Redpill me on anarchism

As far as I see it, Anarchism is doomed to fail from the start. It atomizes the working class into isolated communities that, in the absence of any higher structure or ways of settling disputes in a legal way, will fall to infighting and eventually be gobbled up by a neighboring power. While anarchists claim to be against hierarchy, their phobic reaction of any form of formal hierarchy only opens the door for con-men, inspirational speakers, strongmen or otherwise appealing but unqualified leaders to take over. There will always be a de facto leader, there will always be someone who speaks more than everyone else, or who acts more than everyone else, or who is the most respected. Even if they're not a de jure leader, they are a de facto leader. People too withdrawn to speak out or too swayed by their words. While I'll concede that elections have similar issues, a secret ballot and an open platform for anyone to make their point helps to mitigate that. It's a lot easier to speak out in an organized campaign setting than in everyday life.

My main point is that in anarchy, hierarchy would still exist, it would just be a disorganized hierarchy that incentivises the worst people to lead. On top of that, it severely weakens the revolution and rejects all the benefits that come from hierarchy and organization.

I'm not a tankie, my view is that without democracy there's no socialism, but that doesn't mean that anarchism is the answer. Anarchism is impotent and self-destructive, and the dichotomy between anarchism and Marxism-Leninism is a false one. Prove me wrong.

Bookchin really improves upon the historical and theoretical limitations of anarchism with their communalism, and its embrace of government and law.

idealist liberals

It all hinges upon your definition of the state. You suppose that without a state there is disorganization, but what is a state?

Bump. I'm interested to hear what some anarchists have to say about this. I'm close to being an anarchist but this kind of thing always makes me think twice.

imo the state is an organization that has a monopoly on legitimate force. They can be democratic or not, they can coincide with nations or not (I.E. the Archbishopric of Salzburg was a state, but it wasn't a nationstate because it didn't lay a claim to nor control all of Germany), etc. Any monopoly on legitimate power is a state.

it should be noted that I don't support any non-democratic or representative-democratic state, nor one that enforces absentee ownership. A lot of the baggage that's been left with the state is wrong, but throwing the baby out with the bathwater is foolish.

Is that your own personal definition of a state or is it based in theory?

is that relevant?

Well if there is no agreed upon definition of the state its hard to argue for or against its existence

Read Mutual Aid.

As opposed to the best people leading the capitalist world right now, the historical leaders of ML states, or the monarchs reactionaries want back? The point of hierarchy is the ability to pursue your interests at the expense of the interests of others, abolition of hierarchy ie class is the point of socialism.

You just said there would be hierarchy. Make up your damn mind.

Anarchists don't reject organization.

MLs want democracy. It's obvious you haven't read anything about ML or Anarchism that wasn't meme tier trash.

Let me guess, the answer is some form of social democracy or "socialist" republic.

Communalism is just anarchism called something else to avoid retards like Bob Black. If Ancoms ever seized a territory the difference between Rojava and Ancompton would be negligible aside from Rojava having more brown qts.