Why not anarchism?

Kill yourself. You are not even a communist.

Because I'm not pomo and thus recognize that truths have authority over non-truths.

...

...

Too much moralism, not enough materialism. You're not bad people but I find Marxist theory a lot more impressive.

Nice reactionary trash. As expected from a nazibol.

It's okay but organizing an anarchist society is a shitshow, a lot of the time there ends up being some form of authority

yes, as opposed to the more liberating alternative

But I already support anarchism. I think without anarchism at the popular level any kind of community project is doomed

Nigga im not a tankie either

dude, anarchists in catalonia used to have gulags. This is not "you are either anarchist or tankie" LARP contest

gulags weren't the only problem with the ussr, wtf do you mean?

"thread already tankies vs anarchists"
Just fuck off, read a book instead of arguing about muh ideology you teenagers

both marxists and anarchists had quite oppressive governments in the past, I don't quite follow your goalpost moving.

Fuck off and read a book you teenagers

left unity is a meme

And it is ok. In my opinion an anarchist shouldn't be a purist. Rejecting authoritarianism is a way to protect the revolution from getting hijacked by a new ruling class. You can have a some influential people in the revolution, they can have their followers, but by having the population identify with the principles of anarchism they will rise when necessary and they won't sacrifice as much as they would if they accepted a central government. Just look at the may days of catalonia, how even without the heads of the poum and cnt telling their workers to take the streets, they did, because they saw what the government was doing, striping the workers of the means of production, and they knew that even if they won the war, if they continued to make concessions to the government they would eventually be back to the bourgeois democracy they had before.

I didn't like their take on hierarchy and the state. A lot of the discussions I've seen got caught up in semantics ("Is this hierarchy?" "Is this authoritarian?") and stalled at even basic questions ("Well what if I don't want your society?"), and generally I found the answers to these to be a bit of a cop-out ("Only unjustified hierarchy is bad" t. Chomsky). All the historical examples of Anarchist revolutions also seemed to consistently fail the Anarchist litmus test (what with them being just as violent and authoritarian as the commies, that is if they weren't completely insignificant). I much preferred the Marxist analysis and their more pragmatic take on the state

when debating anarkiddies: you are a tankie if you are not one of them

Also a lot of anarchists these days seem to borrow a lot from Marx anyway, so why not go straight to the source?

Examples pls.

Read Lenin you faggot.

"The weeds must be torn out by their roots. There cannot be and must not be pity for the enemies of the people, but . . . their rehabilitation through work and that is precisely what the new ministerial order creating "work camps" seeks. In Spain great irrigation canals, roads, and public works must be built immediately. The trains must be electrified, and all these things should be accomplished by those who conceive of work as a derisive activity or a crime, by those who have never worked. . . . The prisons and penitentiaries will be replaced by beehives of labor, and offenders against the people will have the chance to dignify themselves with tools in hand, and they will see that a pick and a shovel will be much more valuable in the future society than the placid, parasitic life of idleness that had no other aim than to perpetuate the irritating inequality of classes."

publishing.cdlib.org/ucpressebooks/view?docId=ft5h4nb34h&chunk.id=ch4

...

Having gulags to put the enemies of the revolution in is an effective measure. Hardly indicative of the level of repression of a society, but simply indicative of the existence of a revolution.
The anarchists will only be as oppressive as the bolsheviks when they create a system with censorship for opinions not aligned with the state line, arrest people for speaking out against the state line, have the councils be dominated by state officials, and so on.
Please provide sources about how the anarchists did worse things than having gulags.

What like kill civilians for being counter revolutionary? nigga r u serious?

Holy kek hahaha.

You missed the part where I said "sources".

...

Have you just like never read a history book on the Spanish Civil war but just read Orwell and called it good?

One must distinguish murders commited by individual members, from murders that were aproved by the CNT itself.
In either case, the problem lies in a lack of organisation. This has to be addressed by the modern anarchists, to prevent such events from hapening again.

not seeing the problem here

>ah but you see, fellow comrade anarch, these were not just free men we jailed and executed, they were british spies oppressors seeking to restore hierarchy!

Argument not found.

This is why we need more organisation. We need mechanisms to control people just arbitrarily doing shit like this. We need to guarantee freedom of speech, freedom of association, and the ability to recieve a fair trial.

So in other words: you need a state

Not really. A high degree of organisation does not equal a state, in the anarchist point of view. In order for it to be a state, it needs to have positions of power where the orders of the person in charge cannot be questioned, and the person in charge cannot be recalled by the people that this person holds power over.

So either these people let themselves get executioned or you never doubted that they were all justly annihilated as opposers of hierarchy.

You are inventing positions for me. I am too ultra-leftist to support any organisation unquestioningly, no matter their ideology. I was not saying that the CNT was this way, but that in the future, the "anarchist state" has to be this way.

Which is shit and leads to stupid arguments over semantics. According to the Marxist definition, it's a state

Go ahead and tell us what a "state" is.

Hell, even according to your anarchist definition that's still a state. How the fuck are you gonna control vigilante militias without state force? Have the other militias lock them up?

Whether you question them or not seems irrelevant (though it is always good to question). My point is that you will at some point have to make the choice to actually centralize power if you want to have more thana post-leftist dumpster diving squad (i.e. an actual revolution). This revolution cannot but take the form of a State. Call it the anarchist revolution if you want, because sure that is the goal, but the means must remain the same unless you believe opposing force and imposing currenct real structures will just drop over and die by themselves. The CNT immediately realized this, and the situation itself necessitated tankery, nothing else. Precious anarchistic principles here are worthless.

Yes, but only the marxists use the marxist definition. I have seen it often be used to express "hey, you anarchists also support a state, according to our definition, so why not support our dictatorial state?". It's a dumb argument that was caused, precisely, because the meaning of the word "state" for the marxists is too broad. The anarchists go about it by systematicaly verifying "can this person screw me over by using the power he is given?", because that is what matters to us. We want a society where power is used justly, and not to achieve the selfish gains of one over the others.

Yes. The militias need to be controled by the worker assemblies. Any that goes against the directives given by the worker assemblies needs to be stopped by those who follow it.
With your state, you would send a militia loyal to the state to arrest the militia that is disloyal to the state. This is the same thing, but the "state" is the union of assemblies.

no

So the situation required the implementation of a method that is known to not lead to communism, but lead to a state-capitalist dictatorship?

Also
Nigga please. You're smarter than this.

...

What method has succeeded then? No, even better, tell me what method hasn't been this supposed formula that always fails? Can you name a single event worth calling a revolution that not only succeeded (won't find one; there is but capitalism/hierarchy in the world), but existed at all? The question must cease to be "do we need to impose a particular form of hierarchy to obtain heirarchy" and must become "how do we best and most swiftly impose this necessitated hierarchy"? The point is otherwise unavoidable, and for the record, while no revolution until now has successfully broken with capital/hierarchy, it would seem that the Leninists in '17 managed to at least secure 4 years of legitimate proletarian dictatorship with workers in charge before things went to shit again. The same fails to be said about the anarchists, as we all know, of course knowing that they did the same but not exactly the same (made and used a state while not calling it one): libcom.org/library/anarchism-spanish-revolution.

I was teasing you. Of course anarchists are mentally beyond this bullshit. Revolution is violent. I'm not taking you for a Bookchinite.

I mean, even if the claims are true that anarchists formed their own hierarchical structures of discipline and governance, structures that might ended up resembling a nation state if scaled up, what they did create did seem to work well, and the people within the movement seemed to agree on how to work it until the bolsheviks rolled in and betrayed them all.

The takeaway is that we should all become revolutionary anarchists, since they were capable of running shit with the support of the working people, instead of becoming Leninists and a priori betraying the revolution in favor of "pragmatic" accommodation to capitalist foreign powers while you wait for a global revolution which will never happen.

You missed the part where I said "I have seen it often be used [like that]". It was not an accusation towards you.

Well it doesn't fucking look like it. Anarchists seem to be the only ones who give a shit about it.

As long as this "state" is trully controled by the proletariat and cannot be taken advantage of by a rulling class to build its own power, then I am perfectly alright with it. Whether it is called a state or not is irrelevant to me.

None. They all need to be changed.

If you need hierarchy, then you will never have communism. It will always be taken advantage of to produce a new rulling class.

This is because they had the level of organisation necessary to uphold that. However, they did then make themselves into the new rulling class, thus proving my point. Also, if they were even able to abolish workers' rule, one must question whether it truly existed at all, or was just a state that took suggestions from the workers, rather than be controlled by them.

So hierarchy is okay so long as it works? Gee, where have I heard that before?

And how can revolutionary hierarchy ever be avoided, exactly? Can you even give me the faintest of clues as to what your secret discovery implies or will imply? Do you even have a small lead anywhere?

Tell me how hierarchy is ever not the reality of revolution or fuck off and stop repeating yourself.

Really; that's all there is to it? A Lord of the Flies-tier analogy? This only reaffirms the need for a Leviathan in your mouth, except one with particular anarchistic characterstics. Also one that isn't a state just because it doesn't call itself one.

Listen nigger, we want to go beyond the State. How can we go beyond the State if we fail to interact with it and, indeed, unavoidably need to engage with and use it? I'll remind you that post-left dumpster diving isn't revolutionary and doesn't even help the cause in a minute way at all.

this

So we will never have communism. Until class is abolished, there will always be a class that seeks to dominate the other. In the bourgeois state, the bourgeoisie over the proletariat, and in the revolutionary state the proletariat over the bourgeoisie. This state will persist until capital, and with it class, is abolished

This is a poorly defined concept, and thus the answer depends on what you mean. If you mean "the workers organising to repress the bourgeoisie, fight the war against the reaction, and build the communist society", then this is not to be prevented. If you mean "how do you stop a dictatorial state taking over the revolution", then the answer is clearly: don't form a state that includes the necessary conditions for that to happen.

The workers organise into assemblies which decide the policies of the new socialist society. These societies may elect representatives, but these should be recallable, have very limited autonomy in their use of power, and have to necessarily follow the directives of the assemblies. The workers organise into military units which make sure that the directives of the assemblies are being followed, and organise into an army to fight against the reaction.

I guarantee to you that you will never have socialism if you have a state that allows for the formation of a new rulling class, regardless of other material conditions.

I don't know how you got that impression.

Flawless logic. One cannot win against this.

Yeah, but would you not say that the state in the Soviet Union lead to the formation of a new rulling class, instead of the classless society? Should we not be trying to prevent this from happening again?

No, I would say it failed to abolish capital. The capital was simply consolidated into the state rather than personified in the bourgeoisie. The bureaucrats of the state were wealthier than the common worker, but that was merely due to their role as functionaries of state capital, not because of property relations. The "ruling class" was not the leaders of the state, it was the state.
Obviously

So the beaurocrats who controlled the economy were not a separate class from the workers?

You are saying that being able to control the economy is not a property relation? Should this control not be exerted by the workers themselves?

This is an empty statement. The state is ruled by its leaders.

...

We've just established that this is the incircumventable reality of action taken to bridge class society towards classless society. Was the red on your flag once red or something?

You're thick in the head.
"The revolution". Fucking define this revolution in a way that doesn't defacto imply hierarchy and state use. You're a pussy ass nigga dodging the ball here.

And where are the reactionaries and bourgeoisie in all of this? Did you use a magical spell to skip the part where revolution occurs, with all its necessitities?

Cool, we now have an intricately organized web of workers' organization. Where did that come from? Are you trying to wish things into existence again; dodge the important need for revolutionary violence, and the fact that your little assemblies fail to be existent before that? Or did the bourgeoisie let you stock up and plan all that shit unopposed? Did you dress up in Halloween costumes and trick them that way, insisting that your guns are just NERFs?

And I guarantee you that you're a little faggot who's consciously avoiding the pressing principles reality confers upon us.

If anarchist theory was correct and all anarchists up until now weren't just counter-revolutionary fags, why did they fail to abolish even a single section of the State anywhere in their activity, and why did their activity instead do anything but aggrandize or even establish more State? Will you here again have nothing more to say than "well, my new magical system which will bypass all these needs will be the real anarchism!"?

weak

Right…

So you want a state that includes the necessary conditions for a new rulling class to form?

Hierarchy is defined as an unjust use of power. It is hardly unjust to use power to stop hierarchy from happening. In this way, it is just to use power to destroy capitalism and repress the bourgeoisie and counter-revolution. However, it is not just to use this power to make yourself the new rulling class.

You are using precisely the thing I complained about before: "your form of organisation is a state in our definition, so you should support our dictatorial state".

Like how you skip the part where I talk about the workers organising into an army to fight against the reaction?

Proto-assemblies may exist before the revolution if the workers are organised in the anarcho-syndicalist mode.

So I guess your state also can never get weapons, because they also are only able to get it after being established during the revolution, and the bourgeoisie would not allow them to stockpile before.
Is having a state like a revolutionary cheat code that spawns you weapons?

If they do not exist, then there either will not be a socialist revolution, or they must be created. Kind of like how your state needs to be created during the revolutionary process.

In the same way are you are denying that having a state that makes it possible to form a new rulling class does not make it so that a new rulling class forms, even though this happened every time?

Point out the part where I said that.

I did explain it. It is not my fault that you refuse to listen and insist on using self-refuting or extremely weak arguments against it.

Because they weren't organised enough and even allowed the state to continue existing during the spanish civil war instead of abolishing it and establishing workers power.
I understand that, to you, "workers power" may mean "party power", but I mean a system where the workers have actual power over the direction of society, through their assemblies, instead of having to pray that they don't get screwed over by the state once again.

Top tier solipsism, with not a grain of self-awareness or ability to notice the gaping holes in his ontology or even address the critique let alone reality.

Why did I even try with a narcho.

The one where anarchists aparently reject a state in the marxist definition (even though they don't), but then also use a state according to the marxist definition, but this is somehow bad because it doesn't have the capacity to form a new ruling class, and that aparently means that it doesn't do repression of the bourgeoisie or war against the reaction, even though it does?

I would suggest the lack of self-awareness does not come from me, but from the person who was arguing the incoherent logical mess I pointed out above.

Literally by any definition it had a State, including from the self-admitted anarchists at work.

Looks like I'm done here.

Did you see me claim that?

you know why? because they captured a place of interest. A place where a bunch of powers are interested in. Franco representing Spain back in the day, so that State. Adolf Hitler - Nazi Germany.

Hell even if it endured post WW2 some of the allies side would have claimed it through might. Probably Churchill or Stalin.

What makes anarchists weak is not exactly military organization since the way they got Barcelona was with superior organization & numbers might, what typically makes them weaker it's that most of the time they're not as well equipped as armies that belong to a State. Sadly I have never seen Anarchists with Tanks, Planes or Helicopters but they're a possibility ofc as long as the pilots are willing to help that way, voluntarily, because the ends satisfy them.
Pretty sure anarchist Barcelona had it's bunch of ex-military individuals with great combat training but it's difficult since these people typically they're trained under a state. But that doesn't means they can't share their knowledge with average proles, everyone starts un-skilled, weaker. Imho it's ideal that Anarchist movements, unions, comunes, etc have ex-military individuals so they can all get strong just in case shit hits the fan.

Btw is possible to make Anarchist unions atm, right the fuck now but it has to be in secrecy. Remember whats yours is what you can protect… or hide well enough.

The anarchist can win against the state it's just that it is extremely hard, but it has been pulled off in the past. It needs to be overwhelmingly popular (it needs to de-spook individuals en masse) thats why it's much wiser to be furtive for the anarchist, way safer. There are still various great, beautiful, well hidden places in this planet where goverment doesn't reach or has trouble even knowing about since the planet is damn huge.

bc We learned fro the Spanish civil war that the greatest threat to a leftist is another leftist. One of them is bound to gain a power base in the state and kill of those who don't create a new state or use the previous state

nobody is bound to anything if he doesn't wants to. what you're saying is some spooky bullshit. as if it were destiny.