Can an anarchist revolution actually happen internationally?

Can an anarchist revolution actually happen internationally?

Doubtful every country in unison would have a revolution, but that would be the ultimate goal

But what if say France had an anarchist revolution, whats stopping Spain, UK or Germany from steam rolling it? Anarchy doesn't have any central unity doesn't it?

Revolution in general is unlikely to happen at the same time everywhere. Marx didn't foresee stuff like outsourcing, sweatshop labor, welfare states, etc.

Basically the tools capitalism has to pacify the population vary from country to country

Yes, it seems to me that the only stable revolutions would be Socialist ones, as they have central planning unlike Anarchists.

An Anarchist would tell you that decentralized military tactics (Auftragstaktik) are successful

A Marxist-Leninist would tell you that this is right but without a central superstructure you will basically fight blindly. In Catalonia, Anarchist militias literally fell asleep at their posts and just ran away.

So Anarchy's only form of military is voluntary guerilla.

Weak

Their argument is that anarchist revolutions have always been crushed by outside forces but didn't have any internal contradictions, which is a retarded argument because being crushed by outside forces is inherent to anarchism.

With he same logic I could argue that all the economic crisis are somehow "not real capitalism" and are merely inflicted by elements outside of capitalism, instead of being an inherent part in it.

In practice anarchism isn't voluntary at all. Catalonia had law enforcement, prisons, labor camps, etc.

Shit

Seems pretty oppressive-y

There can still be some degree of centralization without a state, and laws could be created through direct democracy in a federated structure. Obviously military forces need to be heirachichal in some way for stategic purposes, but I don't see how the lack of a state inherently leads to disorganization.

Some things need to be centralized, with that, you pretty much have a state.

Criminal law is an example. When one thing is criminal in certain municipalities but is legal in others social cohesion will be threatened. I live in a country where education is federalized, trust me, it's horse shit

criminalized*

...

It just all seems so unplanned and fucking rushed

Yes.

Yeah, anarchist basically refuse to have any sort of transitional period. I mean, sure, the modern nation state only exists since 200 years and humans have lived millenias without it, but anarchists aren't just against the nation state but against any form of traditional hierarchy. By doing this, they are idealists, because the base determines the superstructure, not the other way arround it. They prioritize the state question over the economic question, not realizing that it is the economic reality which demanded a state in the first place.

anarchist "overnight abolition" of the entire concept of the State is doomed to fail because of the reactionary ideology which has been so thoroughly welded to the brains of Western proles. To put it another way, you can't trust people who have been sold the lie that self-preservation and the ability to express yourself is more important than anything else at all even if its destructive, is the foundation of civilization, particularly for the last 30 years during the era of neoliberalism and globalization, to immediately start collectivizing autonomously because capitalist ideology is a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Centralization doesn't necessarily equal a state, although an excessive amount of it will develop into one. I would argue that one homogenous law governing anything more than a local community threatens social cohesion more than decentralization, as any dissenting communities will provoked, possibly to hostility. I agree that certain laws should be enforced universally, but communites should also have the freedom to govern themselves in a way they see fit, which expansive centralization does not allow for. This is what leads to class struggle in statist societies.

During the transition from the feudal form of "state" to the absolutist, early modern form of national monarchies in the 16th century, nation-wide established laws were introduced to create social cohesion, and I'd argue that it worked. Don't underestimate the push- and pull-effects you are creating by federalizing everything. Naturally, some regions are more developed and more attractive than others, and will offer better education and legal security than less developed ones or rural areas. This will create conflict.

Again, you seem to think I'm against the idea of centralization entirely, which is not the case. The issue is that the highly centralized Soviet style of organization (and other proposed centralized models) creates friction between communities and the state. In an international federation, it would be ridiculous to try to homogenize world cultures through the state. There should be a central law, but it should be extrememly minimal in its ordinances, only enforcing what it necessary.

Most Marxists seem to neglect the complex interrelations between base and superstructure. A "superstructure" like the state is perfectly capable of acting upon the base and creating economic differences where there were none before. The whole superstructure and base thing is like the chicken and the egg.

How are you going to enforce that without a state? Just look at the absolute joke which is "international law" on which the USA shits upon daily and nobody gives a fuck.

Bacially what I'm trying to say the more powerful communities will become some sort of "state" for the weaker communities. The countryside arround Paris would have to abide by the laws of Paris, no matter if an official, universal law says otherwise

I absolutely agree with you. My point is that abolishing the state right away deprives you of the tools you need to change the economic base.

The true form of Anarchy is not to overthrow or hurt anything or anybody.

It simply exists in the form of a harmless protest seeking self improvement of individualism.

I think the true spirit of Democracy evolved from Anarchy and Conservitism evolved from Democracy and the Human Nature of self preservation.

dude weed lmao

Individualists need to hang from trees.

Just like them nigger jews, amirite?

Blacks can go back to africa, Jews will be moved elsewhere.

Not in an armed conflict sort of way, but I think an economic revolution could hit both the state and capitalism in the balls, leading to the dissolution of the state.

They probably said the same thing about republics in the 1700s

Look where we are now

Liberals get the bullet too

Why don't YOU go back to >>>Holla Forums?

Its somebody pretending to be a different Ideology, relax, enjoy the show.