How can Anarchists resist Imperialism, since it is decentralized and disorganized?

idk my tankie friend, what do you thinK?

How can tankies ensure that the god emperor doesn't end up Krushchev?

Riddle me that one my iron clad friend

cringe

Ukrainian Free Territory

Modern Marxism is also more concerned about trans rights than worker rights, your point?

we ain't little bitches here, talk science

Keep a low profile, abide, and profiteer. This too shall pass.
Ideology is for dupes.

Socialist countries literally cannot be imperialist.

It's like the USSR wasn't imperialist.

lenin and trotsky dindu nuffins

Exaclty

Anarchist don't oppose organization. We don't oppose authority either. Those who do, are just lifestylists. We oppose centralization of power an involuntary hierarchies.

Anarchists can oppose imperialism through the same means that any movement opposes imperialism: guerrilla warfare, internationalist labor politics, and organized community defense.

This.

The US opposes the establishment of a Kurdish state. They are only funding the PYD because they have been absurdly successful in fighting Daesh. Would you just expect them to refuse supplies out of principle? I am as opposed to US intervention as anyone, and am very concerned about US imperialism influencing the politics in Rojava, but do you seriously blame the PYD for accepting aid?

No one claimed they were "true" anarchists. They are killing fascists, establishing cutting edge democratic structures, and putting the means of production in the hands of the workers. What is Assad doing?

Same way Marx's stateless, classless, moneyless society does it. Oh wait, tankies don't read Marx. NVM

oh for fucks sake

Checkmate anarkiddies, turns out you really need a Big State competing over imperialist power

low effort shitpost, 0/10, only have to respond to keep you illiterate morons from getting even more cocky and insufferable and to inform lurkers that you're braindead.

naaaaaaaah
read Kropotkin
or Proudhon
or Bakunin
or any classical anarchist author (Rocker, Leval, etc), for that matter

Every anarchist I've talked to seems to think so and seems to be allergic to the word "leadership" as if it meant having a boss instead of just someone that leads. Anarkiddies need to read a book and actually think about what they are reading and comparing it with real-world data. A lot of anarchist thought is just word soup that doesn't mean anything when you try to put it in concrete terms and a lot of it has more to do with how people think than what they actually do. Don't get me wrong, I think anarchists are cool people, but I also think they're not quite there yet and there's a real danger of them falling back into liberalism because they do not have a proper fundamental theory. Also, you niggers need to stop calling every Marxist or Leninist "Marxist-Leninist" because that shit is neither, nor are we tankies because you said so.

Self-described anarchists in real life are as cringey and retarded and idpol-filled as all the self-described Marxists who you can meet on a college campus. Those "Marxist feminist" SJWs aren't real Marxists and the anarchists here accept that - have you considered that the reverse might be true, hm? Dumbass.

fuck off you spooked retard

(fixing 404)

Anarchists who support organization are delusional. It's pretty telling that those who do so are usually Bookchinites, following an ex-Stalinist who really could not let go of the glorious idea of an ideologically pure movement walking in his great footsteps. For more of that, read this: theanarchistlibrary.org/library/bob-black-anarchy-after-leftism

Organization triggers the natural human drive for leadership and rationalized domination. For example, take a group of friends: there's always someone who takes initiative and guys who tag along. In a mass organization, the leaders gain a power that is no longer purely informal. They use suggestion and the tyranny of the mass to scare opposition and coax individuals into compliance with the herd. Anarchists who support organization support, de facto, the formation of crystallized hierarchies using legalized force, over time. For more on that, read Michels: socserv2.socsci.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/michels/polipart.pdf

Hence, they just abolish the form of the state, and leave its content. They say that the state is gone: but there are still organizational laws you have to adhere to. Do to the division of labour in a complex organization, there are leaders you have to follow. And when you don't? Force has to be used. All Anarchist 'societies' used force eventually. The Makhnovites were bossed around by Makhno. (Think for yourself: consider the sourcing given in this article: marxistleftreview.org/index.php/no-12-winter-2016/134-nestor-makhno-the-failure-of-anarchism).

Consider this quote from Michels, if you're a lazy faggot with no time to read a book: 'Notwithstanding this, anarchism, a movement on behalf of liberty, founded on the inalienable right of the human being over his own person, succumbs, no less than the Socialist Party, to the law of authoritarianism as soon as it abandons the region of pure thought and as soon as its adherents unite to form associations aiming at any sort of political activity. Nieuwenhuis, the veteran champion of anarchizing
socialism with a frankly individualist tendency, showed on one occasion that he had a keen perception of the dangers which anarchism runs from all contact with practical life. At the Amsterdam congress of 1907, after the foundation of the new anarchist international, he raised a warning voice against the arguments of the Italian Enrico Malatesta, an anarchist attached to the school of Bakunin. Malatesta, having dilated upon the strength of bourgeois society, declared that nothing would suit this society better than to be faced by unorganized masses of workers, and that for this reason it was essential to counter the powerful organization of the rich by a still more powerful organization of the poor. “If that is your thought, dear friend,” said Nieuwenhuis to Malatesta, “you can go peacefully over to the socialists. They won't tell you anything else.” In the course of this first anarchist congress there were manifest, according to Nieuwenhuis, the symptoms of that diplomatic mentality which characterizes all the leaders of authoritarian parties.'

Long story short, I really think only post-leftism is tenable as anarchism. There's a reason true autonomy is really only seen in hunter-gatherer bands: these are the only forms of human society that are hardly organized, instead forming spontaneous, temporary associations when team-work is necessary, otherwise being unorganized and completely autonomous on the individual level. psychologytoday.com/blog/freedom-learn/201105/how-hunter-gatherers-maintained-their-egalitarian-ways

I'm the guy who posted above. I'd like to add to the argument that, in direct democracies like Athens, coaxing and intimidating was a fact of life in assemblies. Consider the sourcing given here: theanarchistlibrary.org/library/bob-black-debunking-democracy

I've only ever read his essay "Social Anarchism Or Lifestyle Anarchism", and certainly wouldn't consider him a major influence on my own anarchism in general. Nevertheless, I staunchly support organization in the tradition of Proudhon, Bakunin, Kropotkin, Makhno, and Malatesta.

That's not what the state is according to any classical theorist of anarchism. Let me get you some Bakunin:
Bakunin does not reject all authority, all force. Chomsky speaks of justified authority such as preventing a child from running into the street, and I'd be hard-pressed to acknowledge him as anything other than an anarchist.

So, I started reading the "Marxist" attack on Makhno
Stopped reading there. It's clear that they've only ever heard about what anarchism is and what it stands for from secondhand or thirdhand sources (as you likely have - did you ever read its foundational texts? Stirner never called himself an anarchist or a libertarian). Every time that I've encountered one of these attempts at smearing Makhno, I've come away sorely disappointed with the quality of the article. For you to post one of them speaks volumes to how detached you are from anarchism as it has existed and continues to live now in critical condition.
I don't see how that Michels quote proves anything. That Nieuwenhuis guy just makes assertions about Malatesta's ideas without anything to back them up. Besides, if you were to actually read Malatesta, he already opposes unions on the grounds of them being intrinsically reformist owing to their designs and material circumstances, and furthermore that activism should continue within them, but within the form of affinity groups.

A) Graeber's work (internationally acclaimed as some of the best in its field) has shown that they oscillate back and forth between hierarchical domination and free association, with the tendency towards the former becoming solidified once they develop out of it
B) Even if we could return to that style of living (which I don't think we can), it wouldn't last and no one would want to live in it because it's a miserable life. Here I will have to recommend to you, read Bookchin's essay "Social Anarchism Or Lifestyle Anarchism". It neatly debunks this "happy hunter-gatherer" myth.

You're an illiterate disgrace to anarchism. You can call yourself a nihilist or egoist or something else, but even that won't change that you're really just an ultra-autistic lolbert at heart. Don't associate yourself with anarchism because it sounds cool and edgy. You're not an anarchist. You absolute tool.

Wow, keeping it classy. Someone says something you disagree with, so naturally you have no choice but to insult someone instead of just, I don't know, actually discussing anything.

So how have you proved that I am an ultra-autistic lolbert? Firstly, by quoting Bakunin on acceptance of the authority of others when work is somewhat specialized. How droll. I was talking about formal political organization, not the fucking knowledge of shoemakers on shoes.

-So, I started reading the "Marxist" attack on Makhno

Stopped reading there.-

Marxist says something that makes you go boo-hoo and you stop reading. Why don't you actually read what he says to back it up, instead of jacking yourself off about how glorious it is that you know what anarchism stands for? And why the fuck did you put Marxist between quotes there, as if this were ironic and the attack wasn't really Marxist whatsoever.

Whatever, I'll look it up for you.

"One sidelight is worth mentioning here as it gives an insight into the real nature of the Makhnovist forces and how much they subscribed to “libertarian” principles. In the middle of 1919, after he had broken with the Red Army, Makhno was to briefly negotiate an alliance with Hryhoriyiv, only to break with him and execute him for anti-Semitism. Makhno’s and Hryhoriyiv’s forces held a joint assembly in July 1919. According to the account of an eyewitness, the anarchist theoretician Arshinov, Makhno began to condemn Hryhoriyiv:

“Such blackguards as Hryhoriyiv degrade all the rebels of the Ukraine, and for them there can be no place in the ranks of the honourable workers of the revolution.” Thus Makhno concluded his accusation of Hryhoriyiv. The latter saw that the affair was taking a terrible turn for him. He reached for his gun. But he was too late. Simon Karetnik – the closest assistant of Makhno – drove him to the ground with several bullets of his Colt, and Makhno, triumphantly proclaiming, “Death to the Ataman” shot him dead. The friends and members of Hryhoriyiv’s staff would have rushed to help him, but were shot on the spot by a group of Makhno’s men previously designated for the task.

At first the assembly was somewhat disturbed by the deeds accomplished, but then, after the following reports of Makhno, Chubenko, and other representatives of the Makhnovtsy, the assembly approved these deeds, calling them historically necessary.[37]"

"Michael Malet, a supporter of Makhno, admits that for the fourth Makhnovist Soviet Congress: “There was no electoral campaign for delegates, the Makhnovists holding that this would open the way for the political parties to make a mess of things and confuse the electorate.”[41] So much for anarchist anti-elitism. For all their talk of abolishing “authority” and “hierarchy”, the Makhnovists, as a leading anarchist historian, Paul Avrich, puts it, “in effect formed a loose-knit government in the territory around Gulyai-Pole”.[42] And there was nothing libertarian about it. They disarmed all partisan units which would not subordinate themselves to Makhno. When in Aleksandrovsk and Ekaterinoslav the local Bolsheviks attempted to set up revolutionary committees, according to the anarchist Volin, “Makhno threatened to arrest and shoot all members of the ‘Rev-Com’ if they made the least attempt of this nature.”[43] Similarly they restricted freedom of the press. They declared:

In allowing freedom to propagate their ideas, the Makhnovist Insurgent Army wishes to inform all the parties that any attempt to prepare, organise or impose a political authority on the working masses will not be permitted.[44]"

"In theory the Makhnovist partisans did have the right to elect their commanders, but in practice Makhno removed commanders he did not approve of. Democracy was a mere formality, as even the more honest anarchist historians are reluctantly forced to concede. As the anarchist George Woodcock writes, “theoretically…[the army] was under the control of the Congress of Peasants, Workers and Insurgents, but in practice it was ruled by Makhno and his commanders, and, like all armies, was libertarian only in name”.[46] Makhno and his inner clique totally dominated the army and often behaved in a completely arbitrary fashion. As Darch puts it, “the Bat’ko’s control remained absolute, arbitrary and impulsive.”[47]

2d part of post:

"Makhno was increasingly unaccountable to his peasant followers. Volin, one of the leaders of the Makhnovists, explained that there developed

a kind of military clique or camarilla about Makhno. This clique sometimes made decisions and committed acts without taking account of the Council or of other institutions. It lost its sense of proportion, showed contempt towards all those who were outside it, and detached itself more and more from the mass of the combatants and the working population.[51]"

"There are numerous horror stories about the behaviour of partisan commanders. The most gross concern their treatment of women, who as Volin admits were compelled to have sex with Makhnovist commanders during drunken debaucheries.[56]"

Not exactly utopia is it? If you'd actually read the article we could've had a discussion, but, I know, the primitive impulse to accuse someone of autism is just so much stronger. You would also have noticed that the writer mostly relies on anarchist historians to make his claims, but whatever.

You then proceed to the Michels quote. -That Nieuwenhuis guy just makes assertions about Malatesta's ideas without anything to back them up- and mumble something about unions, which I wasn't talking about. This is theory. The practice was discussed in the piece on Makhno, and the piece on Democracy. Nieuwenhuis simply remarks that, if you want a 'powerful organization', no matter how democratic it is supposed to be, you're really not very different from the Socialist Party as it existed then.

We then come to Murray Bookchin, and his apparent debunking of the happy hunter-gatherer myth. Let's take some excerpts from the article linked above, which actually responded to Bookchin.

"gimmickry aside, the evidence suggests that foragers live relatively long lives. The Dean’s claim that the average lifespan of the !Kung San is 30 years (45) is unreferenced and misleading, Lee’s censuses showed

…a substantial proportion of people over the age of 60. This high proportion (8.7 to 10.7 percent) by Third World standards contradicts the widely held notion that life in hunting and gathering societies is “nasty, brutish, and short.” The argument has been made that life in these societies is so hard that people die at an early age. The Dobe area [of Botswana], by contrast, had dozens of active older persons in the population (Lee 1979: 44)."

"More important, the affluence thesis is based on observation and measurement, not myth and memory. Richard B. Lee concluded that the !Kung San/Bushmen did remarkably little work compared to us — not by sitting at the feet of the Old Wise Man like they do at Goddard College — but by following the San around to see what they were doing and for how long. He based his conclusions as to the sufficiency of their diet on measuring the calories they ingested and expended (Lee 1969, 1979),… And what’s so intriguing is that the San live their affluence in the arid Kalahari Desert, not someplace approximating the Garden of Eden (Zerzan 1994: 29)."

"On the other hand, in thirty years of celebrating urbanism, the Dean has yet to identify a stable, anarchic, egalitarian urban society. Perhaps revolutionary Barcelona approximated one for a few months in 1936–1937, and Paris in 1968 for several weeks. But at best these are only blips on a social screen of almost unrelieved urban statism and class stratification."

I believe Orwell also mentioned how egalitarianism in Barcelona deteriorated during the civil war.

Last part of post:

Now, this would almost make us forget the point that you, once again, attacked me on something I didn't actually say (even if the argument you used wasn't all that great). I never said hunter-gatherers are lovely, even if 'miserable' is not perhaps the right word to use. You ascribed that to me. I said that hunter-gatherers are both a. hardly-organized and b. consistently autonomous. The point wasn't that we should be hunter-gatherers, which I never said. The point was that in every organization we see hierarchy, while we don't see it in hunter-gatherer band, or less so. Your reply there (that they weren't completely autonomous all the time) was actually a good point that should be acknowledged. I couldn't access Graeber's article but found this piece on it on the web:

"Graeber and Wengrow argue that the evidence isn’t confusing: it’s simply that hunter-gatherers are far more politically sophisticated and experimental than we’ve realised. Many different variations, and variations on variations, have been tried over the vast spans of time that hunter-gatherers have existed (over 200,000 years, compared to the 12,000 or so years we know agriculture has been around). Clastres was right: people were never naive, and resistance to the formation of hierarchies is a significant part of our heritage. However, seasonal variations in social structures mean that hierarchies may never have been a ghostly object of resistance. They have probably been at least a temporary factor throughout our long history.1 Sometimes they functioned, in this temporary guise, to facilitate socially positive events – though experience of their oppressive possibilities usually encouraged societies to keep them in check, and prevent them from becoming fixed."

But the point is then still that hunter-gatherers managed to keep hierarchy in check, even if not constantly. Organized society just never succeeds at this, as right-wingers tirelessly remind us with endless examples of communes sinking back into hierarchy.

You're right but you're also assuming places like the USSR and China were ever Socialist.

sauce for animu?