Do they think the Catalan Anarchists had no bourgeois blood on their hands? Do they think the Makhnovites never executed counterrevolutionaries? Fucking idiots. I preferred it when anarchists actually threw pipe bombs.
Do they think the Catalan Anarchists had no bourgeois blood on their hands? Do they think the Makhnovites never executed counterrevolutionaries? Fucking idiots. I preferred it when anarchists actually threw pipe bombs.
And it kinda is, even Lenin said things along the lines that and revolution is a group forcing it’s view onto society(only those views are dope and for the good of the people), it requires authority and structure therefore anarchists are either anti revolutionary or hypocritical about their revolutionary ideals
I believe that was Engels, not Lenin.
Lenin said stuff like that too in state and revolution, partially echoing Engels as well
No, because the overthrow of the government, which every day commits violence against the workers, is the legitimate self-defense of the people. You should read what the revolutinary anarchists wrote. And look at examples of anarchist uprisings, like the Makhnovists or Spanish anarcho-syndicalists
Still, it’s the anarchists view of a better world and of defense, which not necessarily is shared by all workers agree, many of them believe the state is something that defends them, so you are still imposing onto people your will, you can beat around the bush as much as.you want revolutions are authoritarian things, furthermore no anarchist revolutions had any lasting success which corroborates the idea that anarchy is not the most sensible platform for ending cptalism
The state protects, of course, but not the majority, but the minority, which has the power. This is the very essence of the state, it was made that way on purpose, because capitalists need the power of the minority, not the majority. The goal of socialists is to give power to the majority so that people can have freedom. You can’t use a hammer to drill a hole. About failed revolutions - first of all, they took place in difficult conditions and in fact died because of the betrayals of Marxists, secondly, nevertheless, they gave experience and showed that it is quite possible to organize a society without the state and protect it, even in spite of “objective circumstances”, which are justified by the Bolsheviks to take power away from the workers. And as Marxists themselves say about socialism when arguing with the right-wingers - airplanes didn’t take off the first time either About authoritarianism - if a thief attacks you to rob you by force, and you knock him out, would that be authoritarian? No, it was the thief who behaved authoritarian, who wanted to impose his will on you, and you self-defended to preserve your freedom. I suggest you read this: https://www.anarchistfaq.org/afaq/sectionH.html#sech4
The issue is not just that a society can be organized without the state but one of the main reasons for the socialist state is to prevent the outside capitalist forces from taking back control, and that could have something to do with the lack of lasting anarchist experiences, furthermore the organization of a revolutionary force has issues with some of the anarchists that say that no authority is justified, which makes any sort of army force nearly unsustainable. Furthermore the thief analogy somewhat works but the fact of the matter is that any revolutionary force will impose one view on detriment of others in an authority manner, there is no analogy that makes it less so, the state sucks but how to bring it down and what to do afterwards is a choice, that will be made by the revolutionary force, and that is the authoritatary measure, the thief did wrong I do not deny it, but you are deciding the sentence as well, and unilaterally so. And I think its an inevitable property of revolution, just one that anarchy tends to struggle with.