuality.
This is wishful thinking. The fact is that if such a technology could be invented, you'd see the starts of it in universities and other organizations that don't rely on profit. The fact is that coercion will be necessary to solve certain problems.
So you do believe in coercion. But who has the right to burn down his factory? What if he really wasn't polluting? What if someone kills him instead? Or what if they kill him and his family by burning down his shit?
Again, what if the child, let's say of 14 years of age consents? How do you know it's abuse without strict guidelines on the matter? What if I think you making your child eat meat is abuse?
But that's wrong you fucking retard. If you eliminate the state, they would re-create it with the stroke of a pen. It is the other way around, the state is captured by wealth and thus leads to power. This is what ancaps propose, fam.

...

I would fug radical liberal tbh

Ironic coming from someone with a flag from a failed recolution

How do you stand up to the US and NATO?

Yeah, revolution doesn't have a great success rate but at least they tried for god's sake. Also it lives on in my heart.

The idea that somehow co-ops are going to lead to the destruction of capitalism is just pantsu in head retarded

And yet earlier you were talking about taxes, which are not voluntary. Listen, negro, you simply have no theory, which is why your shit is retarded.

Consent of the governed doesn't mean everyone agrees with the government all of the time, retard. It means they agree to let their government hold monopoly of legitimate force and the last word over enforcement. Democracy, true democracy, makes it legitimate. Honestly, you have so much reading to do that the rest of your post isn't even worth reading.

Then Bakunin was a Marxist. Then Makhno was a Marxist. Then pretty much every relevant anarchist besides Proudhon was a Marxist.

Dude, you don't know what you're talking about. You're easily the worst poster I've seen on this board, and that includes the Holla Forumsyps. Get out.

With massive military build up and nuclear weapons, hypothetically at least. Since I'm American, I guess I would choose to unite Americans under a socialist USA, then use the nuclear arsenal to project power and force socialism on the world.

Here put it in your forehead

Tell me more about how bakunin supported a revolution that would end with the creation of a reprssive state

Top kek

Also, ironic you say i dont know my shit when you think proudhon didnt advocate for revolution

Congrats, you are the USSR 2.0 and also caused WW3. I agree socialist nations should have militaries for self defense but socialism through imperialism is an oxymoron. Make your socialist bloc so self evidently superior that eventually the capturer world collapses from within like the Soviet world did.

No reason to make things like the USSR. I don't know what you obsession is with thinking every non-anarchist revolution will turn out that way. Then again, anarkiddies will never into theory.
Spreading socialism is fundamentally anti-imperialist. It's a war against the bourgeoisie, dipshit.
Socialism cannot exist in one state. It's funny that you think I'm advocating for the USSR, but here you are thinking exactly like Stalin and his socialism in one state. It's almost like you need to read a fucking book.

AW is worse. Still annils are universally cancer and should fuck off to n1x's playground.

So the plan is to somehow capture the most powerful state in the world and keep its largely reactionary population under control while holding off NATO, the EU, and probably China in a circumstance where the new USSA is shunned and has little trading partners and almost no influence outside of small states with bad relationships with the rest of the world. Fucking christ fam, the only difference between you and the anarkiddies who say all they need to do is smash the state is they've got a needle in their arm and you've got a stick up your ass.

I meant like the USSR in terms of imperialism. Stalin used the same arguments you are now. Also I've been attacking anarchism for like an hour in this thread. I just disagree with 'war against the bourg' aka war against the workers of the capitalist countries.

No. Class consciousness comes first. If the population is still reactionary, then how is a socialist revolution supposed to happen?

The US feeds a large portion of the world. Make no mistake. This and other factors make the US in a position of strength, as well as the fact that others will see that a revolution is possible and will join us. At the very least, we can dominate the western hemisphere, and with that we split the world in two. It's only a matter of time after that.
No, I simply think that no state is stronger than the people it rules.

That's just untrue; all the examples of guerrilla warfare minimally supported by states being able to force invaders to leave would disprove your example. And it's not states that make the capitalist militaries powerful but a powerful industry, which isn't impossible in a stateless society.

Not even sure what you're referring to.
Losing morale isn't an option when it means your home is going to be destroyed and everyone you know and love will be killed. If someone truly believes that they don't need to be told to die to protect it, they'll do it on their own; soldiers die all the time to protect their fellow soldiers.
He's effectively committing violence, therefor is violence is the only option left to keep yourself alive and healthy then it's a valid one. If someone is just being an asshole or not properly working then threatening him with death(since arrests must always escalation until the arrestee complies even if it escalates to deadly force) seems a unnecessary at best and unethical at worst.
By saying if they don't give up the milk then they will fucking die. American citizens voluntarily did all sorts of self-sacrificing shit during WWII even though they were in no danger of actually dying or being invaded; if people have to actually worry about dying, their daughters being raped, their homes being destroyed, they'll do everything they can to prevent it, including joining an army that will get them killed.
Self-interest is collective-interest: it's in your self-interest for the community to actually function. It's not semantics because the commons implies non-ownership, you're simply allowed to use it and probably don't care much about it, whereas communal property belongs to everyone and it's in your interest for it to remain useful, just like people do with their own property now.
If it's bad enough to where people could die or become unhealthy, then yes. It probably wouldn't come to that because people can be persuaded and if not can be peer pressured.
Yes, because those people don't care about who they're leaching off of and think they're getting back at them.
Yes, there is. Persuasion and peer pressure, the same way humans organized for thousands of years in tribes. There's literally evolved mechanisms for humans to cooperate with each other because that's how they're always survived.
Everything relies on profit. Universities don't get grants from the government for nothing. But you're right, nuclear fission is an option that no one wants to do (because of big oil) and if the profit motive didn't exist then fusion probably would already be viable.
I believe in defense.
Those defending themselves from the pollution.
Then why would they care?
Then they've just murdered someone.
Then they've just murdered someone. You might be making a point about "mob justice" and how police are somehow better, but considering how many times the police are wrong, deliberately or accidentally kill someone, I'd say that's a bad point.
Abuse doesn't suddenly exist or stop existing at a certain age. It has to be determined on an individual basis since "guidelines" are just an excuse to be lazy.
I guess you can make that case to them and ultimately to the community and if you still feel that way you can disassociate yourself from them. Most people will probably just call you retarded.

And yet he did socialism in one state. I don't intend for that to be the case, nor will we have a Stalin figurehead.
The bourg' aren't workers. We kill the porky in every nation.

Forgot to @ you the first reply.
[Citation needed]

The state is something special in that people are so spooked by it that they believe it's a moral imperative to obey it or that it's so omnipotent it's impossible to disobey it. Capitalism needs the state for a reason.
Not sure what you mean by this. The state and capitalism is a symbiotic, parasitic, and antagonistic relationship; they need each other but are also in competition with each other.
Ancaps propose abolishing the state, keeping the same property rights, and letting the free market take it's course. They're retarded because they believe capitalism can exist without the state, and so are either not capitalists or not anarchists.

I have a question for everyone, not just anarchists. Let's say a revolution (or if that's not your thing a nice peaceful seizure of power with flowers and rainbows and shit) takes place in your country. How do you deal with the fact that your neighbors are still capitalist?

Very few nations, if any in the world, are self sufficient. Assuming your prior trade partners don't go into panic mode and outright act against you, how do you reconcile the fact that they will likely be drastically outproducing you (I doubt the workers are going to want to produce much more than what is socially necessary), and trade with more stable, compatible nations will take precedence over trade with the spooky reds? The problem is even worse if you want to abolish currency, as what then would you trade? No farming corp will want 150 tons of iron for some food, for example.

It's called feudalism, dipshit. We've had this in the past. Wealth brings power. Their power comes from the means of production, not the other way around.
You're confusing a bourgeois state with a state in general. There are many ways to make this tool, which is what a state is. Either it serves the bourgeoisie or it serves the workers.
The capitalist state isn't in any competition with capitalism. We see it enable it at every turn, even saving it from itself.
And you don't? After all, you only wish to smash the state.
Because like you they don't understand that the state takes many forms. If we abolished the American government, the capitalists of the US would simply take over functions for state apparatus. Then the state would still exist and so would capitalism. Material conditions come first. The state is something built on top of that. Read a book.

Bakunin certainly advocated for revolution. There's no intrinsic reason to believe that violent revolution will, of itself, lead to the establishment of a repressive state. If you've given up like that on real change, then why the hell do you even post here.

He argued against violence his entire life. He advocated what amounted to a strict regimen of reforming capitalism into socialism. His ideas are still highly innovative and carry merit, being the launching board for further anarchist thought, but have serious flaws.

Marx was right to critique his ideas for being petite bourgeois in character, he never did managed to truly escape that dimension of thought in whole.

Depends, are they actively opposing the revolution? If so, they go against the wall.
You make war against them, obviously. Foment revolution in their countries (late stage capitalism will be fucking their workers too), and make life hard for them.
No need for trade or markets. We aren't after state capitalism. We will simply take.

I was talking about the voluntary equivalent of taxes in the very post you replied to right there.

No living person signed the US Constitution but the government it outlines claims to derive its power from the consent of the governed. Very few people alive at the time did so. A "communist" state would operate the same way. You are arguing with shit you learned in fucking social studies you moron.
tippity top wew

It's hardly like the bourg are going to be fighting the battles themselves is it, they'll draft the workers and unless there's a huge class conciussness most will go along with it, since you're the one invading. Better to make a utopia in the places you control so that dissent in the capitalist nations is so high that you can simply aid the native revolution in taking power.

So then you have an army of beggars, a charity army.
Again, with your retardation. If the US government had immediate recall and worker control, it would have its power derived from the governed.
And you didn't even pay attention to that.
Because you're so blatantly wrong that it's not even worth it. Why would I argue with someone that thinks that laws should be voluntary and yet thinks this will not fall apart?

"Following orders" is no excuse. Plenty of German workers died during WWII, and I'm glad they're dead.
We can both attack capitalist nations and support natives. There is no need for a false dichotomy.

So you're going to liberate the working class of capitalism by killing them all. Fucking genius. The Nazis were the invaders, in your scenario you are.

How do you fight the porky propaganda machine with no major backing and a state that is hostile actively bearing down on you?

So in the event that you successfully seize the US, how will you run manufacturing without being able to import resources? While the US has abundant resources they are limited and it is only a matter of time before they run out. And assuming a sustainable renewable energy source isn't discovered by the time this hypothetical revolution takes place OPEC putting the clamp on your oil will be a death kneel. What will you do then, invade other countries and have the rest of the world ally to curb stomp you or let the USSA collapse into fragmented states led by reactionaries?

Empty slogans, your "theory" isn't worth shit and criticizing anarkiddies for idealism while relying on a series of miracles for your revolution to succeed is Holla Forums-tier lack of self awareness.

You can't. For all Marxists shit on Anarchists for not being able to defend themselves, no single socialist state/territory/whatever will be able to survive against the global capitalist order, state or no state. The leftcoms are right in that we're going to have to wait until capitalism collapses and is no longer sustainable for successful revolutions to be able to survive.

No state can function simply through raw force, it needs semi-voluntary compliance, the belief that your rulers should be there even if you don't like it. With pre-democractic systems it was largely based upon religion, which is why the church was so powerful. In modern systems it's the belief in "democracy" or the absolute necessity of the state.
A state can only serve itself. Even a bourgeoisie state ultimately only serves itself through a symbiotic relationship with the bourgeoisie.
Just like other capitalists aren't in competition with each other because they have the same class interests? The state has similar shared interests, but it ultimately only cares about itself and its power, same as individual capitalists.
Yes, and capitalism is a manifestation of it, which I want gone also.
It doesn't work that way. States are necessary because of their mythic power, corporations do not have this power. Corporations are itself a manifestation of state power, in that states allow organizations to become incorporated. Property rights, the very foundation of capitalism, is protected by states. Corporations might have raw power, but they have no spooks attached to them, and spooks are what makes the state powerful and effective and they always have.

You got a rebuttal other than some classist virtue signaling?

But it doesn't and claims it does. Same would go for a "communist" state you advocate where power is supreme and absolute. You can't have it both ways.

Are you implying that cappie propaganda peddled as education is legitimate? I graduated top of my class, so even this angle is malarkey.

What is your basis for the assertion that a state's law is necessary to keep a society from falling apart? There are plenty of historically anarchist societies. If you're going to criticize them, go after the reasons they failed and not some made up bullshit that gets spewed by your average classcuck.

Why does everyone in the red quarter think anarchists can't just form an army again?

No one's denying that. Feudalism, however, is itself sustained by even clearer relations of violence-based power. Not an argument.
state =/= government
statecraft =/= politics
A state is a centralized, hierarchical institution with a monopoly on violence within a given area. It is an aberration on the concept of government, which is any form of maintaining social order and reproducing it - in other words, what Marxists call the state. It is because Marxism lacks this critical distinction that it runs the risk of falling into the Lenin trap and conflating the two.

As a spook is really what was formerly a mentally useful abstraction of the material come unchained to dominate the mind, a state is the formerly useful government come to take on a will of its own as a collection of self-interested organs of power such as bureaucracies and parliaments and generals.
To continue my little tirade, capital is itself like a libertarian - convinced of its own independence all the while being reliant on the service of everybody else. It tries to extract a maximum of profit, and the taxation imposed by the state conflicts with that logic. The state, however, is different. It remains in the status that it does because it fills the role of bourgeois governance adequately - it is manipulated at the highest of levels, those parliaments supposedly accountable to all the people, by capital itself. However, the bureaucracies endowed intentionally with purpose and unintentionally with a self-preserving consciousness by those selfsame parliaments have no reason to defend capital's interests if it is not in their interest of self-preservation. That the two do align frequently is of no consequence.
We anarchists wish to destroy all heirarchy, be it capitalism or the state. It's in our ideology's name - "an" means "without", "archon" means ruler". That the total destruction of the state and its functions would mean the destruction of capitalism as well is a convenient coincidence.
The dominant form of government is built atop material relationships, yes. What makes the state special is that it can - as it did in the case of the USSR - itself become the dominant organ of material relations, the hegemon over the means of production and the extraction of surplus value. It is the lack of realization of this on Marx's behalf for which Bakunin so harshly criticized Marx.
marxists.org/reference/archive/bakunin/works/1873/statism-anarchy.htm
How about you read a book for a change?

Because they think that anarchists hate organization and this is therefore a contradiction in terms for us.
AKA "we may be bad, but you're both the same as us and hypocrites for denying it!"

They need some reason why anarchism is worse than their ideology since their alignment isn't based on reason, instead reason is used merely as a post-hoc justification for following the immortal dialectical science of Marx's cult of personality.

I don't know much about military matters, but it seems to be going very well for the Zapatistas.

To be fair, he did perceive the flaws of the system and tried to correct it, but he was already too sick, disabled and isolated by then.

Thank you.

What a different world we would live in if Lenin had not taken ill!

Because modern armies are hierarchal in nature, require total interconnectivity between various units, have stable and reliable supply chains, and utilize equipment that is too complex to construct at a single location.

Oh, and let us not forget comprehensive strategic planning, real-time tactical command, and a disciplined chain of command.

It doesn't

Now tell us why you think that you can.

How does your proposed army field an air force, for example? How does it keep carbon fibre and aluminum alloys flowing to numerous disparate factories that individually produce parts that later get assembled into equipment at yet other factories? How do you see that everyone that needs it always gets the right amount of jet fuel, for example? How do you coordinate disparate units in real-time across an entire theater? How do you disseminate information and orders to the appropriate parties while maintaining INFOSEC? How does the system adapt to necessary changes?

Lenin wasn't a god or an autocratic dictator who ruled by decree. If he had been in good health following the years after the revolution it would have strengthened the anti-bureaucratic faction, but essentially the USSR's turn to bureaucracy arose from its material conditions, as a switch to economic planning without sufficiently advanced technology or a pre-existing mass proletarian class must automatically create a very powerful category of officials in charge of managing the economy. It's likely that we'd either still see a turn to full state bureaucracy at a later date or a permanent NEP-style retreat to a sort of guided capitalism; Lenin was very pessimistic about the potential of the USSR to achieve socialism without the aid of the rest of Europe.

You thinking about an invasion, not defense mate.
All you need to defend are peasants with guns and RPG's. I think the history of modern warfare is pretty clear on this point. Sure, any insurrection will have problems when facing a better equipped high-tec imperialist army, but that is no less true for a communist army. We will compensate by using terror tactics and guerilla warfare to break the will of our enemy.
In the end it's the will of the people that will decide the war, not the army.
As the mongols would say, you can't rule a country from horseback.

So you'll just roll over and allow the imperialists to occupy the state, and assume that the people will remain loyal forever through years or even decades of guerilla war instead of blaming the total destruction of their lives on the shitty anarchist government that couldn't defend them. A winning strategy if there ever was one…

Decentralized non hierarchical government is not super efficient, but pretty hard to occupy. In that regards it's better than a government that will completely collapse on itself if "dear leader" is ever captured.

Bullshit, it's just a matter of being sufficiently brutal. Imagine narcho Russia employing such a strategy against the Nazis. The farms would be burned, the people hunted down, the population centers razed. Now everyone is hiding in the countryside without food and most people starve to death. Maybe they won't fully occupy every part of the country, but you've just caused the death of hundreds of millions of people and allowed the Nazis to access Russia's resources and start colonizing it. In fact, you've essentially created Hitler's dream scenario where brave Aryan "warrior-farmers" hone their strength against the Slavic holdouts in the eastern territories.

You can't be serious. The history of modern warfare does not say anything of the kind.

So while the land is under occupation and the conventional modern army controls all centers of production, you plan to hide in the wilderness and make a general nuisance of yourself like the Iraqi guerillas have been doing. Meanwhile, everyone living there suffers through decades of war and occupation, and the porkies tear every last resource they can out of the ground while half-assing a fight with you through proxies. Eventually, when the country is completely devastated and there is not enough of value left there for the occupying army to be turning a profit they will just leave of their own accord.

Great plan! Fucking brilliant, mate. Way to protect the people.

That's not what we are talking about thou, it's a modern scenario. Look at Americas war with Vietnam, they lost the war precisely because their brutality caused a backlash in the american population who didn't understand why their "boys" had to die on the other side of the world. And we are talking about defending the revolution, not defending soviet.

Oh god, here we go with the Vietnam bullshit again. Who is going to extend their nuclear umbrella over you to keep the imperialists from advancing when you get run off the battlefield time and again?

So basically you admit that you'll lose when the enemy is sufficiently brutal.

I guess you could say that it will be a "triumph of the will."

No one, if the force was to great to repel with our arms, we would have to win the war of propaganda on the imperialist home turf. Making the war to costly and unpopular to be politically sustainable.

Yes, against a better equipped and more brutal enemy, loss is likely, unless the brutality can serve as a catalyst for political change in that country.

Easy, with Isolationism. Tokugawa Iyeasu style. Any foreigner: Shot on site. Anyone harbouring foregners: Shot on site.

If you have no nukes and the force you are facing is too great to repel with arms then the war will be effectively over in a week. Before you start in with the Iraqi and Afghani insurgencies, consider that the occupiers never even bothered with trying to destroy them. They just protected resource extraction operations, held the population centers, and let proxies engage the guerillas. It does not matter one bit if the Americans decide to leave once they have taken their fill of oil and whatever else is of value. The Iraqis and the Afghanis already lost. In the end they will be stuck fighting with other armed groups for a ruined and impoverished landscape devoid of anything of great value. There is no victory in that.

What's good, bitch.

10/10

plz respond

The narcho already admitted his entire conception of warfare essentially relied on the capitalists not being too mean and giving up after occupying and looting the entire country.

I am hoping that his strategy is not indicative of the general anarchist military strategy. Military strategy seems to be a gigantic blindspot in most leftist theory, which is a huge omission given that military power is one of the most significant material conditions there is in a society. The MLs just want to build their military like what every capitalist society does, and the anarchists' "plan," if it can be called that, seems to be based on a basic ignorance of the subject. We desperately need a marxist military theory.

The Bolsheviks tried a democratic army and got buttblasted. I really don't think you can get around officers and strict hierarchy in a military.

The difference is to a regular Iraqi or Afghani, the Americans really aren't too bad. They don't like them but they're not really different than their previous oppressors. If you have a mass revolution and people see how good it is, they'll fight to defend it. Rojava is still a state, but a very weak, decentralized one, without taxation or mass conscription, and they're able to effectively fight against Daesh.

The YPG is a democratic military without any ranks. Commanders are elected by their subordinates. The Anarchist militias in Catalonia did the same. A strict hierarchy is only necessary if people do not believe in what they're doing or believe in their leaders.

how come they are so stupid?

Because they've retreated into theory and divorced themselves from reality.

I've got a question for state socialists: how will YOU defend yourselves from capitalist hegemony? Because outside of a simultaneous, instantaneous global revolution (which is laughably impossible), any victorious socialist state or group of states will immediately find themselves besieged and under attack by all other capitalist states. Even if you avoid getting nuked outright you sentence yourselves to a Cold War which will inevitably lead to the corruption and dissolution of your socialist society.

Because that it what cold wars (and war in general) does: it nourishes capitalism, while destroying socialism. The Soviet Union collapsed primarily due to the weight of supporting a massive military apparatus to defend itself from imminent nuclear and conventional warfare. The capitalist states flourished during the Cold War, due to the excellent environment in which to practice imperialism and foreign exploitation under the guise of anticommunism, and the ability to rely on nationalist rhetoric to suppress dissent or buy off workers with social democratic welfare reforms.

Socialism cannot win, and will not win, in a direct revolutionary/military conflict with capitalist states. We can only hope to undermine the capitalist nation-states, corrode or usurp their authority or power over us, without confronting them directly, if we are to be successful.

MY BOIIIIII

Whoa, dude. You may want to turn off CNN for a while.

Hoorah for the glorious armchair internet shitposting revolution!

And compared to the Taliban the US occupation was probably much better.