mial42

Gone Fishin'
The big obstacle to anarchist success in a lot of revolutions is that non-anarchist socialists and communists are more ready to use violence to suppress the anarchists than anarchists are to suppress more authoritarian communists. And that only intensifies when you consider right-wing factions like the Whites in Russia.

This is not to say anarchist revolts cannot succeed (Rojava and the Zapatistas say hi) but it's far harder when faced with a group like the Bolsheviks who were prepared to defend what they defined as a revolutionary society by any means necessary (and it gets worse with for instance fascist societies, though that's less relevant to Russia)).
Neither the Zapatistas or Rojava are anarchist. Decentralized and democratic, especially compared to their regions as a whole? Yes. Anarchist? No.
 

mial42

Gone Fishin'
"Rojava this, Rojava that"

Ok, so Bakunin supplies supplies the ideology, who supplies the predator drones and foreign military police?
Exactly. And Bakunin doesn't even supply the ideology; Rojava isn't ideologically anarchist despite what many anarchists claim about it. Again, decentralized democracy =/= anarchism.
 
history doesn’t proceed from a genealogical analysis of ideology outside of the history of ideas.

social history is the attempt at a history of the real relations amongst people, ie: subsistence first; culture second.

if the subsistence substantially matches either workers control and universal sustenance or the abolition of class then it is meaningful to call the relations anarchist and/or communist as this has been the purported relations between people aspired to and described by those words. Certainly prior to 1917 and even generally subsequent.

did the workers councils of 1956 have a formed ideology with four volume treatise critiquing capital? No. Did they sack people from four leaderships for betrayal in two weeks and have three reserve leaderships from the floor for when arrested by soviets? Yes. Was instant recall in place? Yes and used. Did solidarity replace ability to pay? Yes. So ought they be named by ideology or praxis?
 
So ought they be named by ideology or praxis?
So a state entity that upholds the principles of private property and enterprise, while being a beneficiary of superpower imperialism, that just so happens to fawn over libertarian socialist literature wouldn't be anarchist?
 
So a state entity that upholds the principles of private property and enterprise, while being a beneficiary of superpower imperialism, that just so happens to fawn over libertarian socialist literature wouldn't be anarchist?
No more than one being the victim of great power imperialism, that just so happens to fawn over Freddie and Kazza’s writings, would be communist.
 
Top