How do we resolve internal conflicts and disputes? Do we simply vote on it? Everyone? Constantly, while also trying to fight?
Yes, voting. Yes, everyone. No, inbetween the fighting, there's enough time to do democracy.
I liked this article, but I do feel like the author wrote against (or for, in a way) the mythical online anarchists to a fault.
Most people, I presume, would accept historical pirates as anarchist ideologues - declaring themselves to be Free of The Empire and all that good stuff - yet (and you won't learn this by reading Engels or Lenin) they were indeed capable in a fight, able to cooperatively steer/control a ship on the high seas in and out of battle. They simply voted for their captains and their first mates and they acted accordingly when they felt the personal in hierarchical power betrayed the crew. Again, for the tankies in the back (and possibly misguided baby-anarkiddies), anarchism isn't about the abolition of all hierarchy, it is about the dismantling of all unjust hierarchies.
To claim that you need tanks to fight tanks sounds inherently sensible on the surface, but it is blind to the fact that any modern day conflict of revolutionary scale will be inherently asymmetrical - and you really don't need tanks (or rather; you won't have this luxury) in asymmetrical warfare; a rc quadcopter with an ied payload may be both more effective and more efficient, as demonstrated in Syria for example.
When you are more concerned with planning to guillotine/gulag/purge individuals once you have the chance, when you are most concerned with how you might best instrumentalize the labouring classes and squash internal dissent in you purest of pure vanguard - you aren't liberating anyone; you're simply dreaming of becoming the oppressor. Now, I'm not saying that ML doesn't have anything more to offer - but it seems those are the aspects western MLs are most concerned with, which honestly worries me.
Well, sometimes. There are a wide variety of group decision making tools and methods and voting is just one of them. Everything else you said I agree with.
Yes, voting. Yes, everyone. No, inbetween the fighting, there's enough time to do democracy.
I liked this article, but I do feel like the author wrote against (or for, in a way) the mythical online anarchists to a fault. Most people, I presume, would accept historical pirates as anarchist ideologues - declaring themselves to be Free of The Empire and all that good stuff - yet (and you won't learn this by reading Engels or Lenin) they were indeed capable in a fight, able to cooperatively steer/control a ship on the high seas in and out of battle. They simply voted for their captains and their first mates and they acted accordingly when they felt the personal in hierarchical power betrayed the crew. Again, for the tankies in the back (and possibly misguided baby-anarkiddies), anarchism isn't about the abolition of all hierarchy, it is about the dismantling of all unjust hierarchies.
To claim that you need tanks to fight tanks sounds inherently sensible on the surface, but it is blind to the fact that any modern day conflict of revolutionary scale will be inherently asymmetrical - and you really don't need tanks (or rather; you won't have this luxury) in asymmetrical warfare; a rc quadcopter with an ied payload may be both more effective and more efficient, as demonstrated in Syria for example.
When you are more concerned with planning to guillotine/gulag/purge individuals once you have the chance, when you are most concerned with how you might best instrumentalize the labouring classes and squash internal dissent in you purest of pure vanguard - you aren't liberating anyone; you're simply dreaming of becoming the oppressor. Now, I'm not saying that ML doesn't have anything more to offer - but it seems those are the aspects western MLs are most concerned with, which honestly worries me.
Well, sometimes. There are a wide variety of group decision making tools and methods and voting is just one of them. Everything else you said I agree with.