Oh, wow, so they killed some people and bombed wall street.
How successful was that in achieving their political objectives?
Sorry, are you saying there haven't been any large scale anarchist projects?
i do know that i don’t trust anyone else to decide how i keep myself fed and safe.
Thats some right libertarian hyper-individualist hogwash. Stop being alienated from your fellow workers.
i would empower individuals to a maximum degree and destroy concentrations of power wherever they’re found.
So, let's say the workers form Soviets. Those Soviets have to be destroyed, right?
I think the anarchists in Spain have more of a claim to define anarchism than you tbh. And they absolutely had authority. Hell, they had concentration camps.
Can you name a large scale anarchist project that wouldn't qualify as a transitional state?
Sorry, I set the bar too low.
Feasible plans for a classless society day one.
How far have they gotten in that century? Because honestly the whole "at it for a century" thing reeks of failure.
I don’t believe in rights.
Not even positive rights? You're literally like "authority means it is by definition a class society" and you don't believe in rights? How do you square that circle?
It honestly feels like this is a cheap rhetorical dismissal because you don't want to compare what the actual material benefits of socialist revolutions are vs anarchist revolutions.
I didn’t think that I’d have to explain to somebody that the very existence of a hierarchy implies class structure.
And of course, there was no hierarchy in actual anarchist societies. /s.
Have you never heard of the concept of a transitional state? You know, that thing that socialists and anarchists both do, that involves hierarchy in repressing right wing elements? That socialists actually acknowledge the evil of, as opposed to pretending like they're not doing a transitional state?
Or do you have a new super special plan to do classless society day one? If so I'd love to hear it.
Imprecise definition aside, revolutions have to be able to defend themselves, and it could be argued Catalonia and Ukraine started in much better material positions and ended up falling apart because of problems with their political/economic structure, while the semi-centralized democracy and rationalized economy of the USSR allowed them to succeed in defending itself from the Nazis (but not, ultimately, from the US empire, however Vietnam, Cuba, laos, and China succeeded, and the DPRK partially succeeded)
Can you name a large scale anarchist project with better rights than Cuba or Vietnam?
I'll save you the effort: nah. Catalonia had concentration camps and "free" Ukraine was a bandit dictatorship that empowered kulaks to do pogroms. And they both got crushed partially due to a lack of centralization, and a lack of collaboration with and alienation from popular fronts.
"Tankies" as you put it, are the actual leftists advancing liberation, and not just jerking themselves off about how left they are, which is easy to do when their ideology remains only theoretical. When the rubber hits the road, anarchists fall somewhere between the brutality of socialist projects and capitalism.
As Trotsky said "anarchism is a rain coat that leaks only while it is wet"
Remember, you have to vote for the genocidal monster, or you'll get the genocidal monster who's son wants to speculate on the newly controllable land! These are substantive differences for the average voter and average Palestinian.
Nah I don't think men need to categorize themselves based on some out of touch notion of how fuckable they are, feels pretty objectifying
You're against concentration of power. Can you name a single revolution that succeeded without some concentrated power, democratically concentrated or otherwise?
It seems like you want to fight and lose.