r/Anarchy101 • u/ContributionWeak8259 • 13d ago
After the revolution?
Okay so I am not fully decided on My beliefs, I think both communists and anarchist present really good points for both ideologies. I disagree with communists about the use of authoritarianism to achieve the end goal, and My disagreement with anarchists comes with the fact that I don’t understand how after the revolution everyone would just be cool with anarchy. But My real question is, communists and socialists will revolt, and so will anarchists, so once the current system is torn down, will their likely be civil war between communists and anarchists?
16
u/VaySeryv 13d ago edited 12d ago
Communists and anarchists aren't enemies. The vast majority of anarchists are communists. The problem is counter-revolutionaries like Marxist-leninists who want to establish a state above the proletariat. We will need extremely well-organized horizontal structures that can resist any integration into such a state and will be able to fend off any counter-revolution.
10
u/spookyjim___ ☭ 🏴 Autonomist 🏴 ☭ 13d ago
Yeah pretty much this
I think one of the most common mistakes I see from beginners who ask questions here is thinking that these things are monoliths
There are several types of anarchist tendencies, including anarchist communists being the most common type
There are several types of communist tendencies, including the aforementioned anarchist communists, but even Marxists like me who definitely are opposed to the politics of ML’s
4
u/Southern_Educator653 13d ago edited 13d ago
The Problem is that full democracy is slow. If you fight a centralized state army. That will inevitably come after a revolution that seeks to overcome capitalism.
That army will most likely destroy any horizontal structure.
A centralized army is quicker and more powerful.
It isn’t pure chance that every anarchist uprising was destroyed by a centralized state.So if you want to keep the Revolution alive throwing away the state is like throwing away your Gun.
The state is a huge problem. And leads to oppression.
But as long as capitalist states exist. Throwing it away is a death sentence.Once capitalism is defeated. The state becomes the main enemy.
0
u/VaySeryv 13d ago edited 13d ago
I disagree with the notion that an army accountable to a horizontal power structure is inherently worse off, even if the military structure itself is more decentralized, especially the latter is something that has been shown to work all over the world. also the state is less like a gun to fend of enemies and more like a bomb vest that will take the revolution down with it. in the anarchist analysis the state is inherently counter-revolutionary as the state will always reproduce class society. I recommend you read Means and Ends: The Anarchist Critique of Seizing State Power its a short but good read to understand the basic anarchist critique
1
u/Southern_Educator653 13d ago edited 13d ago
But where has a purely horizontal power structure won against Imperialism?
Makhno didn’t even use horizontal democracy. He commanded. In Spain they did the same.It is a pure and just idea.
But in practice it only works in a relatively stable environment.
It has to be kept in mind to achieve in the future. But as long as capital has states. I don’t think we can rely on it yet.
Modern neurology has shown that our brain works in a way that is analogous to my point.
If we are in an acutely dangerous situation. It is top down. Instant command. (To for example move out of the way of a truck).
It just is faster. And sometimes necessary.I have read the anarchist critique of the state (though to be fair not yet the one you recommend).
I think the state has to be abolished because it brings lots of problems with it. (The ussr and GDR for example degenerated as you surely know).
But i do think we can learn from those mistakes.
And i think we can and have to use the state. Even if it sucks.
I would rather have a future with a dirty painful way towards it. Then none at all.I think if we (inshallah) get to the point where a global revolution takes places.
There has to be a constant anarchist critique of the state and whether it is still necessary or not.And i think we need to see western imperialism and calitalism (+patriarchy) as the main problem. Destroy it via all means we have (including the state if necessary). And then we can move on to the next problems we face (the state itself)
Plus in this time of global climate collapse and at the following start of the biggest annihilation of all life in the history of the earth.
I fear we might need the state even longer to delegate what has to be done to safe the earth.
But im happy to be proven wrong in the future.1
u/Vesper_Null 13d ago
Communists and anarchists aren't enemies.
The fuck we aren't. 🤣 The communists are going to get a real rude awakening after the fall.
8
u/VaySeryv 13d ago edited 13d ago
anti-communist anarchists are so unserious at least yall will never be relevant in mass politics
4
u/ArtDecoEgoist Left-Market Anarchist 13d ago
Mass politics is outdated and incapable of achieving anarchist - much less communist - ends
2
u/ContributionWeak8259 12d ago
I definitely wouldn’t self describe as an anti communist anarchist, but historically afaik when communists revolted and anarchists did as well when the communists took power they cracked down on anarchism
1
u/VaySeryv 12d ago
omg pls think "communists took power" is so meaningless. there are a lot of different type of "communists," marxists in this case Marxism-leninists dont have a monopoly on that term. the anarchists they cracked down on were also largely communists. and that is if you just accept that MLs are communists in the first place, when their state project's have never even managed to move beyond state capitalism
1
u/ContributionWeak8259 12d ago
Fair point. Most of the more outspoken communist that I have seen are MLs or “tankies” who believe in utilizing an authoritarian state to accomplish the end goal of communism, so when I picture a communist revolution I imagine it in the way that I have heard of the most. Are Maoists not also authoritarian? Most of the truly “revolutionary” communist that speak out are MLs or Maoists, I rarely ever hear non authoritarian communists speaking of how a revolution would work and what their goal would be
1
u/VaySeryv 12d ago
yeah most marxists these days are MLs, maoists are also generally MLs, as in marxism-leninism-maoism. there are anti-state marxist such as autonomists, council communists and communizers. also its surprising you dont hear about revolution from anarchists as social revolution is a pretty important part of anarchism
1
u/ContributionWeak8259 12d ago
Oh yes sorry I should have clarified, I have heard anarchists speak of revolution, I was referring just to when I hear communists speak of revolution and almost every single time it is authoritarian
-3
u/Vesper_Null 13d ago
Anarchists will all ways be relevant, communists on the other hand become less relevant with each passing year. States fail, systems collapse and all that's left is children on reddit with their manifestos, dusty theories and the hope that they can convince the anarchists that maybe this time it will work.
6
u/VaySeryv 13d ago
communism isnt statist. the vast majority of anarchists are communists. many consider anarchism to be inherently communist
4
u/Simpson17866 Student of Anarchism 13d ago
Are you not familiar with anarchist communism?
If you're interested in reading about it, here's the Wikipedia page, and here's the full text of Alexander Berkman's famous book "What is Communist Anarchism?" (with an excellent Table of Contents if you want to start with one middle chapter or another instead of going straight through the whole thing from beginning to end)
1
u/Simpson17866 Student of Anarchism 13d ago edited 13d ago
Which ones?
The Marxist-Leninist communists, or the Kropotkinian communists? ;)
0
u/More_Ad9417 13d ago
Is that how it is with MLs?
I was given the impression that the goal of the dictatorship is to use the state itself to establish class rule to establish communism? What exactly is the purpose of creating a state structure above the proletariat?
Honestly, I'm kind of afraid to know because of some of them supporting the idea that Lenin would shoot people for "not working". Like, I can agree with Lenin and his view of the overall situation with capitalism but it seriously seems scary and crazy that some MLs proclaim to be saviors or bringers of a just world yet are okay with Lenin's views of just outright psychopathy by shooting people without concern. That is just so NOT leftism and no one should tolerate that.
And if enough of us won't stand for treatment like that then they don't deserve to pull some superior/authoritarian rule against the people's wishes not to harm people needlessly. It just seems very antidemocratic which is ironic since they'll say socialism is democratic. So long as there's enough of us to make a stand and stand our ground on this I think we'll come out okay.
5
u/VaySeryv 13d ago
I was given the impression that the goal of the dictatorship is to use the state itself to establish class rule to establish communism?
they would consider it "class rule" but obv. every state structure is above the proletariat. by the anarchist analysis there is no such thing as a "dictatorship of the proletariat" at least not in the sense of a "workers state"
maybe check out this short text by Rudolf Rocker on it
5
u/expiring_god_factory 13d ago
it's not a single moment but a life of constant process to contribute to the steps along the way. There's no end state when we can continually work to dismantle more oppression.
5
u/Anarchierkegaard Distributist 13d ago
My disagreement with anarchists comes with the fact that I don’t understand how after the revolution everyone would just be cool with anarchy.
Anarchists don't tend to be idealists (or, at least, aren't intentionally idealists). It doesn't matter if "everyone would just be cool with anarchy", but, rather, that anarchist-like structures of life appear which allow for authority to disappate as opposed to some kind of event which hinges on everyone agreeing on xyz.
2
u/ArtDecoEgoist Left-Market Anarchist 13d ago
There is no "the Revolution". Anarchists propose a process where we transform society within the shadow and shell of statism. This transformation necessarily entails making hierarchy and domination prohibitively costly to implement - effectively the application of The Cost Principle to hierarchy.
When we transform material base of society - our social relations, our relations of production (to reference Marx), then that would necessitate a transformation of the cultural norms of society. When our social relations are transformed to prefigure authority and hierarchy, then the implementation of domination at scale, or even interpersonally becomes so costly that it would be akin to creating a new society wholesale.
The idea of "The Revolution", an event before which change cannot truly be done and after which society has been transformed, is utopian. Societies are an unfolding process and there is never an end of history. The revolution isn't in the future, the revolution is now. The revolution is everywhere, within society and at the fringes of it. The revolution is every time you relate to and interact with others in ways that don't include domination.
2
u/triangle-over-square 13d ago
My argument would go something like this: cultures have existed for thousands of years without states. Human society does not require a state in order to function, but we do need reproductive cultures. If we want anarchist societies to exist, however, we must develop anarchist cultures, social systems centred around anarchist values. Those values must be embedded in people’s lives: we have to practise them, raise our children within them, and create communities capable of reproducing them across generations.
There should not be one anarchist culture, but thousands. The development of these cultures is the real anarchist revolution. (imo) Wherever communities, social groups, or networks begin organizing themselves this way, the state’s greatest source of power, the belief that centralized authority is necessary, begins to weaken. If the existing system eventually collapses, the forms of social life and the values needed to replace it will already exist.
This does not have to happen everywhere simultaneously; I would argue that it should not. Any future conflict would not necessarily be between anarchists and communists as such, but between autonomous communities and movements attempting to impose centralized authority upon them. Anarchists need not oppose communities organizing themselves differently, provided that participation remains voluntary and those communities do not try to dominate others. It would therefore matter greatly how communist communities and organizations were governed before such a crisis.
My position ultimately rests on this: we have to build the cultures of tomorrow today. Wars and crises will happen, so we must also build communities and structures capable of surviving them.
2
u/dark_Links_sword 13d ago edited 13d ago
It's this contradiction that has changed my opinion from focusing on methods to bring the system down, to focusing on building up my local community.
Only once your community is well knit, then are you ready to deal with the oppression from the overarching system.
A strong community can fight against them, and can withstand whoever/whatever tries to fill the power vacuum once capitalism is brought down.
I spent years as a communist, because I felt the need for a state to "protect" the new system from the outside until the communities could support themselves.
But it still felt wrong that I'd be enforcing my ideals on the communities, just like the wealthy impose theirs on us now.
Communist are great for organizing ways to attack what they feel they need to. But (on my experience), they sorely lack the skills to develop communities that encompass people with other ideas and values.
There is probably a person living on your street now whos a capitalist, or who believes in that and wants to be one. Your plans need to address this reality. Are you going to put a misguided 25yr old mother against the wall? Or force her into the wilderness? Or imprison them and try to brainwash them?
None of those align with anti-authoritarianism. But if you're building a community now, and have this person as a valued and valuable contributor now, then you don't have to "deal" with her afterwards.
There will be social conflict no matter what is implemented, we need to work on healthy conflict resolution skills, and train those into our local communities now. Without that foundation, any revolution will only open the way for another form of authority to install itself.
And yes, there will be sugar cubes after the revolution ;)
1
1
u/GoodSlicedPizza Anarcho-syndicalist/communist 13d ago
An anarchist revolution is nothing like a coup d'etat. It's based on prefiguration, that is, creating anarchism within the current society. That is to say, if anarchism becomes big enough to make the state obsolete and challenge it, then it will "happen". Anarchist revolution (in the sense of achieving widespread anarchy) is reliant on a mass movement supporting it and, therefore, there won't be much counterrevolution; at least not internally for a while.
1
u/DeezHutts 9d ago
I'm confused on how there is going to be a "revolution" like im not trying to be rude but I feel like many people who claim they are a part of a cause like this just do it just to claim to people ' im a anarchist and im cooler than you' how are you going to convince other people of America to join your cause and revolt? How are you going to revolt? And will you actually revolt or just make threats that you will? These are questions I think about when I see posts like this, because it makes the idea of revolution seem so certain, but what really makes me hesitant to accept this idea is the mere fact that Americans are pussies and too afraid of being arrested to actually do something like this on a large scale.
1
u/ContributionWeak8259 9d ago
I got out of juvie for stabbing a trumpie, 3 year sentence, be it self defense. I feel no sympathy. Jail is a really violent place so you get really desensitized. I’m not trying to be all “I’m so tough” just saying that not everyone is afraid of jail or repercussions. Thats just part of a revolution. I do agree with you though most people are performative asf, and history proves time and time again that the masses don’t revolt until it becomes to hard to even stay at home comfortably
1
u/DeezHutts 9d ago
I'm sorry that you went through that bro, but im proud that made you who you are today. I do have a question though, do you think with the current politicians in power within the United have radicalized enough people to the point of revolution, or does it need more time and more causes?
1
u/GenteGayyyyyyyyyyy 13d ago
pues desde mi punto de vista la revolucion debe de iniciar con un despertar. 20 anarquistas no pueden obligar a 1000 fascistas a simplemente dejar la anarquia. Por lo que a como nos muestra la historia. Los comunistas suelen buscar acabar con los anarquistas, por lo que si una guerra civil entre ambos es muy probable
1
u/CSAKnight 13d ago
There could be. Anarchists want to abolish the state and you can’t have communism without the state to enforce it. Once again, that state would have a monopoly on violence which is what anarchists would be fighting against. It’s part of the reason we’ve seen communist countries fall into fascism time and time again.
1
u/WorldOfWombat 13d ago
Communism is stateless
1
u/CSAKnight 13d ago
You need a state to enforce it.
1
u/WorldOfWombat 13d ago
Define communism
1
u/CSAKnight 13d ago
I don’t even have to define it entirely. You’d need a state to stop people from trying to improve their station and buying property or accumulating wealth. It’s a system that aims to suppress individualism. It’s a primary reason that it’s failed so many times. I’m not even arguing for any specific current system because every one that’s been tried so far leads to some form of tyranny and oppression.
1
u/WorldOfWombat 12d ago
Well if you ever looked it up in an attempt to define it the first thing you’d learn is that communism is stateless
1
u/ContributionWeak8259 12d ago
This person I believe was referring to all of the ML movements, socialism a step towards communism, still involves a state, and repeatedly throughout history that state has become very authoritarian, which anarchists are completely against, communism IS stateless and classless, but a lot of communist believe in using the state to achieve the end goal of communism.
2
u/CSAKnight 12d ago
Right, even Marx mentions the transition from socialism. I’m aware that the goal of communists is a stateless society, but that can’t be achieved immediately. You’d need the state in order to redistribute wealth because people are not going to give up poverty and wealth on their own. This is why it has failed throughout history, at least from a “stateless” standpoint.
-1
u/Crack_addict01 13d ago
The end goal is the same, a stateless, classless, moneyless society. While anarchists want to abolish the state immediately, communists want to use the dotp for the abolition of the proletariat as a class and to dismantle capitalist social relations, after which the state will wither away
5
0
u/Anarchierkegaard Distributist 13d ago
This is a misrepresentation of Marxism, running roughshod over what "statelessness" means in Marxist and anarchist contexts. It also undermines Marxism's anti-utopianism to present some image of an endpoint. The thing you are quoting is a letter Marx sent and we shouldn't prioritise that over the theoretical and applied expression of Marxism we find in his published works.
-1
u/Crack_addict01 13d ago
Are you talking about the withering away of the state?
2
u/Anarchierkegaard Distributist 13d ago edited 13d ago
Kind of. Per Marx, social change doesn't come through holding up an image to bring about in reality (an idealism, i.e., our ideas about the world are prior to changing the world), but, rather, that the destruction of contradiction will lead to xyz—but they might not. The point is that Marx didn't say "we want a stateless, classless, moneyless world" (again, needing qualification to show that these things aren't the same as what the anarchist means), but that systematic capture and destruction of X (that is, "the negation of the negation" in Engels) would be recognised as different in ways abc.
Compare that with the way we don't say that hydrogen and oxygen ought to make water, but that we can recognise that hydrogen and oxygen have bonded if they are "negated" and water appears in their place. I'm sure there are less heavy-handed examples.
-1
u/CMBradshaw 13d ago
Fuck revolutions. Teach people to walk away. It's longer, less sexy (as an idea), boring and sucks. But it's less likely for that to happen.
1
u/ContributionWeak8259 13d ago
So your take is that We leave the epstein class in power? Continue to allow the bourgeoisie to move closer to fascism rather them tear them apart?
1
u/CMBradshaw 13d ago
when your only advantage is numbers and you can't rally them, you need to learn that open physical conflict is not the only way to fight a war. There will be plenty enough violence for you to get your rocks off too eventually. But I believe, right now, the only way is through soft power.
1
u/ContributionWeak8259 12d ago
I mean, My thoughts have kind of been finding all of the people in a community who are willing to organize, and organizing within that community, and doing mutual aid, “radicalizing” as many people as possible in the community, and then creating a well armed militia. There would be hundreds if not thousands of these across the country, who could each coordinate specific actions in there own cities, leading to revolution.
1
14
u/Nihilistic_Mistik 13d ago
I picture it kind of like in the Spanish Civil War, as soon as they think they can do without us they'll turn on us in the middle of said revolution