I was debating the merits of incorporating some anarchist ideology, since my professor has been introducing some things to us.
Anarchism, different types, has its appeal.
but I keep running into multiple positions that i can't for the life of me understand. This one in particular. How do you have solidarity when you can't support states or hierarchies?
Also the existence of states, and what it takes to abolish them is of great interest to me. Because it seems to be as simple as uh, implementing direct democracy? Or some form of democratic functions in all society. So all institutions and borders can exist, but if you're democratic you're good? Do all situations really have to involve everyone?
so is literally a few elections and renaming institutions enough to replace the nation state? Seems incredibly easy then, i dont know what the fuss is about. (Although i think democratic armies are stupid why should that be a thing.)
Also my professor has an annoying tendency to hate on former socialism whenever its brought up. Also the sort of stereotypical obsession with rojava (which explicitly enshrines the right of private property, but otherwise i support the fight of the kurdish population for liberation) and the Zapitistas (who denounce western anarchism and explicitly identify as a sort of their own ideological deviation from marxism. Libertarian socialism in reality. Not hating on the Zapitistas of course, they're cool as fuck and i support their fight against discrimination of ethnic minorities and natives. Other anarchists have a liking of Makhnovshchina, which gets a lot of undeserved hate in marxist circles but was more a warlord state than anarchist. But i'd be fine with that because it was a rough time and they were doing what they had to, but explicit denial of this and upholding it is very strange to me.
But these are... states??? Why is it Marxist states that get flak?
wait its probably the purges... yeah i'd be mad about that too if it was me...
Anarchists i think get lots of undue hate towards them as well, with many criticisms brushing them aside being equally applicable to marxism.
Also i dont want to see any marxists give a joking or sectarian answer, or ill report them. Im interested in learning the responses of anarchists, and the best ones i can find are usually here. I can get kind of defensive, i dont like being wrong, but i do genuinely want to learn.
Without unity of action your revolution can quickly be destroyed and the bourgeoisie can re-impose their domination. This has happened countless times and is in fact a huge source of the failure of the Paris Commune, what's the point of a revolution if it's not protected and the bourgeoisie reassert themselves?
This is often presented in the abstract. What's an example of how this unfolds?
Paris Commune, most city communes tbh, but that doesn't limit their importance. Mao was radicalized by the shanghai commune uprising. The paris commune provided the basis of modern marxism, and was the inspiration behind Lenin's break from revisionist marxism and re-establish the revolutionary basis of it.
Unity of action is a sadly necessary thing when their is active destructive punishment for any wrong decision.
I mean like more specifically. What is happening in 1870s Paris where unity of action can be achieved by a centralized authority in a way that could not be done with a distributed authority?
I am not sure what you are saying. If the Paris Commune had been able to order every man in Paris to fight, they would have been able to repel the French Army?
If you want people to fight and die for the cause, surely it is only right that you have to convince them that it is a good cause first. And, if it is a good cause then surely that should be easy? Telling them that they have to do it because there was a majority vote simply doesn't cut it.
to be fair, the french army was completely disorganized, and the seat of the french government was literally a few miles away in versailles. The French National Guard was the only organized army in the country and could have marched on the seat of power in versailles immediately instead of twiddling their thumbs. It was impossible with everyone arguing and wanting to do different things though. Especially with the social democrats whining their asses off. Spreading the revolution should have been the first thing they did.
They also left the bank of france untouched, instead of seizing it for the workers. This allowed the capitalists to immediately get back into place. They didn't seize the state machinery, and not all workplaces were collectivized. this caused general chaos in the economy.
They frankly didn't kill enough reactionaries. They literally captured the bourgeoisie and their government but let them go. Such weakness of the heart was immediately repaid in full with the slaughter of the commune.
The dictatorship of the proletariat must be consolidated in that first revolutionary stage. it must fight against all reactionary forces until there are none left and then relax and let the previously necessary mechanisms die out.
Your wording seems to imply that inability to make a decision is anarchism and/or that anarchists are unable to make decisions, even though you blame the social democrats for the failure to march on Versailles sooner.
This is somewhat ironic. Obviously the anarchists could have dissuaded the National Guard from marching, but if they had the authority to prevent them, then they weren't anarchists!
By contrast, in a setup where a decision needs to be made before people can act, then it's very possible for a faction to prevent it. For example, they can say that key stakeholders are not present and therefore the meeting has no authority. If you've never witnessed this, I envy you.