There are no large-scale anarchist societies because capitalism and state are constantly destroying even small-scale anarchist and other leftist projects through sheer numbers and force. We actually did have large-scale anarchist societies in Spain and Ukraine.
Well in all fairness you do need to be able to defend your society from external threats or it is not a viable society, at least while those external threats exist
If Russia succeeded in invading Ukraine would your talking point be that Ukraine was a failure because they couldn’t defeat someone multiple times bigger on their own?
Historically they failed because they were against larger countries, and because more often than not they were backstabbed by tankies.
Go look at the Zapatista in Chiapas to see some of them still fighting and controlling their lands today. Go look at the Rojava to see how they are dying due to being outnumbered fighting US/EU funded ISIS via Türkiye/Syria. Or go look at Ukraine and the black army to see how they died due to trusting tankies.
Anarchism does not mean you aren’t mobilised and armed to fight your enemies, it is just as capable of that as any other peoples have been.
If Russia was a stateless society yes we would question the utility of the state’s ability to defend a people, especially if it were against a genuine anarchist society
Many people aren’t adverse to anarchist ideals but it’s the obvious practical deal breaker issues to maintain such a society that are obvious to everyone but anarchists
There are no large-scale anarchist societies because capitalism and state are constantly destroying even small-scale anarchist and other leftist projects through sheer numbers and force. We actually did have large-scale anarchist societies in Spain and Ukraine.
Well in all fairness you do need to be able to defend your society from external threats or it is not a viable society, at least while those external threats exist
Good thing anarchists don’t oppose being able to defend ourselves from monsters. 🙂
That doesn’t actually address how anarchist societies are supposed to defend themselves against the militant hierarchical ones next door or abroad
It just says trust me bro we can handle whatever comes our way when irl they all failed
You shoot them.
If Russia succeeded in invading Ukraine would your talking point be that Ukraine was a failure because they couldn’t defeat someone multiple times bigger on their own?
Historically they failed because they were against larger countries, and because more often than not they were backstabbed by tankies.
Go look at the Zapatista in Chiapas to see some of them still fighting and controlling their lands today. Go look at the Rojava to see how they are dying due to being outnumbered fighting US/EU funded ISIS via Türkiye/Syria. Or go look at Ukraine and the black army to see how they died due to trusting tankies.
Anarchism does not mean you aren’t mobilised and armed to fight your enemies, it is just as capable of that as any other peoples have been.
If Russia was a stateless society yes we would question the utility of the state’s ability to defend a people, especially if it were against a genuine anarchist society
Many people aren’t adverse to anarchist ideals but it’s the obvious practical deal breaker issues to maintain such a society that are obvious to everyone but anarchists
Ukraine is the analogy to Anarchism here, not Russia.
And it’s doubly fitting because they were a stateless society in the past and their military defended itself well against the white army.