So what exactly happens after an anarchist revolution?

genius

I am not an anarchist, so I don't know. Still, I think maybe they could try planning and preparing… or something… for a counterrevolutionary invasion next time, because it seems like that keeps happening.

lol this

This post kind of ruined the thread but it also gave the anarkiddies another chance to embarrass themselves in public so I have mixed opinions on it.

The fact that anarchists have no refutation for it ruined the thread, because that is exactly what would happen following an anarchist revolution.

tbh I've intentionally ignored this thread because I don't really care about defending classical anarchist/syndicalist conceptions of after-the-revolution societies - even though there's also a lot of willful ignorance of anarchist theory on the Marxist end, as usual - and because in the end Marxists are just as guilty of having post-revolutionary societies that fail.

This debate is completely pointless basically. We can go tit for tat on the failures of the left all day and get nowhere.

Sure and its because of you failures that socialism has received such a bad name, why anarchist experiments were terminated, why the terms libertarianism, socialism and anarchism have been so twisted and so on. You bitches ruined it for all the other socialists.

Anarchists tend to be much more knowledgeable towards Marxism than Marxists are towards anarchism. At least read some anarchist literature or fuck off you traitors.

[source not included]

Pfff, what kind of "source" could reflect the claim? It's an impression you fool. Almost everything said on this thread was an opinion.

wew lad

This is why Marxism wins, you guys have literally no theory, just feels > reals instead.

Oh. So you are willing to read all the literature, right?

Whatever you say bucko. You're still an autistic e-leftist arguing with memes no matter how little theory I may or may not have ;^)

People who say "anarchists have no theory lulz" not only haven't read any anarchist theory, but it's doubtful they've read any socialist literature aside from glancing at the Communust Manifesto once or twice

Pretty much this. Only people who don't read anything resort to such tired, mere-tier counterarguments against anarchism.

Let's try this again. Counterrevolutions keep killing anarchist movements in the crib. What is the anarchist plan to prepare for the counterrevolution?

Why do you assume anarchists are just going to let the counterrevolution do what it wants? Do you personally play war games coming up with scenarios on the multiple ways reactionaries could attack?

Also relevant: anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/secH2.html#sech21

Because they keep doing it.

Ah yes, I remember when the Black Army and the soldiers in Kekolonia just kind of rolled over and didn't try to defend the revolution whatsoever

Yeah, they lasted a whole three years. So the plan is to keep doing the same thing–decentralized militias composed of volunteers recruited specifically for the conflict? Because that has not worked since the machine gun was invented.

Given the advanced state of today's militaries, any revolution occurring in the first world is likely to devolve into a guerilla shitshow. The best possible outcome in that scenario is that the military will refuse to turn on their own people, otherwise it's going to costly in time, resources, and lives.

I guess to go back more to your original question, I don't have any complex strategy to deal with counterrevolutionaries on hand because I'm not a military strategist. I work 40+ hours a week and I use whatever free time I have to try to inform myself with news and theory. But I do know that a 21st century revolution will have to be based around 21st century conditions, so I would see no point in adopting the strategy employed in Catalonia.

That should not be the case when dealing with the counterrevolutionary invasion. In fact, if that is the case then you are going to get run over anyway. Guerillas only work when they have a line to hide behind.

You are thinking of the initial phase of the revolution–overthrowing the bourgeois state–not the counterrevolutionary invasion that will immediately follow. Once you behead Louis, the Brits and the Prussians and the Spanish will come knocking at your door. That is the phase that I am talking about.

Someone within the anarchist movement needs to be a military strategist, because the lack of a coherent military strategy seems to me to be the primary failing of every anarchist revolution thusfar. Either they are going to need to surrender their principles to establish a centralized, unified hierarchal military command structure with generals dictating strategy, or they will need a completely original military structure that is capable of countering the tremendous advantages that modern militaries possess.

Yeah, that's the bitch of it. I am no believer in the Great Man Theory, but someone is going to have to think up something truly brilliant.

...

Meanwhile, in Russia, it took a whole 4 years

...

Hey, I think you got a little idealism on your ideology.

Wow this board is so fucking shitty.

Well yeah, the statists ruin it.

What the fuck is 'anarchist theory'?

Does it get shit done? History shows us: no.

That's as far as I give a fuck tbh. Anarkids cry about statism, but hell, at least "Marxism" gave us the USSR giving the capitalist world the biggest scare it has EVER had. Despite it being a shithole (what third world country isn't? Fucking first world babbies, I swear) they managed to scare the shit out of the imperialist world just in what they proclaimed they could do if they got socialism to work.

That socialism can't work in the situations we've historically had is clear, but that's no point against Marxists. We've got shit done, anarkids haven't got shit done (except the union movements where they were right there with the Marxists and were fucking badasses of the working class in the 1910s-30s US).

There is plenty of anarchist theory, and it is valuable even if their ideology leaves them hopelessly vulnerable to both liberal subversion and counterrevolution. They are entirely correct about the dangers posed by the state. Unfortunately, while capitalism dominates there is no getting away from it.

You can't be correct if your concept of the state is just plain incoherent, and worse, your theoretical absolute cannot meet the particularity and individuality of history.

(freely admitting you've never read any lol)
capitalists scaring capitalists le ebin

(see above where you freely admit you haven't read a single word of anarchist theory)
lemme just ask why are you namefagging when you bring nothing new to the table that isn't brought up by every stalin-apologetic marxist-leninist in every thread?

I asked you for anarchist theory. I mean, come on. I want at least a conceptually reflexive theory that can get us from A to B. Marxism has this inner element and proven it in practice. Anarchism has "theory" in that it postulates an absolute aim which it cannot fathom coming into being without magical human unanimous agreement.

How do we get from now to anarchism without you fucking crying about being failures because of big bad statists, backstabbers, etc. Come on, son, at least some Marxists swallow their failures and have some measures for at least trying to account for the seemingly inevitable external and internal problems.

Your understanding of history shows you that. Everyone who has actually studied the history of workers' movements would say that yes, it actually does.

I don't care what everyone thinks, I want you to give me theory that gets us from A to B. That's not theory of "if you just left us alone". It's theory of "They aint gonna leave us alone", "The people aint gonna buy our promises forever if we can't deliver in decent time", and "We're gonna fuck up, now what?" theory.

I don't want "If Y then Z" (duh you fugging gommie). I want how we get from NOW to Anarchism in concept. Where is this theory? I'll convert if you can show it.

Goddamnit, namefag, quit derailing the thread with stupid shit.

youtube.com/watch?v=YAGtExCOudo
He mentions sources

I wouldn't be here if stupid shit wasn't already the topic.

I'll give it a listen sometime.

"Manifesto for a democratic society" is a good LibSoc document as to how anarchism can be achieved.
Or read up on the Syndicalism of the CNT/FAI.

theanarchistlibrary.org/library/rudolf-rocker-anarchosyndicalism

fuggin sdadisds :DDD the thread

youtube.com/watch?v=RY1YDPbIQ9Q

I'm not asking for this kind of specific theorizing. I want to know what anarchists are going to do to overcome the problems of

1) invading armies
2) depending on others and getting back stabbed
3) internal sabotage
4) external sabotage
5) the problem of hegemony

etc.

You know, the fucking things they always whine about? It's always the fault of something or someone else. That's not good theory if you keep falling for the same fucking problems. I want to know that somewhere there is an anarchist strain that actually accepts this shit >will happen< and is willing to theorize its overcoming if it does happen.

based

With guns

Confederations have won military conflicts against unitary states many times, such as the greeks over the persians and the Germans over the Romans.
Makhnovists fared really well against the White army. I suggest you look up how they organized.

This is not a problem unique to anarchism. Anyone can be betrayed by anyone. This applies to all political movements.

By punishing saboteurs. What exactly are you refering to?

see above

Which one of them?

That your examples are about two-thousand years old is telling.

They slaughter each other because there are no laws whatsoever

...

Anarchy literally means "without government"

Explain to me what's preventing me from raping you right now without law enforcement, courts, or prisons

Why are you using that flag?

Guns, knives, katanas, my fists, rocks, broken beer bottles, cars, other people who have any of these things who are my friends/concerned about the situation, a 2x4, a barbell, a chair, a brick, a crowbar, a tire iron, pepper spray, spray paint, hair spray, lighter, firecracker, bottle rocket, my feet, my forehead, my teeth, my knees, a thick tree branch, my laptop, my guitar, a heavy book, my record player, the speakers to my record player, frayed electric wire, and so on

anarchy is the most ideal system.
socialism is the most realistic system.

>>>/liberty/

No.

It literally means "without rulers". Thus, a direct democracy is an anarchist institution.

Are you new here? Are you serious?
Also etymologically, is means without leader or authority. Not government.

Holla Forumsyp logic.
There are of course plenty of other examples of decentralized coalitions defeating unitary states that are more recent, these are just famous examples, the ones with the greeks being good because most greek cities were direct democracies.

When I first came to leftypol, there were many more serious threads that were theoretical or historical by nature. Now it looks like it's getting stupid and more immature. Is it because of the new people or because it was always like this.
We need more serious threads to learn comrade.

Christianity truly is a curse upon our society.
It has convinced us, that deep down people are violent savages who will murder and pillage if not ruled by some top-down authority. It has convinced us that the only reason we do not murder and rape is because we're told not to.

The Roman Empire was nothing but bad news.

All power structures give this sentiment off. It's in their own self-interest. It isn't' unique to Christianity.

How long ago was that?

True, it is not unique to Christianity, but it was not to be found in Pagan Europe.

Nietzsche writes about this, about the Master Mentality that differentiates between "good" and "bad" and Slave Morality that differentiates between "good" and "evil". It's all very much inherent to Christianity with the thought of Original Sin and need for forgiveness and submission.

Congrats, I have all those things at my disposal as well and more, and if I overpower you I'll rape you, and nothing will be done about it because "freedom"

Someone please give this guy the PDF's.

Or, you know, the commune might arrest you and put you before a direct democratic trial where they decide what your punishment should be.

That is, unless they like rape.

B-but das government. Das authoritarian maaaaaaaaang

You cant even abide by your own principles. If someone's making rules, then there's a state.

Ugh, anarchism doesn't advocate a society based on social darwinist principles. You must be new to leftist theory. This conversation with people who get their ideas from movies and other media has been had too often. Please just read a classical work or something.

So anarchism isn't anarchism? You're describing anomy.

No. There's organization.
An organization, is not the same as a state. A state is a top-down apparatus that wields hierarchy and exploits surplus-values.

To say that any democratic and law-enforcing assembly is a state is the same as to say that any commodity-producing workplace is a capitalist enterprise.

It's just a flat-out falsehood.

*anomie

It's actually both
dictionary.com/browse/anomy

Read some Lenin and get back to me in the morning. The USSR was a state, and it achieved great advances in socialism and didn't exploit surplus-values other than what was necessary.

You mean that giant capitalist enterprise?
Oh look, I can do the same thing.

See, it's this lack of theory and lack of distinction between an apparatus that is top-down and extracts surplus value and one that doesn't, that ensures that Marxists will never have the tools to ensure that their revolutions don't degenerate into totalitarian nightmares where a wealthy nomenklatura runs things and amass wealth for themselves.

To not make this very distinction is akin to say that capitalism and socialism is one and the same.

OP. Anarchists aren't well known for their theory but they do have some, I guess.

1. Universal revolution
2. Overthrow gubmind.
3. Democratic structure.
4. Gommunism :DDD

Nice, smug and dismissive.
As always.

whilst we're on the subject, I'm wondering how an ancom would respond to this.
I heard an ancap say "democracy is heirarchy by tyranny of majority". Also that constitutions are a form of heirarchy because protection from democracy is heirarchy. Response?

He does have a point. All decisions should be taken by consensus to such a degree as it is pragmatic and all association should be free. If one is free to disassociate from the assembly, then there is nothing hierarchical in having to compromise a little bit with one's own will for later personal benefit.

Hierarchy is defined with entitlement and control, not by organization.

But that's still heirarchy, because you are entitled to protection from the actions of democracy.
If all association is free, then how can you have a centralised structure? You'd need to have things unionised E.G., like Stirner and the anarcho-syndicalists suggest.

Entitlement as in "absentee property rights". To call a set of laws hierarchy is ludicrous, as laws are the result or the will of a structure.

Why wouldn't you be able to have an organization of assemblies where the individuals are free to associate as they please? That's exactly what the syndicalists had.

Or perhaps a better illustration would be to say:

To call a law hierarchy is to call trade capitalism: the latter is dependent upon the former, but the former can exist without the latter.

I don't see how the former can exist without the latter. The laws aren't the will of the structure. The laws that stem from protection from democratic actions are protection from the will of the structure.

Laws are not magical. They have to be enforced by people who are willing to enforce them.
If it is not within the will of the structure to uphold the law, then it is merely words on a paper and not law at all.
You only have to look at our modern surveillance states to know that constitutions are nothing but polite suggestions.

so why call them laws? Why not do as Stirner does and say it's simply the summation of the individual will? Law gives connotations of heirarchy enforcement.

And trade of consumer goods gives the connotation of capitalism. That does not make them one and the same.

>Also relevant: anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/secH2.html#sech21
I've just spent most of my day reading this. Litterally.

Thank you from this insight of anarchist theory.

What I get from it is: you anarchists really are a bunch of idealists.

What did it say?

Whats wrong with being an idealist?

It makes everything that you want to accomplish impossible.

Marxism is too faggot. Idealism comes with being autisticly devoted to 19th and early 20th century theory without a clue how to operate it in the 21st century. But I suppose some cuck will explain how a socialist state will clearly be formed from a successful revolution and manage to fend off the capitalist onslaught while not degenerating into a dictatorship ruled by the party.

No, no reason to back that up.

Clearly the route that has degenerated into totalitarianism every time in hundreds of examples is the way to go.
THIS time the philosopher kings - I mean, vanguard party - will really care about us! That's not idealistic at all :^)

...

Idealism can mean multiple things and it's not really clear which is being used in which post.

...

...

This is like people who don't realize that the Roman Empire was doomed the day it expanded beyond the Italian peninsular and thus claim that it was really just the "degeneracy" of the 4th and 5th century that did it.

The USSR was bound to fail from the very moment the soviets were disbanded and the left-opposition purged.

There won't be leaders if we don't call them leaders m'fam :^)

No Gods. No masters.

...

Same fag.
also:
Wew. In reality we agree on a lot of the same shit even if a large gap separates us theoretically and in historical interpretation. I read your comment about "philosopher kings" and I couldn't help but think you are probably the kind of anarchist that believes the Cultural Revolution was a mob rule and a witch hunt.

Pity, it was the only movement that tried to address your concerns about the abuses of vanguard leadership and the state. You only have to read the comment section of any anarchist website or meet any group of anarchists IRL to realize that while they say they believe in organization the chances that they will be organized enough to bring a revolution to one country, let alone all of them simultaneously, is slim to none.

Samefag again, the tragedy is even if you have good ideas about how to abolish hierarchies, you won't get there because in practice that means leaving pork in charge while you swear off state power or refuse to work with groups who are unsuitably anarchist–leaving porky well-seated in power the whole time.

Anarchy?

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristocracy

See, it's your lack of theory on what exactly a state is that leads you to the conclusion that all organization is the same.
It is not. This is true in the private sphere, the workplace, but it is also true in the public sphere, general society. As long as we have hierarchacal structures extracting surplus value, we'll never achieve socialism.

And no, even if you're right "tu qoque" is not a very good argument, and you should know it's not.

Said the Marxist.
Who likewise belongs to a political philosophy in tatters. For whom factionalism is even worse.

To use the state is to expect that we can use capitalism against capitalism. And anarchist do not have a long history of refusing to work with Marxists, indeed it's the other way around.

It wasn't us who threw out the Marxists from the first internationale

It wasn't us who attacked the Bolscheviks, but they who attacked the Makhnovists

It wasn't us who attacked the Stalinists, but they who attacked the CNT/FAI

So don't fucking act smug and tell me that we're unwilling to cooperate. If anything, its out of hard-earned experience and healthy skepticism towards your sacred circle of philosopher kings.

A lot of things. Despite spending most of my day on it, I barely read a little part of it.

I meant idealism as un-materialism.

Degenerating? The dictatorship ruled by the party is exactly what will manage to fend off the capitalist onslaught, thus making the revolution successfull.

Wow, okay. Now I get. Now you totally don't have to back that up anymore.

"Successful" revolution? Name a single vanguardist revolution that implemented socialism. Just one.
What the fuck is the point of a revolution if we don't get socialism anyways?

Or half a day in Germany

Besides all the not-theory being posted here, how ANYONE can seriously believe socialism is possible anywhere today in any single region is beyond fucking retarded by this point. Not even the US could do well in isolation with it's rare earth metals dependent tech resources locked up in China and Africa.

The only.place.in the world where socialism is actually possible is in the heart of the empire, anywhere else socialism is just generalized poverty.

It's world.revolution or bust. Always was and always will be.

Well this thread turned even shitter while I was gone.

ANYWAY I'm honestly not even against hierarchical armies if that's what it takes to win. I'm not against hierarchies because I think they are evil, nor due to some deeply held principles of mine, but because I think direct democracy combined with communal ownership of goods is the most efficient way to run society.

If that makes me a shitty anarchist, then I can live with that.

World revolution is the goal, but it needs to start somewhere to establish a foothold, and this does not necessarily mean autarky.

Imagine a major world power that put real, honest effort into fighting oppression worldwide. It'd look nothing like America's FREEDUMZ bombings.

>anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/secH2.html#sech21
Just a few examples I was able to remember and find again. Idealism underlies every page on this site.

I don't know what happened. A bunch of user anarchists replying with non sequitors and Holla Forums talking points and self-proclaimed Marxists with no apparant understanding of the concepts that they mention just showed up and started shitting all over everything. I rather suspect that we are being raided or at least subtly trolled.

If "doomed" means "lasted for another sixteen-hundred years, then I will gladly except that fate.

>We should deal with individuals and personalities Nice meme but its false. We have a history of putting line and line struggle over mere individuals and personality. This is a catch-22 for anarchists because if we say we want to promote people who are serious, revolutionary and ideological they accuse of brainwashing the people and trying to institute ourselves as "philosopher kings". If we try to increase representation on the part of workers, women, and other colonized people then they accuse us of ignoring ideological struggle and just trying to increase de jure representation for our evil class dictatorship.

You can do better then this. If I was trying to tell you that the Soviet Union was literally heaven on Earth and the only thing that went wrong was porky opposing us then you would rightly reject that.

But its anarchism so it can literally never fail because of the no true anarchist/anarchism theory.

Deep Green Resistance had a point when they pointed out the Spanish anarchists had six levels of hierarchy in their organization as well as a secret police force. Now I don't blame them entirely for that, but it makes you wonder why they didn't just pick up Leninism instead.

Believe it or not there are contradictions among the masses. And capitalism is a form of collective production where the profits are concentrated in private hands. Most multinational corporations are really a form of collective ownership on the part of the bourgeoisie. Ever since the rise of monopoly capitalism, less and less capital and production has been concentrated in the form of tangible private property and more and more of it is concentrated in the hands of monopoly corporations who trade stakes in their ownership freely amongst the class as a whole.

So really we have a contradiction between two very different means of collective ownership. And coming out of 5,000 years of hierarchal civilization there are going to be tendencies for people to preserve bourgeois pr1vleges and reinstate capitalism for sometime.

Many anarchists seem to think that if you slap worker owned™ on a firm producing commodities for market-exchange then capitalism or tendencies towards capitalism will not exist. Some realize the pr0blematics of markets and advocate "a gift economy" which has already been appropriated by capitalists who can see the PR brilliance of: "if I have market exchange but don't call it that…"

The general rule for anarchists is that if a worker coop is privately-held, hierarchies continue to exist within it, and it participates in market-exchange then it is a model of true socialism. If a state retains nominal ownership or direction over said communes and hierarchies still exist then they automatically have state-capitalism, which is even worse then regular capitalism for reasons unexplained.

Thanks for the Fox News view of the Soviet Union, I am sure it was badly needed on this board. ,

But you are literally describing a state fampai. If this is the form of government you are advocating as a transitional stage to anarchism then I don't think you are really an anarchist.

When classes are abolished there will probably be no need for even this.

Funny that you didn't reply to the point about the Cultural Revolution. I'm sure you have some orientalist and shallow critique of it like most of Holla Forums tho.

It is funny though that the only movements that pose a serious revolutionary threat to global capitalism are still Marxist movements (India, Phillippines, Peru, South Africa) and nationalist movements in the developed world. The same movements anarchists proclaim can never achieve everything.

Socialism is now more popular in burgerland then anarchism and the only anarchist group I know with actual sway among oppressed people is deep green resistance. And Jensen admits he's not an anarchist.

It must be disheartening to see dumb uneducated proles choosing non-anarchist movements over the pure light of anarchist ideals. Ironically, you have to be stuck in a quasi-great man theory of history or a liberal theory about violence and repression to believe that the reason the masses keep choosing the dreaded "philosopher" kings has to do with either their lack of education or the omnipotent evil of the "philosopher kings"

Keep doin' that homework buddy, just study it out.

Communities arm and segregate themselves on the basis of race, political alignment and proceed to kill and fight for resources until a neighbouring nation invades and reinstitutes a monopoly of force.