From this livestream: https://youtube.com/live/Mx_N17nI0aASign up for *MeansTV* and get 20% off with this link https://means.tv/orders/customer_info?o=70845&...
Secondly, studying the successes of anarchist Catalonia (or Makhnovist Ukraine, or the Paris Commune, or whatever failed libertarian socialist project you might want to mention) is a dead-end as far as theory goes. Political theory that is built on past successes are next to useless… theory that is built on a sober (and granular) appreciation of failure is not.
Modern Anarchist thought does take those failures into account, and does not aim to replicate them 1-to-1. But those same failures also brought with it some great successes, such as showing us that our theories on how an Anarchist society is actually run, like giving the working class ownership and control of their workplaces to self manage really does work. Some areas even abolished money, and that also seemed to work.
Proving that those things do work is a massive step in convincing others that this isn’t just a bunch of pie in the sky ideas, and it’s why I still point to that event.
The socialist experiments in Rojava and Chiappas proves this - both owe their existence to tankies who went back to the drawing board, critically reviewed the very Marxist-Leninist fuckups they had committed, and dumped Marxist-Leninist orthodoxy overboard (the fact that tankies dislike talking about these two projects proves as much). Should anarchists, perhaps, do the same?
Rojava is the main focus at the end of the ‘Accidental Anarchist’ documentary I linked to in my first source, which it praises and points out as a success of Anarchist ideas in practice. The PKK’s leader did toss out marxist-leninism, but only after reading Murray Bookchin’s books while in prison. Murray Bookchin is an Anarchist, and virtually all of the changes Abdullah Öcalan made to their political theory was to adopt many Anarchist positions.
However, Rojava is unfortunately now suffering from the same issues that the Spanish Anarchists did.
With the US no longer offering it logistical support, it has struggled to defend itself against the multi-pronged assaults from the new, more unified Syrian government, as well as larger assaults from Turkey. It has lost a significant amount of territory, and is slowly being forced to integrate into the new Syrian government, giving up much of their autonomy.
The main issue that Libertarian socialism/Anarchism has faced historically, is Anarchist revolutions have not occurred in areas that could support themselves logistically without outside help (Except Russia, where had Makhno been able to defeat the Marxists, they may have been able to survive long term).
Left Libertarian states are seen as enemies by all other ideologies and economic systems, as they threaten the established hierarchies in both Authoritarian Marxist-Leninist countries, as well as Capitalist power in liberal democracies.
What stopped people from “joining in” during the sixties? The seventies? The eighties?
Extreme suppression of Anarchists by state governments in most areas, as well as economic reforms making people complacent. As an example, the Red Scare in the US resulted in the Anarchist movement being set back decades as anarchist union members (the IWW), and regular anarchist were rounded up and imprisoned or deported to Russia.
The US in particular was on the verge of a socialist revolution during the great depression, which was only avoided by FDR’s economic reforms and worker protections, which allowed non-radical unions to gain significant bargaining power and better economic conditions, resulting in the ‘golden age’ of the US, and thus most became content with the status quo.
Unfortunately, as our current situation shows, those liberal reforms are always temporary, since it appears inevitable that capitalism auto-corrupts liberal democracies until they are once again brought back to a point where people are desperate enough to try an alternative. We’re seeing fascism rear its ugly head once again as one of those alternatives which promises a better life, just as Hitler and Mussolini once did.
The lack of this framework is on display literally in the very first source you posted - any self-described “libertarian socialist” that frames the concept of democracy as some kind of “problem” that requires solving will (justifiably) raise a lot of red flags with the working class.
What source mentioned that? I didn’t see that in the Accidental Anarchist documentary (the first source, unless you mean Anark?)
It seems that “killing the liberal inside your own head” is something that a lot of anarchists preach… but do not necessarily practice.
Part 2:
Modern Anarchist thought does take those failures into account, and does not aim to replicate them 1-to-1. But those same failures also brought with it some great successes, such as showing us that our theories on how an Anarchist society is actually run, like giving the working class ownership and control of their workplaces to self manage really does work. Some areas even abolished money, and that also seemed to work.
Proving that those things do work is a massive step in convincing others that this isn’t just a bunch of pie in the sky ideas, and it’s why I still point to that event.
Rojava is the main focus at the end of the ‘Accidental Anarchist’ documentary I linked to in my first source, which it praises and points out as a success of Anarchist ideas in practice. The PKK’s leader did toss out marxist-leninism, but only after reading Murray Bookchin’s books while in prison. Murray Bookchin is an Anarchist, and virtually all of the changes Abdullah Öcalan made to their political theory was to adopt many Anarchist positions.
However, Rojava is unfortunately now suffering from the same issues that the Spanish Anarchists did.
With the US no longer offering it logistical support, it has struggled to defend itself against the multi-pronged assaults from the new, more unified Syrian government, as well as larger assaults from Turkey. It has lost a significant amount of territory, and is slowly being forced to integrate into the new Syrian government, giving up much of their autonomy.
The main issue that Libertarian socialism/Anarchism has faced historically, is Anarchist revolutions have not occurred in areas that could support themselves logistically without outside help (Except Russia, where had Makhno been able to defeat the Marxists, they may have been able to survive long term).
Left Libertarian states are seen as enemies by all other ideologies and economic systems, as they threaten the established hierarchies in both Authoritarian Marxist-Leninist countries, as well as Capitalist power in liberal democracies.
Extreme suppression of Anarchists by state governments in most areas, as well as economic reforms making people complacent. As an example, the Red Scare in the US resulted in the Anarchist movement being set back decades as anarchist union members (the IWW), and regular anarchist were rounded up and imprisoned or deported to Russia.
The US in particular was on the verge of a socialist revolution during the great depression, which was only avoided by FDR’s economic reforms and worker protections, which allowed non-radical unions to gain significant bargaining power and better economic conditions, resulting in the ‘golden age’ of the US, and thus most became content with the status quo.
Unfortunately, as our current situation shows, those liberal reforms are always temporary, since it appears inevitable that capitalism auto-corrupts liberal democracies until they are once again brought back to a point where people are desperate enough to try an alternative. We’re seeing fascism rear its ugly head once again as one of those alternatives which promises a better life, just as Hitler and Mussolini once did.
What source mentioned that? I didn’t see that in the Accidental Anarchist documentary (the first source, unless you mean Anark?)
Could you elaborate what you mean by that?