On Anarchy

You can only get so much done writing a 900 page thesis on the nature of revolution inside your ivory towers. All talk and no action these ideologues are, such folly! Turn away your old dogmas and realize how they have failed, the revolutions of the 20th century have failed to bring about communism, as they have always fallen prey to capitalist subversion of the revolution, of the reintroduction of class struggle and capitalist hegemony.

Under the state, capitalism always wins. Attempting to overthrow the unjust system by co-opting the state, or replacing it with a so-called “worker’s state,” a term that is itself inherently oxymoronic, will only lead to the corruption of the revolutionary force trying to force change via the state.

If you want true change, genuine change, that changes the very fabric of society itself, abolish the state. Only when you abolish the state do you abolish capitalism, for they go hand in hand. Marxism has failed; it’s time to try a new tactic.

Capitalism requires the state to enforce its hegemony, its inherently unequal distribution of control over resources. Police and armies protect capital, not you. Reject the state, and reject the police, for they are not your friends.

For the Leninists in my audience realize this, why has almost every so-called “socialist state” failed to implement communism, and have always fallen prey to capitalist forces? Let’s examine the “mass line” tenet of Maoism for an example, even with the Cultural Revolution and popular struggle against corrupt bureaucrats to hold the party accountable, China still fell to revisionist capitalists.

They didn’t accomplish shit in the end, it was merely meaningless chaos that ultimately failed to accomplish its goals. Deng Xiaoping reintroduced capitalism into China, and today China is even more stratified socially than even the US is.

Let’s look at another example, the Soviet Union itself. The USSR ended up becoming another imperialist force, crushing genuine worker’s revolutions in Hungary, the Prague, and elsewhere, and functioned as just another colonialist power in Siberia, oppressing its indigenous peoples so Russian settlers could move in. The Soviet Union ultimately fell itself, and Tsarism has come back to haunt modern day Russia once again.

It should be noted that many Russians today are nostalgic for the “good old days” of the Soviet Union, and I will acknowledge that the economic policies of the USSR were far more worker-friendly than they are today, you weren’t liable to become poor for instance because the Soviet Union provided for everyone, being strapped for cash wasn’t a thing back then as it is now in modern Russia.

But even with that prosperity came the price of liberty, the USSR was hella authoritarian, and still was subject to market forces. It was state capitalist, not socialist. Socialism cannot be meaningfully achieved under a state, no matter the intentions of the state’s founders. States are inherently corrupting forces, in order for the revolution to enact meaningful, long lasting change, ditch the state as a vector for revolution, it doesn’t work.



My problems with ancoms and tankies

While I find myself agreeing with many tenets of anarcho-communist philosophy, such as the abolition of unjust hierarchies and the like, from my experience ancoms ignore the fact that there needs to be a certain set of material conditions in order for true communism to develop, at best you’d get socialism wherein the workers control the means of production. Take this passage from Kropotkin’s The Conquest of Bread (1891) for instance:

The quantity of imported provisions having decreased, consumption having increased, one million Parisians working for exportation purposes having been thrown out of work, a great number of things imported to-day from distant or neighbouring countries not reaching their destination, fancy-trade being temporarily at a standstill,—What will the inhabitants have to eat six months after the Revolution?

We think that when the stores containing food-stuffs are empty, the masses will seek to obtain their food from the land. They will see the necessity of cultivating the soil, of combining agricultural production with industrial production in the suburbs of Paris itself and its environs. They will have to abandon the merely ornamental trades and consider their most urgent need—bread.

Chapter 16 “Decentralization of Industry”

Kropotkin here assumes that the people of Paris, after the revolution, will be able to secure food production by themselves, the population of Paris even at the time was several hundred thousand, and a single city wouldn’t be able to secure that foodstuff without land and technology, which at that time neither of which would have been sufficient for Paris to become a self-sufficient city or “commune.”

Today we have the means to create a genuinely communist society, all the workers have to do is overthrow the bourgeois state and seize back the means of production. However, a dictatorship of the proletariat would be necessary in order to ensure that counterrevolutionaries and reactionaries don’t reverse the course of history back to barbarism, as well as to ensure that opportunists don’t come in and fuck things up as they did during the Russian Revolution, Stalin initiated a thermidor, a reaction, to the revolution and only paid lip service to Marxism and even basic Leninism.

I also disagree with the idea of a party being the vanguard and leading the revolution, namely because it merely changes hands of the control of the means of production from the capitalists to the party bureaucracy while still subjecting the proletariat to their every whim, see how, for example, the Red Army crushed the Kronstadt rebellion or how Mao crushed the Shanghai Commune of 1925-1927, while still proclaiming themselves to be of the “people.”

A true revolution can only occur when the working class itself becomes politically conscious of its situation and rises up as a result, this can be done by means such as mass strikes as advocated by Luxemburg, or by the usage of syndicalist unions as advocated by De Leon, or by other means, but the so-called “communist revolutions” of the 20th century weren’t genuine communist revolutions, nor were they socialist since barring a few cases, like Catalonia during the Spanish Revolution, did the workers genuinely control the means of production.