If anarchistic system is so great why did it fail every time?

[Cascadian]

You would really make an excuse for him???

That would fundamentally alter the human condition... In the favor of capital...

No direspect dude, but go post on PIX board if your gonna act like this...

As I've said before, there is no "going back" in question.

...or yeah, smash the machines! Up the neo luddites!!!

[Danarchy]

Just had an argue with my dad-he is an social democrat,and im just in stage between socialism and anarchism and he just put in this question and,he totally shunted me up. And he also said that there were places where anarchists were in power,but it collapsed in a very short time.


Help!

I would just turn it back on your Dad and ask why Social Democrats have turned their back, colluded with or actively work against the working class once a moment has arrived that Anarchism principles are being achieved. Social Democrats are republicans who feel guilty, they refuse to admit that Capitalism/ monetary systems are the root of all injustice and oppression, belive in middle lines between capitalism and social welfare. They would have no problem 'owning' two houses while campaigning for the homeless, or paying $500.00 for a dinner fundraiser to alleviate 'poverty'. I would also ask your Dad to what moments is he refering to, does he actually know of Anarchist history or is a historical revisionist. My Dad was also a Social Democrat (Canadian), different ideas in different countries. I just gave up after 20 years of arguing. The problem for me is that Social Democrats could live alongside an Anarchist community but Anarchists communities can not exist under a Social Democratic government, or any other kind. Government doesn't like competition. For them, clear examples of functional alternatives can not be allowed to exist.

I argue, similar to A/O for the creation of Autonomous Zones, there are some that are 50+ years and still going. I would not support the creation of any transitionary state Capitalism - Socialism - Anarchism as forces such as you Dad would actively undermine the further progression of social evolution once he/ they acheive their level of freedom. As they have historically done. Under this constant threat Anarchism has a hard time stablising. Every alternate view from Social Democracy to Communism infiltrates and undermines anarchist groups/ movements, I refuse to hyphenate Anarchism. In it's pureist form Anarchism is a philosophy rather than a political program, if you follow the philosophy to it's inevitable conclusion then society would be made up of many different community/ group forms. Enforce/impose any structural model (communism, syndicalism, et al) and it becomes a reflection of that model and NOT anarchism.

I would also ask your Dad why social democratic governments have not created a perfect society? They have been in power in several countries for more than a few decades. Why does their history reflect nothing more than placating capitalist/ national interests. We have minimum wages that do not reflect living wage, healthcare that is ineffective, education that still reflects class privilage, extremely pervasive racist and nationalist tendencies, what is his excuse? But which country are we taking about as here the Social Democratic ideologies are fairly diverse.

[Caps]

like: capitalism-->socialism--->anarchism

That would be your classical Marxist approach you were asking about elsewhere. Try to find a short history of the anarchists in Spain as a classic example of anarchist organising and its potential vulnerabilities.

[Sarmaister]

anarchists truly had just one period of actual freedom to organise . in spain during the civil war and it effing worked . it would have been even beter if the stalinists havent witheld weapons from them

[ungovernable]

If anarchistic system is so great why did it fail every time?

Counter-revolution.

It's not the "system" of the society that failed, they just lost a war that couldn't be won

Spanish revolution : They had to fight against Franco's armies and he was getting help by Mussolini. Even hitler's army helped to bomb the anarchists in Spain. They had help from USSR, but Stalin always refused to provide them troops and weapons. In the end, the communists backstabbed the anarchists.
So basically, they were fighting against the professional armies of Francol, Mussolini Hitler and also against the stalinist communists. They were alone, with almost no weapons or equippement. How the fuck could they win ?

If you look at the results of the anarchist society in Spain, it was an HUGE victory (check the documentary on spanish revolution in the documentaries section for sources). The shops were more productive, the bosses were surprised to see how the shops were doing good when they came back. Workers had managed them better than the bosses did, they imported new equippement, etc


Makhnovtchina in Ukraine : They were fighting against the white armies who were overnumbered, with better equippement and more trained. BUT THEY WON... Until USSR backstabbed them and Lenin and Trotsky destroyed them.


Zapatistas : They're still here in 2012 alive and kicking


Kronsdadt : Come on, how the hell could have they won ? They were only a few hundreds of anarchists fighting against the USSR with an army of millions of soldiers.


Other examples of anarchism in action are at a smaller scale and didn't control large autonomous part of land. So ultimatly, they got defeated by the State and their huge armies of police.

Anarchism didn't fail because of the way it works, it failed because not enough people were supporting them. Anarchism isn't a war strategy, the goal isn't to win war or build a strong army : it's all about power to the people.

[Caps]

If anarchistic system is so great why did it fail every time?

Counter-revolution.

It's not the "system" of the society that failed, they just lost a war that couldn't be won

Spanish revolution : They had to fight against Franco's armies and he was getting help by Mussolini. Even hitler's army helped to bomb the anarchists in Spain. They had help from USSR, but Stalin always refused to provide them troops and weapons. In the end, the communists backstabbed the anarchists.
So basically, they were fighting against the professional armies of Francol, Mussolini Hitler and also against the stalinist communists. They were alone, with almost no weapons or equippement. How the fuck could they win ?

If you look at the results of the anarchist society in Spain, it was an HUGE victory (check the documentary on spanish revolution in the documentaries section for sources). The shops were more productive, the bosses were surprised to see how the shops were doing good when they came back. Workers had managed them better than the bosses did, they imported new equippement, etc


Makhnovtchina in Ukraine : They were fighting against the white armies who were overnumbered, with better equippement and more trained. BUT THEY WON... Until USSR backstabbed them and Lenin and Trotsky destroyed them.


Zapatistas : They're still here in 2012 alive and kicking


Kronsdadt : Come on, how the hell could have they won ? They were only a few hundreds of anarchists fighting against the USSR with an army of millions of soldiers.


Other examples of anarchism in action are at a smaller scale and didn't control large autonomous part of land. So ultimatly, they got defeated by the State and their huge armies of police.

Anarchism didn't fail because of the way it works, it failed because not enough people were supporting them. Anarchism isn't a war strategy, the goal isn't to win war or build a strong army : it's all about power to the people.

Excellently put in that last sentence. Both Anarchism's major appeal and major weakness.

I've highlighted a key-point, one of the issues that has made the split between communists and anarchists ever wider: betrayal. 'Shoot them like rabbits' I believe was Trotsky's command over Kronstadt.

[xxxisaacalopezxxx]

Unless something cataclysmic happened with a small community of survivors left (let's say 100) I don't see anarchy successfully occurring in the future and even with a community of 100 people It still might eventually fail. Some people are born with morals and some are not, we see that in our "democratic" system. So, if we were to try to start an anarchist community I'm sure there would be one guy that would screw it all up history has shown that in different forms of government. Think about it this way, Anarchy is just a dirty word for communism (and I mean pure communism, not totalitarian communism) and look what happened in Russia when they tried it. When they tried they didn't even get it right because there was still an over-watcher. After Vladimir Lennin died the system all fell apart. I love the idea of anarchy/communism (whatever you want to call it) I just can't see it ever happening. The only flaw in humanity is that we are too crooked, but that is what also makes us beautiful. We are blessed with a curse.

[punkmar77]

Anarchism is not a dirty word for 'pure' communism... you need to do a lot more studying before making generalized blanket statements like that, there are pockets of anarchist communes and workers movements all over the world that have 'worked' for decades, the Zapatistas have a working anarchist community that is the size of a state in the jungles of Chiapas Mexico and that's been 'successfully' happening for over 20 years...open some books and learn more than the regular counter-revolutionary shit the system is force feeding you...

[AgentOrange]

plus, no one is "born" with morals or without. morals depend on the society humans live in. you get socialized in one way or the other. any society does so. i currently live in an ecovillage in germany, and the children living here are SO different from most children who were raised in, say, a city, a slum, a noble house, whatnot. open-minded, not like totally hippie or so, but they approach anything with a natural interest in things and without prejudices. its all about your enviroment, socialisation.

[ungovernable]

Unless something cataclysmic happened with a small community of survivors left (let's say 100) I don't see anarchy successfully occurring in the future and even with a community of 100 people It still might eventually fail. Some people are born with morals and some are not, we see that in our "democratic" system. So, if we were to try to start an anarchist community I'm sure there would be one guy that would screw it all up history has shown that in different forms of government. Think about it this way, Anarchy is just a dirty word for communism (and I mean pure communism, not totalitarian communism) and look what happened in Russia when they tried it. When they tried they didn't even get it right because there was still an over-watcher. After Vladimir Lennin died the system all fell apart. I love the idea of anarchy/communism (whatever you want to call it) I just can't see it ever happening. The only flaw in humanity is that we are too crooked, but that is what also makes us beautiful. We are blessed with a curse.

Did you even take the time to read my post ? Anarchism existed with way more than 100 people, especially during spanish revolution and ukrainian makhnovtchina.

[xxxisaacalopezxxx]

Yeah, sorry I was not in my right mind, I'm sorry what I have said.

[AnarchoThrash]

A basic thing I have noticed is that people can't answer what happens the next day after rebellion, for me the answer is that anarchists would take over production units to prevent people from starving.

[nclpw]

Depends what your dad meant by anarchist systems. There was a time long, long ago when there was no system, and it worked.
I think power needs to be decentralized(globally) for a whole country to be able to be anarchist(so yeah, what danarchy said in that other thread).
Seems like we`re moving in the total opposite direction at the moment though.

As for what happens the next day after rebellion I think my answer is reorganizing.