First off: I'm a stupid person too. Second of all: I love anarcho-communists--my holdup is that I don't trust them to defend the revolution against counter revolution.
I guess that's also my problem--I don't trust the people in general. I trust the proletariat, and I don't trust their oppressors. A dictatorship of the proletariat aimed at destroying the bourgeois seems as justified and necessary as the forcible destruction of the slave owning class in the South during the US civil war.
No worries, I'm borderline drunk too. What I like about Bakunin is that he focused in on how a dictatorship of the proletariat (DPTP) will inherently struggle to dissolve itself into statelessness--which given the history of the 20th century is hard to deny. I still feel that DOTP is necessary, but that the theory of transition to statelessness is utterly nonexistent in MLM canon (or at least I'm not aware of it), which leaves me unusually open to ancom ideas.
I'd read up on the Zapatistas. They started as Guevarist, but adapted their ML ideas into something more closely resembling anarchism through the mass line in dialogue with the Mayans they served. The result is a DotP that is deeply democratic. (For example, they once called off a battle because the people demanded it).
The reason the proletariat lost the civil war wasn't that they had officer elections (in fact, by many accounts the anarchist militias were the most effective fighting forces). The issue was that they weren't able to get enough arms to the front lines. The POUM argued that if they had continued seizing industry from the capitalists then they would have been able to produce more arms. The Communist party argued that they needed to stop doing that in order to from a temporary alliance with the liberals in order to create a united front against fascism. The communists argued that the failure of the proletariat in the Spanish civil war had more to do with a lack of international support.
Anarchists aren't against revolutionary violence, they just want to use the minimum amount necessary (while still using the necessary amount). In fact, the legitimacy of the CNT-FAI's enslavement of fascists during the civil war is a point of debate among anarchists. The other check anarchists want to put on revolutionary violence is making the armies accountable to the people and the soldiers (for example, in Kurdish Syria there are two armies, the YPG-YPJ, as well as the HPC. The YPG is a state conscripted professional army while the HPC is an elected volunteer military in place for local defense and holding the YPG accountable) The YPG, like the Red Army has officer elections and unlike the Red Army treats "commander" as a rotating duty rather than an ongoing rank.
deleted by creator
First off: I'm a stupid person too. Second of all: I love anarcho-communists--my holdup is that I don't trust them to defend the revolution against counter revolution.
deleted by creator
I guess that's also my problem--I don't trust the people in general. I trust the proletariat, and I don't trust their oppressors. A dictatorship of the proletariat aimed at destroying the bourgeois seems as justified and necessary as the forcible destruction of the slave owning class in the South during the US civil war.
deleted by creator
No worries, I'm borderline drunk too. What I like about Bakunin is that he focused in on how a dictatorship of the proletariat (DPTP) will inherently struggle to dissolve itself into statelessness--which given the history of the 20th century is hard to deny. I still feel that DOTP is necessary, but that the theory of transition to statelessness is utterly nonexistent in MLM canon (or at least I'm not aware of it), which leaves me unusually open to ancom ideas.
I'd read up on the Zapatistas. They started as Guevarist, but adapted their ML ideas into something more closely resembling anarchism through the mass line in dialogue with the Mayans they served. The result is a DotP that is deeply democratic. (For example, they once called off a battle because the people demanded it).
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
The reason the proletariat lost the civil war wasn't that they had officer elections (in fact, by many accounts the anarchist militias were the most effective fighting forces). The issue was that they weren't able to get enough arms to the front lines. The POUM argued that if they had continued seizing industry from the capitalists then they would have been able to produce more arms. The Communist party argued that they needed to stop doing that in order to from a temporary alliance with the liberals in order to create a united front against fascism. The communists argued that the failure of the proletariat in the Spanish civil war had more to do with a lack of international support.
Anarchists aren't against revolutionary violence, they just want to use the minimum amount necessary (while still using the necessary amount). In fact, the legitimacy of the CNT-FAI's enslavement of fascists during the civil war is a point of debate among anarchists. The other check anarchists want to put on revolutionary violence is making the armies accountable to the people and the soldiers (for example, in Kurdish Syria there are two armies, the YPG-YPJ, as well as the HPC. The YPG is a state conscripted professional army while the HPC is an elected volunteer military in place for local defense and holding the YPG accountable) The YPG, like the Red Army has officer elections and unlike the Red Army treats "commander" as a rotating duty rather than an ongoing rank.