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
It kinda of is right now. Unless the anarchist revolution is immediately global you're gonna get bad actors from capitalist states trying to ratfuck your anarchist institutions, also the ruling classes that you deposed aren't going to disappear overnight unless you outright kill them all.
My second point directly addressed that. Capitalist state apparatus operates by a conflicting logic, but it's still a logic rooted in material benefit.
Sure, if it's someplace like Grenada that could be seen as a lilypad to attack the United States, it would be crushed to avoid perceived harm in the cost-benefit analysis. If it's someplace like Chile or the Congo with a whole lot of mineral wealth, the payoff will be higher. But there's still a calculation that gets made. Capitalists are not irrationally driven to crush socialist projects; they do it because they stand to financially benefit in the long run even after the losses in money and equipment and lives.
Another point is in the belly of the beast. Nobody has outlawed homesteading, despite the fact that this actively reduces GDP by displacing the formal economy with the informal economy, limiting tax revenue and also rarely contributing to anything that can be used as part of a war effort.
If you call yourself a Marxist-Leninist party with the stated goal of overthrowing the government, you're a target from the beginning, and the past 100 years have seen Western governments running absolute circles around insurgent communist parties. But if you're supposedly just a bunch of people doing collective homesteading, with a mutual aid network that's definitely no-sir not at all part of a dual power institution, you have the capacity to grow and spread.
I thought we had fully abandoned the whole premise of "they hate us 'cause we're free" and understood the logic that was obscured by that thought-terminating cliche.
What kind of ratfucking is a bad actor going to do? Assassinate the Leader that doesn't exist? Bribe or blackmail someone, okay. But do you bribe the chief parliamentarian, the chief strategist, the chief taskmaster, the chief mediator, the chief teacher, or the chief spokesperson on the council of good governance? None of those options sound very productive, and all those roles are easily switched out with someone from a lower council. Or maybe they want to invade and occupy- how are they going to do that when there would be a rifle (or a bow) behind every blade of grass?
In practice, anarchistic projects in the 21st century have faced more difficulty with gangs than they have with state actors.
Presumably with artillery and bombing runs.
I don't think they'd just sit by idly if an anarchist revolution popped up in a developed western state for example. They understand well that a successful socialist project on their doorstep is an existential threat to them. Even by your logic they'd want to intervene because a lot of capital would be lost to them otherwise.
Also the point of a socialist revolution IMO is seizing the industry and cities, not homesteading. Once you start doing that they're not going to look kindly to you and will go all out.
There's a pretty big assumption there, that you're fighting to hold ground that the enemy operates on. Is the point of a socialist revolution to accept the framework of the capitalists, and contest it in a matching style? Or is it to secure a well-founded base of power for people regardless of inherited means, in order to provide them with the quality of life and personal development they need? Are you trying to seize as much GDP as you can, or are you trying to garner food, shelter, education, healthcare, and transportation? In short, is your revolution focused around the outcomes for your revolutionary subject, or is it focused around depriving your adversary of something?
My strategy would not center around seizing a Funko Pop factory even if they became the most traded commodity.
Look how successful that was in Afghanistan.
To quote another reactionary griping about their Ls, the conventional army loses if it does not win; the guerrilla wins if he does not lose.
The biggest and most conclusive military strategic lesson of the past 40 years has been that you don't automatically "win" everything by winning the pitched battle, and that fighting an insurgency is counterproductive and rapidly becomes probibitively expensive, because of the gap in cost between guerrillas and occupying armies.
In the case of a remote target, it is far easier to disrupt the flow of capital (e.g. burning cash crops, sabotaging equipment) than it is to disable the local ability to field an autonomous resistance force.
If we're talking about the invasion of a bourgeois army in the service of capital, then it's pretty clear that everyone in its general path will have a common cause of self-defense against it- and sure, you have a military commander for the operation, plus a couple officers, for the sake of strategic and tactical coherence. There is no reason why that military command needs to spill over into the sphere of governance.
For the whole world's sake, I am glad that the CPC in the 30s did not follow the directive that "the substance of a socialist revolution is seizing industry and cities, not building up a rural power base and the means of subsistence".
And how are you gonna do that without an industrial base? It's not about "GDP" or "playing their game", it's about industry being necessary to support a decent life for a large population.
Will they? There's gonna be a sizable chunk of the population that would probably materially benefit from capitalist restoration, mainly the previous upper classes and their lackeys. Also people with terminal religious/traditionalist brainworms. Also people that don't want to spend a decade in a guerilla war.
1930s rural China looked absolutely nothing like for example rural America today, it's not even the least bit comparable. Back then peasants were the absolute majority of the population, nowadays this isn't true at all.
You're forgetting so easily that most of the industry that's "required" to support a population has been offshored. Much of it went to a neighbor that in fact has multiple empirical examples of exactly what I'm talking about, with government crackdown being either fully stalled or outright absent.
A revolutionary situation isn't going to pop out of nowhere and hold contested territory. It's going to need capillaries in the hinterland so it can support itself with lower recognition and risk. And I'm not going to rehash the explanation of how a good quality of life can be secured mostly independently of gasoline technology here.
Before you started drifting the conversation with selective clapback quotes and refusing to specify an example as I asked for, you were talking about "defending the RevolutionTM" from outside forces. Now you're talking about adversaries running on idealism popping up inside the territory, who are not a small minority, are not better off in the alternative to capitalism, and who somehow are equipped with everything they need to set up the systen of subordination and oppression again. I'm not sure you're arguing in good faith.
But my answer to the counter-revolutionaries question is that imperialist infrastructure is harder and lengthier to build and easier to destroy than autonomous infrastructure. It takes months of construction to build a bridge that can carry military equipment, and only 1 well-placed explosive to nullify it. If the power grid and petroleum distribution network were knocked out, the armed forces couldn't move a mile- and the same would be true of suburban pickup-truck-driving reactionaries, who would more likely shrivel in their subdivisions or get in a gunfight with their neighbors at the first sign of scarcity. Meanwhile for every anarchist it would be a sort of dream come true.
Moving prior to the question of military contention, if an anarchist movement in the West was integrated with the economy like China has been since the 80s, stamping it out would be an act of self-destruction by capitalists. If it wasn't, attempting to suppress it would still be weakening the metropole by the state turning on its own territory and population. In any given revolution, you don't start out from square one saying you're going to annihilate the government. You conceal your intention while you build up your capacities, so that you actually get a chance to act instead of being infiltrated, compromised, and executed.
I had a whole bunch of these discussions with 2 people in my scene IRL years ago, who insisted on the need to conduct conventional warfare or take over the military from the inside, under the assumption that you publicly declare a much larger enemy from the very inception. They had both just gotten out of the armed forces themselves. I call this "army brain". Anyway, neither of them are still involved in anti-capitalist organizing. One of them moved away and the other got kicked out of the local PSL.