I mean, it’s both. Hungary was the upper cut and Czech was the right hook. But regardless, if you don’t have a blind allegiance to just any state calling itself socialist, then you probably aren’t a Tankie, right?

To date, nobody has shown a more effective approach to organizing that I’m aware of.

Makhnovshchina, CNT, Rojava, Zapatistas…

Is your definition of success the establishment of a socialist state? Because anarchists are never going to do that.

The nature of society has not fundamentally changed in a century

You don’t actually believe that basically nothing has changed since before the industrial revolution, do you? That seems intentionally obtuse.

You’re not an anti-anarchist, and I’m not an anti-Marxist. Isn’t that just enough? Spending all of your time planning for what the potential future socioeconomic system might look like isn’t something that really scratches any itch that I have anymore. I’m far more concerned with what can be done right now.

The VAST majority of anarchists are, in fact, cribbing from Marxism. Anarchists don’t generally reject Marxian economic analysis.

There are entire books written about this. People here just don’t want to write one for you

I guess if I can point to anything in this dynamic it’s that there isn’t really a huge difference in how effective the different groups are at accomplishing their short term goals, so IMO it would just make more sense to figure out which ideological line is most attractive to the people it’s supposed to serve in a given area and stick to that.

I 100% agree

And that was a useful framework in the early 20th century (I’ve at least read the April Theses), but can we not continue to adapt our revolutionary strategy to better combat the forces who opposed us today rather than in 1917?

You’ve done nothing but act in good faith so far, and of course I will extend you the benefit of the doubt. Asking questions is how we learn, right?

Honestly, I think the reason why a lot of anarchists tend to view Marxists as overly theoretical is because there a few of them participating in the everyday struggles. I can personally say (and this is purely anecdotal) that in actions I’ve taken part in, the committed Marxists that are there are some of the most loyal and trustworthy people I’ve ever been beaten up by cops with, but they are almost always the minority. It’s usually a mix of various leftist tendencies, mostly anarchist, that are all there to achieve a common goal. Very liberal protests, for what it’s worth, seem to have a tendency to attract large groups of Trotskyists.

And then in big tent orgs I’ve been in, then MLs especially, are usually the ones pushing for electoralism and reform.

Anarchism is a LARGE umbrella, kind of like Marxism. But anarchists that I know in real life are generally willing to put aside differences in petty ideology in order to accomplish a goal for the greater good.

I run into people online ALL the time who blindly support the DPRK, the PRC and modern Russia out of some kind of, I don’t know, ritual practice? ANYBODY political online (including both of us) should be treated with heaping mounds of scepticism.

But to more directly answer your question: Anarchism has a history with nihilism. And it has a history with statist projects. And the two things are not mutually exclusive. You will be called “Tankie” the same as I will be called “Liberal”, because nobody that’s making those accusations really know what they’re saying anyway.

Personally, Tankie is a term reserved for very specifically people who defend the Soviet Union in the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia . Nothing more or nothing less.

Now, if you’re talking about if you can count on anarchist comrades to take arms and fight against their oppressors, the answer is a definitive “yes”. But if you’re asking them to follow a vanguard that promises it has their best interests at heart, then that is a resounding, “no”. Because hierarchy itself is challenged, there will be no capitulations on personal autonomy that doesn’t originate specifically from the proletariat.

I’m not, no. Because most anarchists I know ARE Marxists (at least in terms of economic analysis). But, in my experience, anarchists are the ones that are actually out there preventing fascist cop training grounds from being built, feeding the unhoused, smuggling people across state lines for healthcare, prison outreach, etc. Because (and this is genuinely just my own experience; I’m totally sure this isn’t a universal constant) I see a lot of Marxists and MLs talking a lot about “when the revolution happens” and not a whole lot about the revolution being fought right now, everyday.

Sure, but can you offer me at least one example?

Yes I can. But you may not be totally satisfied, because anarchists and Marxists view the “revolutionary project” as slightly different things. My previous hypothetical about potholes wasn’t actually hypothetical. It was based on a real thing called PARC (Portland Anarchist Road Care) which I had the pleasure of participating in back in 2017.

There’s the old standard Food Not Bombs which has fed probably millions of people since the early 80s and are often the first people on the scene in the wake of a natural disaster along with anarchist darlings Mutual Aid Disaster Relief

But if you’re looking for things that more closely emulate state level actions, you’re going to be more out of luck, as anarchists don’t advocate for a state at all, and so that would be a little antithetical. There are, however, a few examples to point to when it comes to highly intricate levels of organization and resources distribution. For example the aforementioned Zapatistas who don’t claim to be anarchists (there movement is much more multifaceted and intersectional due to the intersecting indigenous rights issues), but they DO adhere to primarily anarchist principle. There’s also Rojava or Democratic Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria which operates on a sort of localized version of Social Ecology/Libertarian Municipalism called Democratic Confederalism, that was, and it’s worth noting, developed out of an ostensibly Marxist-Leninist structure.

Of course there are historical examples in Revolutionary Catalonia and the Makhnovshchina, both of which I genuinely believe would have more successful with a little left unity.

In my view, either you aim to exist outside of the state until the state ceases to exist, which is a morally admirable view but extremely fragile. The second the state acquires enough hegemonic force to wipe you off the face of the planet, they will and you will leave no trace, so there goes your revolutionary project (that you never stood much of a chance to defend, either).

This is a valid critique. I personally tend to envision a scenario that would NECESSITATE mutual aid (think, the total dissolution of anything that resembles social welfare in a given location or a massive natural disaster or just the inevitability of destabilization due to climate change), which would have the positive side effect of concentrating more power into the hands of the proletariat. But there’s certainly other ideas about exactly HOW a revolution would take place, I just don’t personally tend to concern myself with those.

Or you do want to use the state to wage class war. In this case, that’s really the same as what the Marxists want, fundamentally at least. You’re just stronger in your moral condemnation of the state, while Marxists focus on functionally describing how the struggle from the current capitalist status quo can evolve into a stateless society via a historical process.

This really depends on what you mean. Anarchists usually see the state and capitalism and inextricably linked, and to defeat one, you must defeat both. But many anarchists also consider capitalism to be inherently unstable and prone to crashes, affording a prime opportunity to step in and show people that people are capable of taking care of people. But I wouldn’t consider the inevitability of the state using force against the proletariat as “using the state to wage class war”, as much as revolutionary potential.

*I’m really sorry this is so long, but you gave me a lot to think about and I didn’t want to just give you a bullshit non answer.

I just don’t want to get into all the nitty gritty if you haven’t done the reading. We could talk about mutualism, anarcho-communism, syndicalism, democratic confederalism, zapatistas, Makhnovshchina, social ecology, library socialism, etc, etc, etc if you want. We can talk about about all of those and specifically HOW they prescribe a society, how they could interact and/or intersect ALL DAY LONG. But anarchists tend to be materialists, and praxis often takes priority over just theory.

That really depends on the anarchist and what they believe about how capitalism comes to an end. But that’s all theory anyway. Anarchists are usually considers materialists, so theory usually comes second to practice. Like, "If I can fill that pothole on my street right now, then why not just do it? For example.

They weren’t talking about YOU.

This is all so wrong. First of all, most anarchist advocate for prefiguritive politics, or “building a new world within the shell of the old” which is why things like Food Not Bombs exists, along with many many other anarchist projects specifically aimed at building a stateless, moneyless, classes society. They don’t NOT want to simply abolish the state completely overnight.

Anarchists have come up with a WHOLE lot of ways that a society could be run, and they generally don’t think that there’s a one size fits all solution that would work for everybody.

You haven’t read a single thing about anarchism that didn’t come from a Marxist source, have you?

This sounds like Aldi. Is this Aldi?

Whoa, I had no idea this was a thing anywhere that has grocery stores. Doesn’t that leave you very susceptible to sudden supply change fluctuations?

They’re usually in the back stocking the store so you have stuff to buy. Guarantee that if you go to the dairy cooler and stick your head in and say, “Yoohoo!” Somebody will be there and be willing to help you, no problem.

You know you can ask the employees where stuff was moved to, right?

Fox News was on satellite in Britain for more than 15 years.

Also, you have TalkTV and GB News now.

But England literally has a King