This is mostly a serious question. Also, not for the tankies/MLs. I already know what your answer to that question is. I may not always agree with you on everything, but you do have an answer that if the conditions became right, could actually work.
No, this is for the type of anarchist completely against the wall, gulags, seemingly any amount of getting hands dirty. What is the solution to those types of people? There are so many of them in the US, a lot of which are heavily armed, that they could easily topple a socialist system, and even if they didn’t do that, their existence would be incompatible with any marginalized group living their lives, since they love to harass them at best, outright murder them at worse. So what’s the solution? Anarchists often seem to avoid this, seemingly believing that if there was a socialist or communist society, they would just say “aw shucks, guess I was wrong about that. Guess I’ll no longer be racist or xenophobic!”
So am I missing something, what’s the answer?
you know, i bet you there are dengist style anarchists out there. saying that we need to develop productive forces until hierarchy can be abolished :deng-smile:
It is pretty flawed to think about a solution to this with current conditions. We are nowhere near a revolutionary stage. If an Anachist revolution were to happen at some point, what would be done about reactionaries? If they wanted to impose their view on the by then majority of the people through force, they would meet violent resistance. That is in no way authoritarian. Shooting people that shoot at you is perfectly fine. But do you really think reactionary views could gain any support in an Anachist society through non violent means? I don’t think a purge where we go around the streets with lists of names would be neccessary. Treat the chuds like the rest: Give them food, shelter and a job if possible, if they still turn violent, use violence. There is no system for them to usurp, no state to coup and it would be hard to persuade anyone about the evil immigrant or big conspiracies in a stateless and borderless society.
If a revolution were to occur, it would be a popular one. If its anachist in nature I would support Anachy, if the MLs are staging one I would support them. Both systems are better than the current one and the fall of the Soviet Union is, as tragic as it was, proof that socialist states can be dismantlt without a further violent uprising. That makes them far less authoritarian than a liberal democracy, even if the state does not wither by itself. But right now we are too far from either possibility for me to pick the most likely candidate to throw my full weight behind, both approaches have some merit in my eyes… Shit, does that make me a centrist?
non-revolutionary anarchists are libs, and anyone who thinks you can have a pacifist revolution is fooling themselves.
am anarchist
So you just kill all the reactionaries in one go? Or does the revolution continue on for many years to come… some kind of… revolutionary organization!
anarchists aren’t against organization; they’re against hierarchical systems.
Putting people in gulags and executing reactionaries sounds pretty hierarchical bruh
gulags sure, but executing reactionaries isn’t that hierarchical.
lmao i mean sure i guess if the person is dead there cant be a hierarchy
:putin-wink:
i’m here to abolish hierarchy
cocks gun
you see, this situation is hierarchical now because of the gun, here’s how we resolve it…
I’m not an an anarchist but I challenge the premise of the question, I think it’s pretty clear there have been plenty of anarchist groups throughout history “willing to get their hands dirty”. Anarchists aren’t hippies lol.
In USA anarchists are rebranded hippies. In Global South anarchists are usually pretty cool.
So now the question becomes, why is it OK for anarchists to use authoritarian methods to deal with reactionaries? Why was it OK for the Catalonian anarchists to execute priests, implement discipline in the factories etc? I don’t disagree with what the Catalonian anarchists did, but it strikes strange that no one sees it as example of authoritarianism. Whenever anarchists were in messy situations, they used violence and subjugation as much as MLs do.
look, clearly what needs to happen is we just all use black flags and everything is good and ok
black flags are bad ass
Ehh, I’m kinda partial to the “our flag is red for the blood of our martyred comrades” thing
red flags are bad ass
Thesis: black flag
Antithesis: red flag
Synthesis: :af-heart:
As it is already been said in this thread self defence is not authoritarian
The anti clerical violence in anarchistic Catalonia for example is not generally considered authoritarian because they were spontaneous acts undertaken on the agency of the perpetrators rather than being systematically carried out by a hierarchical organisation like with comparable ML ‘terrors’
As it is already been said in this thread self defence is not authoritarian.
Glad you agree that the gulaging of kulaks or the extermination of landlords is not authoritarian.
anti clerical violence in anarchistic Catalonia for example is not generally considered authoritarian because they were spontaneous acts undertaken on the agency of the perpetrators rather than being systematically carried out by a hierarchical organisation
So your violence is good because its done in a supposedly spontaneous manner, but violence by MLs is bad because it is more organized? Murdering people without a trial, without following any pre-defined rules(a.k.a no rule of law) is not authoritarian. But executing people after a trial, in accordance with rule of law is authoritarian?
I think you’re reading a few things into my comment that aren’t there
‘Glad you agree that the gulaging of kulaks or the extermination of landlords is not authoritarian’ is quite a jump from what I said(make some pedantic argument about what constitutes self defence if you wish but I was clearly referring to immediate physical danger)
I didn’t say ‘my’ violence was ‘good’, I explained why people don’t consider the anti clerical violence authoritarian, as you asked
Who makes said rules? Who carries out the trial? Are they members of a hierarchical state with more power than the individual on trial? If so imo that is authoritarian
The kulaks posed immediate physical danger of starving the Soviet people from their lack of cooperation. The landlords were actively suppressing the peasants.
Who makes said rules?
The rules come from the constitution voted upon by the people.
Who carries out the trial? Are they members of a hierarchical state with more power than the individual on trial? If so imo that is authoritarian
Tell me how would an anarchist society enforce laws then? And how would an anarchist society ensure every individual would have equal power?
“authoritarianism” isnt a real thing to begin with, thats where your question fails
Well, actually that’s the point of my question. I wanted to show anarchists that authoritarianism implies some kind of moral judgement where some actions are authoritarian and some aren’t. And since morals are inherently subjective, that means authoritarianism itself is a subjective term.
Voluntary mutual defense organizations. Militaries and community defense groups do not need to be state-run.
I don’t think community militias could have enough scale to effectively field tanks and aircraft. It require much more logistics than they could afford.
I agree that community militias probably can’t (and arguable shouldn’t) be able to field that kind of equipment. However, if community militias confederate with other community militias to form a unified military - which I think is feasible - that may be more possible.
Also, OP seemed to mostly be talking fascists and qultists, sort of small-scale reactionary threeper militia kind of folks. Armoured cavalry and drones would definitely help against those kinds of forces, but it doesn’t seem to be necessary. A well-organized community defense force may be sufficient. The state forces backing the boomers up are another story, but I don’t think that’s what is at issue here.
A last thought, kind of unrelated to your point, but something that just struck me thinking about how to get the materials together to build tanks and planes. It’s hard to think about products that are as enmeshed in the global capitalist system as military products. Building and operating a military machine requires tapping resource lines rooted in colonial power or other forms of exploitation. Tanks and guns need oil, metals, chemicals, and other materials that may not be available at all domestically or, if they are, only in qualities insufficient to support an army. The Glorious People’s Army of the Soviet American States would likely be manufactured and maintained with the blood of oppressed peoples. That needs to be part of the discussion when leftists talk about militarization.
If revolution in USA is victorious than you would have half of the world trying to crush it, and I really doubt that capitalists inside would give up without a fight. You will really need strong army to survive. Bolsheviks tried initially to get by just with voluntary militias, and it failed catastrophically, because enemies have military education, military experience, pre-existing organisation, a lot of modern weapons, willingness to use them, and, most importantly, support from significant part of the population, and you could not win just by militias.
The main downside of militias is that they are extremely susceptible to particularism, when community defense group defend just their community, and that makes them vulnerable to defeat in detail. Plus, you would probably need draft in first years to be able to muster enough forces to survive.
US has pretty much whole range of needed resources, and that is your advantage.
If the conditions were in place to have a new american revolution, global capital would have collapsed to the point of impotence already. I mean the global economy headed by the US which keeps most of the world as either vassal or farm is weakening even now. We can’t keep a Bolivian coup alive. Imagine the world when we h ave a revolution, most of the resource mine nations would have either been rebelling or are starting rebellion and even states like France and the UK would see themselves weakened by right or leftwing movements.
Well, after WW1 imperialist states were extremely weakened, and yet they managed to defeat revolutions in Europe and almost defeated Bolsheviks.
True but capital wasn’t nearly as global as it is now. A current capital collapse would see the world imperial powers realize that relying on 1 countries military doesn’t work when the country dies.
They would invade, because a socialist America is a grave threat to capital, and globalization will actually make them more unified than they were in 1918.
