Why do anarchists and other similar socialist groups seem to be so disorganized and unable to defend themselves from...

Because "tankie" revolutions had financial, and sometimes military, backing of the USSR and anarchists do not. the closest thing anarchists have to this is the US backing over a dozen US military bases in Syria.

You have to take control of the state for the workers. The DOTP is necessary to do this, it will not be done with anarchist communes and hope. The type of culture it would take for this activity is absolutely obscene. You don't have to be a Tan.kie to have a state lmao.

Pic related

My child.

Have you read the platform by Nestor Makhno

But even then, Anarchism is plagued by useless lifestylists types that think any type of organization or structure is Fascism.

Like for example a bunch of "anarcho-insurrectionary" babies have gotten into spats with anarchist labor unions in Greece cus they directly democratic, horizontal unions are "authoritarian". I'm not making this shit up.

Either that or instead of trying to revive a lost political cause, abandon Anarchism in favor of the thoroughly coherent Communalism, and the massive revolutionary potential it has with Popular Assemblies and Libertarian Municipalism.

''

Pure anarchism seeks above all the emancipation of individual personality from all ethical, political, and social constraints. In so doing, it fails to address the concrete issue of power that confronts all revolutionaries in a period of social upheaval. Rather than address how the people, organized into confederated popular assemblies, might capture power and create a fully developed libertarian society, anarchists have traditionally conceived of power as a malignant evil that must be destroyed. Proudhon, for example, once stated that he would divide and subdivide power until, in effect, it ceased to exist. Proudhon may well have intended that government should be reduced to a minimal entity, but his statement perpetuates the illusion that power can actually cease to exist.''

Spain revealed the inability of this anti-intellectual, anti-theoretical, and ego-oriented ideology (however sincere and radical its adherents) to cope with the compelling issues of power and social reconstitution. Having staged no less than three insurrections in 1933, the Spanish anarchists and their syndicalist allies seem never to have asked themselves what they would do if they actually succeeded in overthrowing the republic. As a matter of self-defining dogma, anarchism eschews the creation of institutional power. But in Spain anarchists could not tolerate even an entity that had sprung from its own loins: the revolutionary workers’ committees. To stand at the head of these committees and simply take control over Catalonia and other areas would have violated a self-defining principle, but one that assured anarchism’s ineffectuality in a revolutionary period. - Bookchin
new-compass.net/articles/anarchism-power-and-government

Because imperialism isn't something you can defend against as a small territory. If there were to be a ML revolution somewhere today, it would not survive without a wealthy backer giving it not-imperialist aid to stand against subversion or invasion. The state doesn't function as a mystical entity that grants protection against imperialism or competence in warfare, it functions as a firm.

So cumming IS good praxis!

Anarchist CAN organize, provided they use a state and call it not-state like they always do.

If your communist/anarchist revolution finds itself in a stage where it needs to "defend itself", then it was nothing but a mere revolt and it will inevitably get destroyed or morph into something pretty awful and far from what you've originally intended.

This is why we need international revolution. It can't just be a little spark here and there in over a dozen US military bases in Syria or Chiapas or Catalonia or whatever.

Cuba seems to be getting along just fine.

DFNS was having a lot of trouble defending itself at all before the USA started helping them out weren't they?

How do you plan on achieving such a thing?

They initially had backing from the USSR and are now instituting free trade districts to attract foreign investment.

Cuba courted the US, was rebuffed, and then got backed by the USSR iirc. Revolutions don't happen without patronage.

Because guerilla warfare, sabotage and terrorism are useless when you actually seize power and try to defend yourself instead of attacking.

You don't "plan it" in a conventional sense. Revolution happens when the conditions are such miserable for the working class that it kickstarts a revolutionary wave across the world. You don't get to pick the moment when it happens

DFNS is not anarchist. Communalism is not anarchist. Ocalan outright says that anarchism is a capitalist tendency, but no one bothers to actually read anything about demcon.

Maybe try actually studying it instead of just basic your decision on your sentimentality?

Your resistance only makes my cannon bigger.

If he says dumb shit like that I can't blame them.

Regardless. Communalism is not Anarchism.

That's why Bookchin created it to be a new political tendency in the first place.

Dude, dumpster diving. Punk music. lmao

Communalism is just ancom-lite with democracy fetishism.

I don't see how post-left faggotry is capitalism, shit as though it may be.

Democracy can not be a principle of communism. Centralism undoubtedly is.

How does this even make sense? An-com was always majoritarian democracy-oriented. The only difference between Communalism and an-com is that Communalism utilises social contract theory and law.

It wasn't, read Malatesta. marxists.org/archive/malatesta/1926/05/neither.htm

Or maybe I'm facing it off the fact all the anarchist groups I've come across are extremely disorganized and don't actually do anything.

That's the entire left outside of the third world, and it only exists there until they get crushed by capitlist states.

He's talking about government, not majoritarian decision making. Workers unions can make decisions without government based on majoritarian vote.

He outright says that majoritarian decision making is shit, though less shit than dictatorship.

The Red Army was able to win their revolution and they were up against pretty much the entire planet.

Which the Red Army did while WW1 was going on and during the aftermath of WW1. By the time they could have mounted an offense against the USSR, the Bolshevik's had already cemented power and the great depression hit a few years after. This is to say nothing of how modern ML parties just participate in elections.

War is the most authoritarian thing that exists, and authority entails hierarchy. Anarchists and softer socialists are at a natural disadvantage. They didn't need to be, so long as they recognized hierarchy in military matters need not, and ought not, transfer to hierarchy in civil society. They try to extend egalitarianism and anti-authoritarianism to every single facet of life, and it just doesn't work.

Fun fact: as what was left of the national army disintegrated after Red October, the Red Army was born mostly out Red Guards. It was a volunteer force whose soldiers theoretically were all dedicated revolutionaries, had no ranks, elected their officers and all that democratic jazz. It fared well against internal rebels because those were even worse off than the Guards, but was utterly steamrolled by the Germans, being severely undermanned and completely lacking in discipline and morale. Lenin was hesitant to change this arrangement, because he was against the draft for obvious reasons and against a standing army because he saw that it was always an invitation for oppression within its borders and imperialism outside them. Regardless, even after Brest-Litovsky was signed, it was clear the Red Army wasn't up to the task of defending country nor government, and even before the sgining Trotsky had been vigorously pushing for reforming the Red Army into a conventional armed force, meaning, among other things, return of ranks, end of elections, and inevitably, drafting. Lenin and the leadership saw no alternative but to acquiesce, and the more libertarian-minded first leaders of the Red Army resigned in protest, leaving Trotsky to officially take its reins.

Moral of the history: everyone has to compromise, even someone as uncompromising as Lenin. Anarchists and softer socialists don't compromise even to temporary, necessary battlefield authority, and they pay the price.

lol

Ironically, now that they have a semi-anarchist experiment to masturbate over, they defend the use of the state in order to guarantee its survival.

But not any state, the american state.

reddit.com/r/socialism/comments/6uaxfh/ypgypjsdf_enables_installation_of_us_military/
reddit.com/r/rojava/comments/447sja/us_air_base_in_rojava_problematic_at_best/
reddit.com/r/Anarchism/comments/6htnqn/us_and_ypg_sign_agreement_for_military_support/

The mental gymnastics they use in order to square that circle is amazing

DFNS actually was doing fine before being overly reliant on US help. Of course, this was against militia-tier ISIS blokes and rebel mobs.

There's only ever been two widescale Anarchist experiments and both would've inevitably failed. Using a state doesn't suddenly mean you now have 10x the men and resources.

Stop repeating the liberal idea that war and revolution is somehow inherently authoritarian; it's not authoritarian to fight for your own freedom and liberation. Also:
Have you considered that the SU is a good example for why you don't compromise your ideals?

DFNS is and was never anarchistic. They have always been libertarian socialists who, while not crazy about the state, were always willing to create one and use it.

It's not a liberal opinion comr8, it's a statement of fact. Revolution, war, all forms of violence in general and the State itself are all necessary evils and nothing more. There's no glory in any of them. You're confusing the method for the goal here; liberation is the goal, and it's an inherently good thing, altho the method used might or might not be authoritarian, and revolution, being war, is inherently authoritarian, but must be carried out nonetheless because the goal is more than worth it. Paraphrasing various old socialists and anarchists: "war is abominable and revolution is a form of war, but out of all forms, it's the only just war, because it's the war of the oppressed against the oppressor". The liberl position would be to forsake revolution for the sake of reform.

I'm getting mixed signals here. First you say fighting for one's liberation isn't authoritarian, then you condemn the Soviet attempt? I mean, I know they fucked up a lot, but it doesn't mean they got everything wrong. Establishing a conventional army was an unfortunate necessity in their fight for liberation, and most likely that will remain the norm in future waves of global leftist uprising if they ever happen.

…but by doing that wouldn't you then incorrectly gloss over the fact that liberals have and do carry out bourgeois revolutions? I think that's a pretty important detail to take into account.
I can insinuate that you were referring to a very specific brand of liberals, but then what you need to do, in the vein of popular education (to not fall in line with US MSM toddler politics), would be to specify precisely what tendency this is. This would be "progressive" liberals. What you'd do here would be to re-instate the progressives -liberal- character; separating it from the -socialist- politics of yourself. Classical/conservative liberals were/are far more blood-thirsty.

They are (except the state), but that does not mean they are authoritarian. Killing your slavemaster is a necessary evil, but it's the most non-authoritarian thing you can do, since you're directly fighting against authority. The state is authoritarian though, because it is ultimately an entity that functions by oppression, through this oppression it can fight other oppressors, but it still remains its own.
I condemn their attempt precisely because they attempted through authoritarian means, and those means never lead them anywhere close to their liberation. The master's house can't be destroyed with the master's tools.
How can you know it was a necessity when their fight failed? And unlike the Anarchist attempts who failed from outside forces, the SU failed from inside ones.

Well groups whose defining feature is anti-authority and hierarchy probably will never get far as a single minded group of people with a small set of leaders making all the decisions. It's why companies like Windows and google can enforce single standards on everyone even if they're objectively shit while linux or bsd have so many options it actually drives people away. People like easy shit. It's easier to give yourself a label and say "fuck everyone else who isn't also this label" then congregate in a mass of differently minded people who wall want to do things differently.

Your question is based on a logical fallacy.
You're assuming that within libertarian socialist theory, said theorists would formulate something so stupid as a central point of attack. This is precicely it's comparative strength in contrast to Marxist state-socialisms. /They/ need to formulate intricate theories for hyper-centralized militarization for defense against imperialism.

By this logic focusing on guerillas is completely reasonable. Groups of associates learning self-defense to later cross paths with other groups capable of self-defense, netting outward horizontally, locally, regionally, forming a wide area of mutual aid. This, conversely, isn't really that visible either, so your comparison comes closer and closer to absurdity once you honestly analyze the differences.

Sorry, did I ruin the ☭TANKIE☭ dog-pile circle-jerk narrative with scatological characteristics ITT?