On the internet I don't see too many Anarchists give arguments past "communism doesn't work because communists are doomed to repeat the same exploitative power structures of the capitalist state" and "we dont know what an anarchist society will look like we gotta wait til we get there!" Which like...is not convincing to me at all. I've engaged in what was supposed to be consensus based decision making systems and there were a ton of flaws, though that's purely anecdotal.

So, I'd really like to have some suggestions on what to read that you think might really challenge where I stand/take anarchism more seriously. It might take me 5 years to get to them bc executive dysfunction but I really want to see if my mind can be changed on if it would be a better system from the get go than communism.

I think it would be super interesting to hear from anyone who shifted into anarchism from Marxism on why it made more sense to you

  • Babs [she/her]
    ·
    5 months ago

    (one thing to think about is what outside forces were there in a global anarchist society)

    But what of an anarchist society that isn't global? The revolution has to start somewhere, and capitalists would try to crush it before it became worldwide and everyone sees that it is a superior system, yeah? Is this "highly theoretical", or something that every revolution has to have a plan for?

    • DivineChaos100 [none/use name]
      ·
      5 months ago

      A not global anarchist revolution would have to grapple with the same problems as a communist one and having a state apparatus at hand is not a guarantee of the revolution being protected.

      • jack [he/him, comrade/them]
        ·
        5 months ago

        But how would you do it without a state? A state offers an obvious and historically proven vehicle for defending a revolution from internal counter revolutionaries and external imperialists. What is the anarchist alternative?

        • infuziSporg [e/em/eir]
          ·
          5 months ago

          There is a flip side to this.

          A state offers an obvious and historically proven vehicle for imperialists and internal counter-revolutionaries to derail, subsume, or decapitate a revolution. A revolution centered on a state will have a huge target that it advertises; a revolution that manages to operate horizontally will not.

          The state apparatus emerged in conjunction with money, and it co-evolved with the development of capital. It's going to take a lot of de-coupling to get to a point where it's truly and fully independent.

        • DivineChaos100 [none/use name]
          ·
          5 months ago

          See this is exactly the kind of senseless dick measuring contest all of these conversations devolve into that brings with itself the disgusting sectarian bullshit in the fucking anarchy community of the left unity website like the comment that replied to yours. No, the state isn't "an obvious and historically proven vehicle for defending a revolution from internal counter revolutionaries and external imperialists." The state failed many times to do that. The USSR is long gone. There's ZERO states that has achieved communism.

          • Babs [she/her]
            ·
            5 months ago

            I think "How do you do it without a state?" Is a fair question in an educational thread. We are mostly communists here, with a common understanding of how we would defend a revolution - some of us might be taking sectarian snipes, a lot of us just don't know the anarchist answer to this.

            If our premises are incorrect, maybe tell us why? Or direct us to someone who would?