Question to anarchists

if hypotetically anarchy its achieved in the western world, how would you guys deal with countries like china or russia where the dominant class is absolutely less tolerant and more authoritarian than western europe. those countries will certainely not gonna coexist pacifically with a whole continent free from tirany. it will influence their lower people ideollogically and eventually they will start a civil war or something. besides a bunch of anarchist communes would be far more military inferior than any statist militar force (spanish civil war for example, even though communists and republicans helped the left side). and even if you tried to influence the goverment from the inside in those countries starting riots and stuff they will just have to send the police or the army and thats it. i mean, they dont give a shit about human rights or constitutions if the shit hits the fan.
tl; dr: anarchy is not universally achivable with semi authoritarians countries from outside the first world

Other urls found in this thread:

please stop

That's why anarchists want a global revolution, which is also why they're are utopian by nature. Non-authoritarian government is best.

can you please prove me wrong in my central point?


What the fuck are you even trying to make a central point of? That anarchism can't resist outside influence?

I will but I have to work right now, check in about 4 hours

anarchism cant resist military intervention from armed forces wich have more discipline, more technology, more infraestructure and more practical functioning because of vertical hierarchy and ranks.

"Anarchy" is literally utopian nonsense, civ collapsing entirely is only way we'd be able to even get close to that ideal. The best anarkiddies can hope for in the next hundred years is short-lived revolution or localized insurrection that doesn't actually amount to anything

forgot to remove shitposting flag

Anarchism isn't necessarily libertarian.


Also that isn't even a coherent point. You make the assertion that anarchism is going to be a certain set of qualities predefined to lose with almost no justification as to why, beyond the fact that historical anarchists have typically had very little to work with from the start.

Socialists of all branches have always recognized that only a global revolution is possible, solitary revolutions are destined to be crushed by reaction. Think something like the wave of revolutions in 1848 but successful.

Also you might like the attached article.

I'm sorry, how do you plan on continuing to operate the means of production in the face of Peak Oil, mineral shortages, ecological collapse and mass extinction? Capital is the problem, not capitalism.


Why do you use an anarchist flag?

I agree with anarchists more than I do Marxists, I guess. I'm somewhere between communization theory and FULL PRIMITIVISM ATM, tho

There's nothing actually in anarchism that says you need to give up anything like broad organizations. It's just that most anarchists talk like this because they have become afraid of authority. They know they are opposed to the unjustified authority of the other and so they neglect the authority of the self which is the very basis of anarchism. But by all means we can choose to enact our authority of ourselves as much as we desire. Like I said, anarchism isn't necessarily libertarian.

Thats why anarchists defend the "global revolution" idea
Which is fucking insane, of course, an espontaneous, global-wide revolution is just nonsense

It's not supposed to happen all at once, but instead spread like wildfire. Revolutionary waves happened before, so I don't really see how it is nonsense.


source on image?

Learn to use Autism Leveldb:

anarchism is an attitude, a philosophy, a way of thinking, the power of anarchism is its flexibility, the reason why both the ukraine and spain failed was because it tried to transform anarchism into something it isn't. by trying ti implement anarchism as a hierarchical order that had to be followed, it transformed into totalitarianism.

the best way to imagine anarchism is to not to think about what it represents, but about what it doesn't; anarchism is againts private property, againts hierarchies, againts fixed, sacred ideas

wrong, anarchism cannot fight against such enemy because anarchism must fight within said enemy, anarchism should destroy a military intervention from within, not from the outside


So think of sg that never happened?


Just like communism amrite? 😂😂😂

Catalonia was a Minarchy. Socialist Minarchy.
Lots of it's members where Anarchs, only Anarchs can achieve socialism / communism.

They did what the Soviet Union couldn't in 69 years. Makhno too, etc. Nobody has realized Socialism except anarchs in all the worlds history. It's obvious why.
Usually anarchists are the only one who understand the definition of Socialism and Communism while MLs, Tankies, Nazbols, etc. Have a sacred definition of Marxism, fucking the whole Marxism up in the end actually. Making it a taboo word even. To that extent.

While Anarchs are always seen as heroes, always. The revolutionary anarch is always the underdog that takes up power to stand his/her way, his/her own way not to subjugate. Almost everyone backs that idea up except reactionaries. Everyone loves seeing a weakling getting strong enough to break up his/her chains to then walk his/her way.

Anarkiddies are seen as "heroes" by the bourgeoisie media because they have always collapsed and are very easy to take out via military intervention.

just do everyone a favour and kys

what every anarkiddie says before being thrown into a grave by imperialists or fascists


Pretty rich coming from the de facto anarcho-liberal flag.

as supposed to what? name one "communist" insurrection that was not destroyed by imperialists or fascists

on the contrary, communist insurrection have neither achieved emancipation nor a duration worthy of note

no, thats the ancom flag tho

No. Thats not the reason. Don't go full ideolouge / spooks like the retarded MLs/Tankies.

It's because they faced a stronger force. Franco was weak but they never expected the Nazis to give them Tanks. Impossible to win against that.

But that deosn't matters, anyone in that region was going to lose, Nazis sized the control they wanted they were strong back then (not now). What matter is that the Catalan anarchists are still to this day seen as heroes, individuals who stood their ground, they're popular, Orwell & many praised their courage, their resolve.

While Nazis, Soviets are booed, marked forever as fucked up authoritarians because they are. These things will NEVER get popular again. Personalities trying to resurrect those dead af ideals up will show up here and there but they will always fail, in fact all they do is unite the world against them.

Anarchy & Minarchy (anything thats about more liberation) will always have a chance, will always be popular. This is the best time line. Eventually the world will be post-political when everyone is free from the chains of a despot but this is the direction it's taking.

you can't disprove me thats why you bitch lmao. look homie be tankie all you want you won't get popular support.

the only thing thats big in leftism right now is Antifa & it's Anarch. Heavily inspired in Catalonia (& those opposed to the Nazi regime in the Weimar Republic). It's a snowball from here.

Antifa is strategic class collaboration. It's not revolutionary.


There's nothing to be disproved. Anarchists criticize everything because having never achieved anything themselves they are free of all responsibility.

sadly that isn't true

keep speging tho

I have yet to see bourgeois media call anarchists heroes.

By this logic no communist should criticize capitalism because they managed to abolish feudalism while there has been no successful communist revolution.

straight up savage

Also one can't "destroy" Anarchy. Ever. since it's the nature of the universe. It doesn't gives a fuck.
It's pointless to fight it with political ideology. Just embrace it and do what makes you happy.

If you ever subjugate and some stronger anarch ever comes and kills you well don't say you didn't deserved it, your spooks are temporal after all, anarchy is always at play anywhere. Don't put chained collars on wolves without expecting to get a bite someday.
Anarchy is global but it doesn't has to "happen" globally. It depends on the individual, Anarchy is something that must be realized, we're always in it everything else is imaginary.


you're personally weak yourself because this is what worries you, stupid ideology, the imaginary like a loser

The closest I've seen to that is V for Vendetta and Mr Robot, but that's it. Most of the time anarchist are portrayed violent idiots who just want chaos and the removal of all order tbh.

Meant for

Holy shit post-left anarchists are so fucking awful.

pffft. nothing personel kiddo

do whatever you want because you can. even bitching is allowed user.

It was even Marx himself who called for ruthless criticism of all that exists, that this would somehow not apply to states that vanished over two decades ago is preposterous. I guess MLs really don't read Marx.

Well V for Vendetta was written by an Anarchist, but the movie was changed to being about nationalist burger conservatism and liberalism instead of fascism and anarchism. Mr. Robot is weird and I haven't watched it, but I'm under the impression the writer didn't intend for the main character to be seen as heroic but rather a zealot based on some interview I half remember.


also just to make one thing clear as well. Marx & Engels didn't invent socialism or communism.
I like their work, I'm on Das Kapital vol. 3 but that won't stop me being an Anarch. Fuck ideology, it has only held my own personality back, never again.




Power is also a solid and tangible fact to be reckoned with militarily, notably in the ubiquitous truth that the power of the state or the people eventually reposes in force. Whether the state has power ultimately depends upon whether it exercises a monopoly of violence. By the same token, whether the people have power ultimately depend upon whether they are armed and create their own grassroots militia, to guard not only themselves from criminals or invaders but their own power and freedom from the ever-encroaching power of the state itself. Here, too, the Athenian, British, and American yeomen knew only too well that a professional military was a threat to liberty and the state was a vehicle for disarming the people.''

A true civicism that tries to create a genuine politics, an empowered citizenry, and a municipalized economy would be a vulnerable project indeed if it failed to replace the police and the professional army with a popular militia–more specifically, a civic guard, composed of rotating patrols for police purposes and well-trained citizen military contingents for dealing with external dangers to freedom. Greek democracy would never have survived the repeated assaults of the Greek aristocracy without its militia of citizen hoplites, those foot soldiers who could answer the call to arms with their own weapons and elected commanders. The tragic history of the state's ascendancy over free municipalities, even the rise of oligarchy within free cities of the past, is the story of armed professionals who commandeered power from unarmed peoples or disarmed them presumably (as so many liberals would have it today) from the "hazards" of domestic and neighborhood "shootouts." Typically, this is the cowboy or "gunslinger" image of the "American Dream," often cynically imposed on its more traditional yeoman face. - Bookchin

this but unironically

le fedora meme


oh and btw the character of Jesus Christ was an anarcho-pacifist. Like Leo Tolstoy. But you dont read.

It has never occurred to you that someone using their power to subjugate is the most un-christian thing one can do. lol

I can.

Alan Moore is most definitely NOT an anarchist
He calls himself one.

I like Alan Moore now. Woke af

They'd get invaded.

or it can be furtive. There are anarcho-commues inside a lot of countries, you don't have to know.

This is a pretty based picture, do you know what the OG pic was?

But they would be ripe for the picking if they can't defend themselves.

Kevin Carson tried to answer this question in the third chapter of Desktop Regulatory State. His analysis is insufficient, but its a couple thousand words on a topic that could compose entire tomes.

Anyway my short answer is that highly decentralized organizations are more effective at processing information, more resilient to damage and more capable of utilizing innovation (the innovation cycles of the US military is like 10 years, whereas the innovation cycle of a group like Al-Qaeda back in the day was a month or so).

Also helping the decentralized side is the fact that area denial weapons are becoming much cheaper. You can see this in the US's analysis of Iran - after seeing Iraq get pwn'd it has adopted asymmetric warfare that allow it to strike US warships and airbases from afar making it difficult for the US to attack

And thats not taking the long term approach in which superadvanced technology gives smaller and smaller groups a 'nuclear veto' over hierarchical power structures through being able to easily disrupt them.