Anarchism, Arguments For and Against

[Duvniask]

Anarchism to me looks to be little more than liberal ideology taken to the point of parody, obsessed with an abstract ideal of freedom to the detriment of everything else. Ultimately, it's little more than the petit-bourgeois desire for autonomy propped up by a moral critique of 'authoritarianism', which generally seems to mean whatever rules and systems a particular anarchist dislikes. Needless to say, I don't see much potential in this schema.

A strange notion given the literally millions of peasants and proletarians who launched the great anarchist movements of the last century, and who eagerly expropriated and redistributed the means of production held by the bourgeois and petit-bourgeois

Ponder this: what happens to peasants once you redistribute land to them which is then held in their own name? What happens to workers who become co-owners of their place of work?

You've been around long enough to remember that this is the exact same spiel NSG went through in its libertarian/anarcho-capitalist phase. It was bad then and it's just as bad now.

Nah, the ancaps would be telling you that as long as you own the property, you can do whatever you want to the river, and no one else's rights can in any way interfere with that. And then they'd probably have something to say about the age of consent.

The mystical force I refer to is in reality the threat of sanction, violence, or force and the active employment of it should the mere threat of it fail to suffice.

Is it meant to be significant in some way for you to point out that if you were to try and poison people they might use violence to defend themselves? Are you about to tell me that self defence is actually coercion?

What is coercion to you and what is not? I would argue self-defense involves the element of coercion, especially if it is preemptive (suppose I plan to poison a river and haven't yet done) or if it seeks to deter future transgressions. These people who would have some grievance against me could decide to deprive me of the means with which I could have poisoned them. See also what Pan-Pacific Unity said.

And speaking of transgressions, is it "self-defense" if I break an agreement and someone decides I need to be six feet under because it hurt them in some way? Is it "self-defense" if I commit fraud, mislead or otherwise exploit someone, even if they voluntarily agree to it, and they only learn after the fact and then use some sort of force against me? Is it "self-defense" if I murder some totally unrelated third party whose life or death has seemingly no material impact on you, yet you decide to attack anyway out of some obvious moral grievance stemming from my act?

[SD_Film Artists]

Personally I don't like it. It's just an annoying transition period when I'm changing governments. Sometimes it can last several turns which then means those turns are wasted since they don't produce any research, gold or city improvements during that time.

[Nilokeras]

While I admit that my critique is particularly aimed at individualist tendencies, I fail to see how this disproves it. Where exactly did millions of peasants and proletarians eliminate systems of property and the market? An examination of some of the prominent examples (Ukraine, Manchuria, Catalonia) shows that anarchist economies do not in fact eliminate such things, but rather attempts to redistribute them to smaller property holders while still maintaining the overarching mechanisms of capitalist society, that is private property and the market. Ultimately, it seeks to make things smaller and more autonomous, following the openly petit-bourgeois example of their antecessor Proudhon.

If I were to call back the shade of one of the CNT's leaders back from the underworld and ask them what they would have done differently with hindsight, I'd bet they'd answer that they should have overthrown the bourgeois government when they had the chance, not begrudgingly work with them to defeat the fascists in the Civil War. Likewise if I called back Makhno, he'd probably wish he had more guns and time with which to actually implement the vision of the Free Territory, and not fight three separate wars at the same time. Asking why movements that were in cataclysmic battles for their own survival didn't immediately and completely implement their social programs is silly.

Besides which this special pleading of 'why didn't they eliminate markets??' is rarely deployed honestly. During the same period as the Free Territory the Bolshevik government attempted full state control of industry and agriculture and it failed, spectacularly, causing Lenin himself to walk back the Soviet system to markets and private property. State socialist defenders of the USSR will strenuously point out the difficulties of executing social reform in the midst of a war of survival in explaining why nationalization was walked back. If anything, the Free Territory was more successful in its own goals because local control of production and impromptu peasant appropriation was already the status quo throughout the former Russian Empire, including Ukraine. Likewise, the CNT was only ever in control of the industries and sectors it operated in, and those were all collectively owned and operated.

Ponder this: what happens to peasants once you redistribute land to them which is then held in their own name? What happens to workers who become co-owners of their place of work?

I mean, if you're in the Free Territories, probably not much would have changed at all. Your former boss fled the city with his family weeks ago, and you and all your friends got together and declared a worker's soviet once news of the Tsar's abdication reached you. You probably got to work producing stuff and trading with your neighbours and the towns down the road to make ends meet and didn't think too much about who held the title to the steam loom or whatever. That is, until the state socialists calling themselves Bolsheviks rode into town, executed the head of the soviet for being a 'profiteer' and demanded half the grain in the warehouse to feed the war effort at bayonet point.

[Ifreann]

A strange notion given the literally millions of peasants and proletarians who launched the great anarchist movements of the last century, and who eagerly expropriated and redistributed the means of production held by the bourgeois and petit-bourgeois

While I admit that my critique is particularly aimed at individualist tendencies, I fail to see how this disproves it. Where exactly did millions of peasants and proletarians eliminate systems of property and the market? An examination of some of the prominent examples (Ukraine, Manchuria, Catalonia) shows that anarchist economies do not in fact eliminate such things, but rather attempts to redistribute them to smaller property holders while still maintaining the overarching mechanisms of capitalist society, that is private property and the market. Ultimately, it seeks to make things smaller and more autonomous, following the openly petit-bourgeois example of their antecessor Proudhon.

People defending themselves isn't coercion. Duh.

The threat of force preventing an action isn't coercive? Tell me, is it not coercive for state power to be deployed to defend, say, the private property of a business owner? And would it be coercive for someone to rob said business owner at gunpoint given the absence of state protection?

The absolute cringe of these semantics. "Anarchists are coercing me by not letting me kill them!"

lol. lmao.

[Nilokeras]

While I admit that my critique is particularly aimed at individualist tendencies, I fail to see how this disproves it. Where exactly did millions of peasants and proletarians eliminate systems of property and the market? An examination of some of the prominent examples (Ukraine, Manchuria, Catalonia) shows that anarchist economies do not in fact eliminate such things, but rather attempts to redistribute them to smaller property holders while still maintaining the overarching mechanisms of capitalist society, that is private property and the market. Ultimately, it seeks to make things smaller and more autonomous, following the openly petit-bourgeois example of their antecessor Proudhon.


The threat of force preventing an action isn't coercive? Tell me, is it not coercive for state power to be deployed to defend, say, the private property of a business owner? And would it be coercive for someone to rob said business owner at gunpoint given the absence of state protection?

The absolute cringe of these semantics. "Anarchists are coercing me by not letting me kill them!"

lol. lmao.

people seem to have this strange perception of anarchists as pacifist logic robots from star trek or something where if you point out that sometimes you need to deploy force in defense of a person or even a way of life, even if that way of life is peaceful, their heads will explode

[Duvniask]

While I admit that my critique is particularly aimed at individualist tendencies, I fail to see how this disproves it. Where exactly did millions of peasants and proletarians eliminate systems of property and the market? An examination of some of the prominent examples (Ukraine, Manchuria, Catalonia) shows that anarchist economies do not in fact eliminate such things, but rather attempts to redistribute them to smaller property holders while still maintaining the overarching mechanisms of capitalist society, that is private property and the market. Ultimately, it seeks to make things smaller and more autonomous, following the openly petit-bourgeois example of their antecessor Proudhon.


The threat of force preventing an action isn't coercive? Tell me, is it not coercive for state power to be deployed to defend, say, the private property of a business owner? And would it be coercive for someone to rob said business owner at gunpoint given the absence of state protection?

The absolute cringe of these semantics. "Anarchists are coercing me by not letting me kill them!"

lol. lmao.

Yes.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/coercion/

Besides, coercion is in use for much more than just defending yourself from being killed. Parents use it in the raising of kids, the state uses it to force people to comply with contract-agreements and laws. Societies in general use it to propagate themselves and expunge elements that are foreign to their standard way of operating. And they do these things because human beings need to be put under certain rules, even if they are implicit, to be able to exist together in anything other than a "nasty, brutish and short" life.

Every single policy ever conducted by a state, if it is not purely symbolic, has the intention of making people act in ways they would not otherwise have done. Page gives us the example of someone deciding on their consent to safety codes, but this is really quite stupid when you think about it for more than two seconds. People are not omniscient, you can't expect them to understand all the technical details of building a house, of maintaining a house, etc. Perhaps a shed in your backyard is one thing, let's not get ahead of ourselves, but for, say, an entire housing block, it would be quite irresponsible to leave it up to the mere act of consent; people will not be sure whether they actually live in a housing block that is built safely. It may look like it, the builders may assure you that it is, but what is there to compel them to behave? You have already consented to living in the place they have built, so isn't it on you, per the principles of consent, if the place comes crashing down and you die a gruesome death? You can extend this kind of issue to many other situations, by the way.

So for that one example, it should be clear that we have mandatory safety codes and force (read: coerce) people to comply with them, because it is necessary to not end up in the absolutely idiotic situation of people unwittingly putting themselves and others in danger. Such coercion exists to propel individuals in a more functional and equitable direction, even if, in the absence of that coercion, they would have consented to the alternative. So coercion also has the role of making people, whose rationality and information level is always restricted, act in ways that are ultimately better for all. That is the very reason we as humans construct institutions, because they serve to channel behavior in ways that are (hopefully) beneficial in some way, and they may do that via the structured ways of acting that they impose on individuals.

[Duvniask]

The absolute cringe of these semantics. "Anarchists are coercing me by not letting me kill them!"

lol. lmao.

people seem to have this strange perception of anarchists as pacifist logic robots from star trek or something where if you point out that sometimes you need to deploy force in defense of a person or even a way of life, even if that way of life is peaceful, their heads will explode

When anarchists seem to categorically deny coercion, it must always be pointed out to them that there are several reasonable instances of it, and if those exceptions are alright with them, then the whole house of cards starts falling in on itself, and they will typically resort to something like "I only want to do away with unjust coercion" - to which it must be replied: who is not against "unjust" coercion? What is it you believe you have accomplished by pointing out the obvious?

The exact same thing is the case when they start babbling about "unjust hierarchies". Compare American Republicans throwing themselves in behind "freedom". It is empty drivel that tells us nothing about anything.

[Pan-Pacific Unity]

While I admit that my critique is particularly aimed at individualist tendencies, I fail to see how this disproves it. Where exactly did millions of peasants and proletarians eliminate systems of property and the market? An examination of some of the prominent examples (Ukraine, Manchuria, Catalonia) shows that anarchist economies do not in fact eliminate such things, but rather attempts to redistribute them to smaller property holders while still maintaining the overarching mechanisms of capitalist society, that is private property and the market. Ultimately, it seeks to make things smaller and more autonomous, following the openly petit-bourgeois example of their antecessor Proudhon.

If I were to call back the shade of one of the CNT's leaders back from the underworld and ask them what they would have done differently with hindsight, I'd bet they'd answer that they should have overthrown the bourgeois government when they had the chance, not begrudgingly work with them to defeat the fascists in the Civil War. Likewise if I called back Makhno, he'd probably wish he had more guns and time with which to actually implement the vision of the Free Territory, and not fight three separate wars at the same time. Asking why movements that were in cataclysmic battles for their own survival didn't immediately and completely implement their social programs is silly.

Besides which this special pleading of 'why didn't they eliminate markets??' is rarely deployed honestly. During the same period as the Free Territory the Bolshevik government attempted full state control of industry and agriculture and it failed, spectacularly, causing Lenin himself to walk back the Soviet system to markets and private property. State socialist defenders of the USSR will strenuously point out the difficulties of executing social reform in the midst of a war of survival in explaining why nationalization was walked back. If anything, the Free Territory was more successful in its own goals because local control of production and impromptu peasant appropriation was already the status quo throughout the former Russian Empire, including Ukraine. Likewise, the CNT was only ever in control of the industries and sectors it operated in, and those were all collectively owned and operated.

Given that one of the long-standing anarchist critiques of marxism is that it does not seek to immediately establish the new society and instead progresses through stages, I do not find it particularly salient to draw a comparison between the anarchist Free Territory and the marxist Bolsheviks in this case. But sure, let's say that they were unable to properly execute their vision due to mitigating circumstances, that seems fair enough. But if they had been in a position to do so, what exactly would that have looked like? You say that the Free Territory possessed a localist agenda of decentralisation, and that the CNT established collective ownership and management of industry. How exactly does this contradict my statements that anarchists seek to realise the petit-bourgeois vision of autonomous small property holders? Because it seems to me that this system of localism and cooperatives is quite far removed from the abolition of private property and the market, and instead merely attempts to reorganise it, attacking the centralised monopolies of bourgeois society in favour of trying to make everyone a small-scale capitalist. Again, they demonstrate their descendance from Proudhon.

The absolute cringe of these semantics. "Anarchists are coercing me by not letting me kill them!"

lol. lmao.

Your deflective attempts at snark do little for your position. Answer the question, and demonstrate some consistency. Do such actions qualify as coercion? And if so, do you acknowledge that coercive elements will necessarily exist in anarchist society? Your initial assertion was that they don't, but given your apparent unwillingness to actually respond to my critique I think you realise that they must.

[Duvniask]

While I admit that my critique is particularly aimed at individualist tendencies, I fail to see how this disproves it. Where exactly did millions of peasants and proletarians eliminate systems of property and the market? An examination of some of the prominent examples (Ukraine, Manchuria, Catalonia) shows that anarchist economies do not in fact eliminate such things, but rather attempts to redistribute them to smaller property holders while still maintaining the overarching mechanisms of capitalist society, that is private property and the market. Ultimately, it seeks to make things smaller and more autonomous, following the openly petit-bourgeois example of their antecessor Proudhon.

If I were to call back the shade of one of the CNT's leaders back from the underworld and ask them what they would have done differently with hindsight, I'd bet they'd answer that they should have overthrown the bourgeois government when they had the chance, not begrudgingly work with them to defeat the fascists in the Civil War. Likewise if I called back Makhno, he'd probably wish he had more guns and time with which to actually implement the vision of the Free Territory, and not fight three separate wars at the same time. Asking why movements that were in cataclysmic battles for their own survival didn't immediately and completely implement their social programs is silly.

Besides which this special pleading of 'why didn't they eliminate markets??' is rarely deployed honestly. During the same period as the Free Territory the Bolshevik government attempted full state control of industry and agriculture and it failed, spectacularly, causing Lenin himself to walk back the Soviet system to markets and private property. State socialist defenders of the USSR will strenuously point out the difficulties of executing social reform in the midst of a war of survival in explaining why nationalization was walked back. If anything, the Free Territory was more successful in its own goals because local control of production and impromptu peasant appropriation was already the status quo throughout the former Russian Empire, including Ukraine. Likewise, the CNT was only ever in control of the industries and sectors it operated in, and those were all collectively owned and operated.

The problem is not in retaining the market due to circumstance, as the Bolsheviks also did, the problem is in the actual programmatic goals of the anarchist position, which instead of abolishing private property, instead wants it for everyone.

In effect, it appears to be what Marx in Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts describes as merely crude "communism". It does not abolish the proletarian or peasant so much as it extends their status to all, equally. It is private property and all the entailing self-estrangement of man, but re-imagined in the form of the community.

Ponder this: what happens to peasants once you redistribute land to them which is then held in their own name? What happens to workers who become co-owners of their place of work?

I mean, if you're in the Free Territories, probably not much would have changed at all. Your former boss fled the city with his family weeks ago, and you and all your friends got together and declared a worker's soviet once news of the Tsar's abdication reached you. You probably got to work producing stuff and trading with your neighbours and the towns down the road to make ends meet and didn't think too much about who held the title to the steam loom or whatever. That is, until the state socialists calling themselves Bolsheviks rode into town, executed the head of the soviet for being a 'profiteer' and demanded half the grain in the warehouse to feed the war effort at bayonet point.

Can you not see that merely parsing out land to peasants is precisely the act of making them petit-bourgeoisie? Or, failing even that, a mere raising of them to the collective embodiment of their former lord; producing for subsistence and trading the surpluses with other towns as they did formerly.

[Nilokeras]

The problem is not in retaining the market due to circumstance, as the Bolsheviks also did, the problem is in the actual programmatic goals of the anarchist position, which instead of abolishing private property, instead wants it for everyone.

In effect, it appears to be what Marx in Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts describes as merely crude "communism". It does not abolish the proletarian or peasant so much as it extends their status to all, equally. It is private property and all the entailing self-estrangement of man, but re-imagined in the form of the community.

Again, I don't know where you're getting this from other than an imagined anarchism of the mind. As with peasant uprisings throughout history, across the Russian Empire the first thing the peasants did upon hearing of October was to march on their local manor or government house and burn all the property ownership and debt records. In the Free Territory land was collectively worked and governed through local free soviets. Like with the CNT, many workplaces also self-organized and seized the means of their own production, and even coordinated with each other to manage supply chains.

They made this explicit in a proclamation by Makhno outlining the program of the Free Territory:

2. The lands of the service gentry, of the monasteries, of the princes and other enemies of the toiling masses, with all their live stock and goods, are passed on to the use of those peasants who support themselves solely through their own labor. This transfer will be carried out in an orderly fashion determined in common at peasant assemblies, which must remember in this matter not only each of their own personal interests, but also bear in mind the common interest of all the oppressed, working peasantry.

3. Factories, workshops, mines and other tools and means of production become the property of the working class as a whole, which will run all enterprises themselves, through their trade unions, getting production under way and striving to tie together all industry in the country in a single, unitary organization.

4. It is being proposed that all peasant and worker organizations start the construction of free worker-peasant Soviets. Only laborers who are contributing work necessary to the social economy should participate in the Soviets. Representatives of political organizations have no place in worker-peasant Soviets, since their participation in a workers' soviet will transform the latter into deputies of the party and can lead to the downfall of the soviet system.

Note the operative 'use', not 'own'. This was a reflection of the facts on the ground, where peasants broke up the parcels of land formerly owned by the magnates and self-organized agricultural production, since small-hold farming is not a very effective way of producing crops.

And also contains this fun rejoinder to all the hand-wringing earlier about coercion and the use of violence, which the Free Territory anarchists were very sanguine about:

7. State militia, policemen and armies are abolished. Instead of them the people will organize their own self-defense. Self-defense can be organized only by workers and peasants.

8. The worker-peasant Soviets, the self-defense groups of workers and peasants and also every peasant and worker must not permit any counter-revolutionary manifestation whatsoever by the bourgeoisie and officers. Nor should they tolerate the appearance of banditry. Everyone convicted of counter-revolution or banditry will be shot on the spot.

Can you not see that merely parsing out land to peasants is precisely the act of making them petit-bourgeoisie? Or, failing even that, a mere raising of them to the collective embodiment of their former lord; producing for subsistence and trading the surpluses with other towns as they did formerly.

See above.

[Ifreann]

The absolute cringe of these semantics. "Anarchists are coercing me by not letting me kill them!"

lol. lmao.

Your deflective attempts at snark do little for your position. Answer the question, and demonstrate some consistency. Do such actions qualify as coercion? And if so, do you acknowledge that coercive elements will necessarily exist in anarchist society? Your initial assertion was that they don't, but given your apparent unwillingness to actually respond to my critique I think you realise that they must.

But it's such an obviously silly question. "You say coercion is bad, but would you let me poison you!?", like, obviously no society is going to operate on that idea, no one who criticises something as coercive thinks that self-defence is bad.

[Duvniask]

Your deflective attempts at snark do little for your position. Answer the question, and demonstrate some consistency. Do such actions qualify as coercion? And if so, do you acknowledge that coercive elements will necessarily exist in anarchist society? Your initial assertion was that they don't, but given your apparent unwillingness to actually respond to my critique I think you realise that they must.

But it's such an obviously silly question. "You say coercion is bad, but would you let me poison you!?", like, obviously no society is going to operate on that idea, no one who criticises something as coercive thinks that self-defence is bad.

It is your position and the obnoxious incredulity that is silly.

It is not helped by, first, your denial, and second, your unwillingness to explain what you actually understand by "coercion". You could just as well say you're against the use of violence and then complain that someone asks "silly questions" about violence in self-defense or the preemptive use of violence or violence used for other utilitarian reasons - it's not silly, you're just being obstinate.

[Nilokeras]

Given that one of the long-standing anarchist critiques of marxism is that it does not seek to immediately establish the new society and instead progresses through stages, I do not find it particularly salient to draw a comparison between the anarchist Free Territory and the marxist Bolsheviks in this case. But sure, let's say that they were unable to properly execute their vision due to mitigating circumstances, that seems fair enough. But if they had been in a position to do so, what exactly would that have looked like? You say that the Free Territory possessed a localist agenda of decentralisation, and that the CNT established collective ownership and management of industry. How exactly does this contradict my statements that anarchists seek to realise the petit-bourgeois vision of autonomous small property holders? Because it seems to me that this system of localism and cooperatives is quite far removed from the abolition of private property and the market, and instead merely attempts to reorganise it, attacking the centralised monopolies of bourgeois society in favour of trying to make everyone a small-scale capitalist. Again, they demonstrate their descendance from Proudhon.

Just going to quote the proclamation by Makhno and company here again:

2. The lands of the service gentry, of the monasteries, of the princes and other enemies of the toiling masses, with all their live stock and goods, are passed on to the use of those peasants who support themselves solely through their own labor. This transfer will be carried out in an orderly fashion determined in common at peasant assemblies, which must remember in this matter not only each of their own personal interests, but also bear in mind the common interest of all the oppressed, working peasantry.

3. Factories, workshops, mines and other tools and means of production become the property of the working class as a whole, which will run all enterprises themselves, through their trade unions, getting production under way and striving to tie together all industry in the country in a single, unitary organization.

4. It is being proposed that all peasant and worker organizations start the construction of free worker-peasant Soviets. Only laborers who are contributing work necessary to the social economy should participate in the Soviets. Representatives of political organizations have no place in worker-peasant Soviets, since their participation in a workers' soviet will transform the latter into deputies of the party and can lead to the downfall of the soviet system.

And as for the CNT:

The collectives were based on the workers self-management of their workplaces. Augustin Souchy writes: “The collectives organised during the Spanish Civil War were workers’ economic associations without private property. The fact that collective plants were managed by those who worked in them did not mean that these establishments became their private property. The collective had no right to sell or rent all or any part of the collectivised factory or workshop, The rightful custodian was the CNT, the National Confederation of Workers Associations. But not even the CNT had the right to do as it pleased. Everything had to be decided and ratified by the workers themselves through conferences and congresses.” [6]

...

Initially, when the continuation of production was the most pressing task, there was little formal co-ordination between different workshops and factories. This lack of co-ordination caused many problems as Leval points out: “Local industries went through stages almost universally adopted in that revolution ... [I]n the first instance, committees nominated by the workers employed in them [were organised]. Production and sales continued in each one. But very soon it was clear that this situation gave rise to competition between the factories... creating rivalries which were incompatible with the socialist and libertarian outlook. So the CNT launched the watchword: ‘All industries must be ramified in the Syndicates, completely socialised, and the regime of solidarity which we have always advocated be established once and for all.”[10]

The need to remedy this situation — where although the workers had gained control of the workplaces the different workplaces often operated independently and in competition with each other — and to complete the socialisation process and so avoid the dangers of only partial collectivisation was a task of which many workers were keenly aware. A manifesto of the Syndicate of the wood industry published in December 1936 stresses that the lack of coordination and solidarity between workers in different factories and industries would lead to a situation where workers in more favoured and successful industries would become the new privileged, leaving those without resources to their difficulties, which in turn would lead to the creation of two classes: “the new rich and ever poor, poor.”[11]

To this effect increasing efforts were made by the collectives not to compete with each other for profits but instead to share the surpluses across whole industries. So for example the Barcelona tramways, which was particularly successful, contributed financially to the development of the other transport systems in Barcelona and helped them out of temporary difficulties. There were many cases of solidarity across industries too. In Alcoy, for example, when the printing, paper and cardboard Syndicate was experiencing difficulties the 16 other Syndicates that made up the local Federation in Alcoy gave financial assistance that enabled the printing Syndicate to survive.

...

The effort made to do away with the smaller, unhealthy and costly workshops and factories was an important characteristic of the industrial collectivisation process. As was the case with land cultivation, it was felt that with the running of workshops and factories” the dispersal of forces represented an enormous loss of energy, an irrational use of human labour, machinery and raw materials, a useless duplication of efforts.”[14] For example, in the town of Granollers “All kinds of initiatives tending to improve the operation and structure of the local economy could be attributed to...[the Syndicate]. Thus in a very short time, seven collectivised hairdressing salons were set up through its efforts, replacing an unknown number of shabby establishments. All the workshops and mini-factories on shoe production were replaced by one large factory in which only the best machines were used, and where necessary sanitary provisions for the health of the workers were made. Similar improvements were made in the engineering industry where numerous small, dark and stifling foundries were replaced by a few large working units in which air and sun were free to penetrate... Socialisation went hand in hand with rationalisation.”

Again, this was never some imaginary internet anarchism where everyone wanted to become a kulak, but a remarkably vigorous, self-organizing and self-improving system of collective ownership.

[Theodores Tomfooleries]

And it's why historically, anarchists in wars always lose. Their fundamental belief is in being suspicious of organisation which just cannot survive in a harsh world with organised enemies.

I always found this argument odd - it has more in common with creationist theology ('this thing has always been like x, therefore its always will be x') than it does honest historical analysis, tbh. Or history-by-imagined-Paradox-game-stats-bonus. At various points in time during history, you could have made the exact same argument about democracies, for example - picture in your mind some snooty British aristo toasting Washington's imminent defeat following the capture of Philadelphia, arguing that democracies will always lose because they are contrary to the divinely ordained natural order and inherently disorganized. Now, we live in a world where liberal democracy is the hegemonic political system.

Liberal democracy has proper institutions and organizations in place to ensure that the needs of the people can be provided. That doesn't mean "it will be provided to everyone!" but that the state has the ability to provide thins like clean water, energy, and whatnot to its population.

Anarchism doesn't have any of those and it is strongly against the idea of that. Nature shows that it's simply natural for literally *all* animals to eventually form around a hierarchy where there's 1 or 2 (sometimes more) recognizable leaders. This happens everywhere, not just in humanity. And sure I'm appealing to the "nature" argument but when this has been the norm for centuries and even now with the most *liberal* democracies and most "libertarian" societies they still have clearly defined hierarchies and leaderships it says a lot.

"The state is a monopoly on violence". Good. I would much rather the state oppress me then to be shot dead in a lawless wasteland due to the lack of funding for social programs and police force. Crime happens, people. It wouldn't just go away if there were no laws. You'd just completely crash the economy and society itself without the proper institutions in place.

[Hestonworld]

I always found this argument odd - it has more in common with creationist theology ('this thing has always been like x, therefore its always will be x') than it does honest historical analysis, tbh. Or history-by-imagined-Paradox-game-stats-bonus. At various points in time during history, you could have made the exact same argument about democracies, for example - picture in your mind some snooty British aristo toasting Washington's imminent defeat following the capture of Philadelphia, arguing that democracies will always lose because they are contrary to the divinely ordained natural order and inherently disorganized. Now, we live in a world where liberal democracy is the hegemonic political system.

Liberal democracy has proper institutions and organizations in place to ensure that the needs of the people can be provided. That doesn't mean "it will be provided to everyone!" but that the state has the ability to provide thins like clean water, energy, and whatnot to its population.

Anarchism doesn't have any of those and it is strongly against the idea of that. Nature shows that it's simply natural for literally *all* animals to eventually form around a hierarchy where there's 1 or 2 (sometimes more) recognizable leaders. This happens everywhere, not just in humanity. And sure I'm appealing to the "nature" argument but when this has been the norm for centuries and even now with the most *liberal* democracies and most "libertarian" societies they still have clearly defined hierarchies and leaderships it says a lot.

"The state is a monopoly on violence". Good. I would much rather the state oppress me then to be shot dead in a lawless wasteland due to the lack of funding for social programs and police force. Crime happens, people. It wouldn't just go away if there were no laws. You'd just completely crash the economy and society itself without the proper institutions in place.

You might be surprised to hear that where anarchists have led it was far from what you're describing here. Of course, you could then say that that's not what anarchy is, but this is just "how would anarchists have a waste system" meme all over again. It's an embarrassing and historically illiterate argument to try to make.

[Nilokeras]

I always found this argument odd - it has more in common with creationist theology ('this thing has always been like x, therefore its always will be x') than it does honest historical analysis, tbh. Or history-by-imagined-Paradox-game-stats-bonus. At various points in time during history, you could have made the exact same argument about democracies, for example - picture in your mind some snooty British aristo toasting Washington's imminent defeat following the capture of Philadelphia, arguing that democracies will always lose because they are contrary to the divinely ordained natural order and inherently disorganized. Now, we live in a world where liberal democracy is the hegemonic political system.

Liberal democracy has proper institutions and organizations in place to ensure that the needs of the people can be provided. That doesn't mean "it will be provided to everyone!" but that the state has the ability to provide thins like clean water, energy, and whatnot to its population.

Anarchism doesn't have any of those and it is strongly against the idea of that. Nature shows that it's simply natural for literally *all* animals to eventually form around a hierarchy where there's 1 or 2 (sometimes more) recognizable leaders. This happens everywhere, not just in humanity. And sure I'm appealing to the "nature" argument but when this has been the norm for centuries and even now with the most *liberal* democracies and most "libertarian" societies they still have clearly defined hierarchies and leaderships it says a lot.

"The state is a monopoly on violence". Good. I would much rather the state oppress me then to be shot dead in a lawless wasteland due to the lack of funding for social programs and police force. Crime happens, people. It wouldn't just go away if there were no laws. You'd just completely crash the economy and society itself without the proper institutions in place.

Every three or four posts a new person comes into this thread with the same vision of an imaginary anarchism where the rosy end result of anarchists' dreams is a Fallout raider tribe that worships a statue of a fast food mascot and I genuinely don't know where this is all coming from.

Again, read above: anarchism in practice had highly robust institutions and social organization, where the monopoly of force was held by the people, not dissolved. To quote from that same article about the CNT above:

In keeping with the democratic tradition of the CNT the industrial collectives had a bottom up delegate structure of organisation. The basic unit of decision-making was the workers’ assembly, which in turn elected delegates to management committees who would oversee the day-to-day running of the factory. These elected management committees were charged with carrying out the mandate decided at these assemblies and had to report back to and were accountable to the assembly of workers. The management committees also communicated their observations to the centralised administrative committee.

Generally, each industry had a centralised administrative committee made up of a delegate from each branch of work and workers in that industry. For example, in the textile industry in Alcoy there were 5 general branches of work: weaving, thread making, knitting, hosiery and carding. The workers from each of these specialised areas elected a delegate to represent them in the industry-wide administrative committee. The role of this committee, which also contained some technical experts, included directing production according to the instructions received at the general assemblies of workers, compiling reports and statistics on the progress of work and dealing with issues of finances and co-ordination. In the words of Gaston Leval “The general organisation rests therefore on the one hand on the division of labour and on the other on the synthetic industrial structure.”[7]

At all stages, the general assembly of Syndicate workers was the ultimate decision making body. “all important decisions [being] taken by the general assemblies of the workers, ... [which] were widely attended and regularly held... if an administrator did something which the general assembly had not authorised, he was likely to be deposed at the next meeting.”[8] Reports by the various committees would be examined and discussed at the general assemblies and finally introduced if the majority thought it of use. “We are not therefore facing an administrative dictatorship, but rather a functional democracy, in which all specialised works play their roles which have been settled after general examination by the assembly.”[9]

It would be lovely if people actually started engaging with this actually existant history instead of bouncing off it like a golden retriever trying and failing to understand that the dog in the mirror is itself.

[Theodores Tomfooleries]

Liberal democracy has proper institutions and organizations in place to ensure that the needs of the people can be provided. That doesn't mean "it will be provided to everyone!" but that the state has the ability to provide thins like clean water, energy, and whatnot to its population.

Anarchism doesn't have any of those and it is strongly against the idea of that. Nature shows that it's simply natural for literally *all* animals to eventually form around a hierarchy where there's 1 or 2 (sometimes more) recognizable leaders. This happens everywhere, not just in humanity. And sure I'm appealing to the "nature" argument but when this has been the norm for centuries and even now with the most *liberal* democracies and most "libertarian" societies they still have clearly defined hierarchies and leaderships it says a lot.

"The state is a monopoly on violence". Good. I would much rather the state oppress me then to be shot dead in a lawless wasteland due to the lack of funding for social programs and police force. Crime happens, people. It wouldn't just go away if there were no laws. You'd just completely crash the economy and society itself without the proper institutions in place.

Every three or four posts a new person comes into this thread with the same vision of an imaginary anarchism where the rosy end result of anarchists' dreams is a Fallout raider tribe that worships a statue of a fast food mascot and I genuinely don't know where this is all coming from.

Again, read above: anarchism in practice had highly robust institutions and social organization, where the monopoly of force was held by the people, not dissolved. To quote from that same article about the CNT above:

In keeping with the democratic tradition of the CNT the industrial collectives had a bottom up delegate structure of organisation. The basic unit of decision-making was the workers’ assembly, which in turn elected delegates to management committees who would oversee the day-to-day running of the factory. These elected management committees were charged with carrying out the mandate decided at these assemblies and had to report back to and were accountable to the assembly of workers. The management committees also communicated their observations to the centralised administrative committee.

Generally, each industry had a centralised administrative committee made up of a delegate from each branch of work and workers in that industry. For example, in the textile industry in Alcoy there were 5 general branches of work: weaving, thread making, knitting, hosiery and carding. The workers from each of these specialised areas elected a delegate to represent them in the industry-wide administrative committee. The role of this committee, which also contained some technical experts, included directing production according to the instructions received at the general assemblies of workers, compiling reports and statistics on the progress of work and dealing with issues of finances and co-ordination. In the words of Gaston Leval “The general organisation rests therefore on the one hand on the division of labour and on the other on the synthetic industrial structure.”[7]

At all stages, the general assembly of Syndicate workers was the ultimate decision making body. “all important decisions [being] taken by the general assemblies of the workers, ... [which] were widely attended and regularly held... if an administrator did something which the general assembly had not authorised, he was likely to be deposed at the next meeting.”[8] Reports by the various committees would be examined and discussed at the general assemblies and finally introduced if the majority thought it of use. “We are not therefore facing an administrative dictatorship, but rather a functional democracy, in which all specialised works play their roles which have been settled after general examination by the assembly.”[9]

It would be lovely if people actually started engaging with this actually existant history instead of bouncing off it like a golden retriever trying and failing to understand that the dog in the mirror is itself.

The CNT was able to accomplish this through working with strictly non-anarchist organizations such as the UGT.
As for the organization and worker's democracy which the CNT tried to put into place:

"After the first few days of euphoria, the workers returned to work and found themselves without responsible management. This resulted in the creation of workers' committees in factories, workshops and warehouses, which tried to resume production with all the problems that a transformation of this kind entailed. Owing to inadequate training and the sabotage of some of the technicians who remained many others had fled with the owners the workers' committees and other bodies that were improvised had to rely on the guidance of the unions.... Lacking training in economic matters, the union leaders, with more good will than success, began to issue directives that spread confusion in the factory committees and enormous chaos in production. This was aggravated by the fact that each union... gave different and often contradictory instruction." - directly from a CNT member. But hey I'm getting this from Wikipedia so this is invalid. Instead have the actual direct source

Also note the fact that collectivization under a libertarian socialist system was opposed by socialists and communists who didn't want industry to be unregulated by an actual proper entity. Production was more successful in the factories but the CNT failed to collectivize a majority of farms and a majority of the families that did so did it for better rations; not out of good will. Collectivization itself rather caused the alienation of society in the state of war Catalonia was in as it encouraged a lack of sharing between collectives; in practice the collectivization of the peasantry did worse for the CNT regarding popularity.

The CNT failed. It was replaced soon-after by the PSUC and it only stuck around for a year~. Sure, I'll give it to you that anarchism is a lot more organized then it turns out to be. Doesn't mean that organization works.

[Chan Island]

And it's why historically, anarchists in wars always lose. Their fundamental belief is in being suspicious of organisation which just cannot survive in a harsh world with organised enemies.

I always found this argument odd - it has more in common with creationist theology ('this thing has always been like x, therefore its always will be x') than it does honest historical analysis, tbh. Or history-by-imagined-Paradox-game-stats-bonus. At various points in time during history, you could have made the exact same argument about democracies, for example - picture in your mind some snooty British aristo toasting Washington's imminent defeat following the capture of Philadelphia, arguing that democracies will always lose because they are contrary to the divinely ordained natural order and inherently disorganized. Now, we live in a world where liberal democracy is the hegemonic political system.

Except that Athens existed as a democracy for hundreds of years and was a hegemon in it's local Mediterranean region during that spell. Except that countries like Florence, San Marino and even Britain had proto-democratic tendencies during the time of the American war of independence and had done so for a long time. Was it democracy as we know it? No, but it doesn't have to to disprove that mental image you're giving. That snooty British aristo had to get elected if he wanted to become an MP.

But where's the anarchist equivalent? The Free Territories, which you cite often, lasted less than 2 years before the bolshevik army beat them. The CNT didn't make it to its third birthday, before it was overrun by Franco's fascist army (in a campaign that lasted a mere 2 months). The Zapatistas lasted a little longer, and even scored some military victories, but still didn't make it to 10 years.

It's all well and good quoting various proclamations and describing the policies of these areas in defence of anarchism, but it's glaring how short-lived they were, and how that life got cut short. A political ideology is useless if it can't defend itself.

[Nilokeras]

The CNT was able to accomplish this through working with strictly non-anarchist organizations such as the UGT.

I think 'working with' is doing a lot of smoothing over. From your source:

"The divergence of outlook between the CNTand UGTon economic matters was constant," testifies Mariano Cardona Rosell, a member of the national committee of the CNT, "owing to the fact that while the CNT advocated a more and more effective socialization it met with lack of cooperation on the part of the national, regional, and local leaders of the UGT, who paid little or no attention to this vital problem. As a result, the rank and file of the UGT followed the directives of the CNT in many localities."26

...

In Catalonia, one of the peculiarities of the economic situation was that whereas the CNT had taken over the majority of industrial and business enterprises, the rival UGT had assumed control of the banks and other credit institutions under the general supervision of a banking commission on which the UGT and the Generalitat government were represented.

Seems more like the traditional divide between revolutionaries and reformists, really. If one were feeling spicy we could underline how UGT in Catalonia was seemingly a white collar financial sector union whose leadership had collaborated with the dictatorship of Primo de Rivera too.

As for the organization and worker's democracy which the CNT tried to put into place:

*snip*

Let's just take a moment to put on our field scopes and look aaaaaallll the way over there where your original goalposts were, that anarchism produces 'a lawless wasteland'. And now you're quibbling about how a bunch of proletarians who came together in existential wartime to try and restart production and coordinate an entire economy was a little sloppy.

Speaks for itself, really.

Also note the fact that collectivization under a libertarian socialist system was opposed by socialists and communists who didn't want industry to be unregulated by an actual proper entity. Production was more successful in the factories but the CNT failed to collectivize a majority of farms and a majority of the families that did so did it for better rations; not out of good will. Collectivization itself rather caused the alienation of society in the state of war Catalonia was in as it encouraged a lack of sharing between collectives; in practice the collectivization of the peasantry did worse for the CNT regarding popularity.

I think it was the other way around: a lot of agriculture in places in Aragon was successfully collectivized, and it was the cities that posed problems because like was pointed out above, different sectors often had different unions running them with different political agendas.

The CNT failed. It was replaced soon-after by the PSUC and it only stuck around for a year~. Sure, I'll give it to you that anarchism is a lot more organized then it turns out to be. Doesn't mean that organization works.

The CNT wasn't 'replaced' by the PSUC - the CNT continued to exist right up until the final days of the Republic. The Republican government at that point was deeply paralyzed by infighting and had effectively excluded the CNT as a movement. Hence why I pointed out way back that if we called back the shade of a CNT leader and asked them what they'd do differently, they'd probably say that they should have acted to seize complete power when they had a chance.

And again lets take a step back and remember that all of the forces of the left - statist and non-statist - lost the Civil War. I don't think there was anything anyone on the Republican side could have done to undo the math of the situation once the war began and Germany/Italy really put their fingers on the scale.

[Nilokeras]

Except that Athens existed as a democracy for hundreds of years and was a hegemon in it's local Mediterranean region during that spell. Except that countries like Florence, San Marino and even Britain had proto-democratic tendencies during the time of the American war of independence and had done so for a long time. Was it democracy as we know it? No, but it doesn't have to to disprove that mental image you're giving. That snooty British aristo had to get elected if he wanted to become an MP.

And of course classical literature and its post-classical reception in places like Renaissance Italy is saturated with polemics about how bad and unstable democracies in the Athenian/Hellenic model are. There's a reason why the cultural touchstones of the early modern democracies were the Roman Republic and its genteel oligarchy, not Athens.

But where's the anarchist equivalent? The Free Territories, which you cite often, lasted less than 2 years before the bolshevik army beat them. The CNT didn't make it to its third birthday, before it was overrun by Franco's fascist army (in a campaign that lasted a mere 2 months). The Zapatistas lasted a little longer, and even scored some military victories, but still didn't make it to 10 years.

It's all well and good quoting various proclamations and describing the policies of these areas in defence of anarchism, but it's glaring how short-lived they were, and how that life got cut short. A political ideology is useless if it can't defend itself.

See the problem is that you haven't done a nearly adequate enough job of tying the military defeats of the anarchist movements to anything the anarchists actually did or did not do - as I pointed out above in the response to TT, I don't think there was anything anyone in the Republican government (let alone the CNT) could have done to beat Franco because of the pure material disadvantage they were at. Likewise with the Free Territories - what could they have done differently to change the material conditions in thrice-scorched Ukraine? Save perhaps for the same lesson the CNT should have learned, which was 'never trust tankies, they will shoot you in the back the moment they have the opportunity', that is.

[Hestonworld]

Except that Athens existed as a democracy for hundreds of years and was a hegemon in it's local Mediterranean region during that spell. Except that countries like Florence, San Marino and even Britain had proto-democratic tendencies during the time of the American war of independence and had done so for a long time. Was it democracy as we know it? No, but it doesn't have to to disprove that mental image you're giving. That snooty British aristo had to get elected if he wanted to become an MP.

And of course classical literature and its post-classical reception in places like Renaissance Italy is saturated with polemics about how bad and unstable democracies in the Athenian/Hellenic model are. There's a reason why the cultural touchstones of the early modern democracies were the Roman Republic and its genteel oligarchy, not Athens.

But where's the anarchist equivalent? The Free Territories, which you cite often, lasted less than 2 years before the bolshevik army beat them. The CNT didn't make it to its third birthday, before it was overrun by Franco's fascist army (in a campaign that lasted a mere 2 months). The Zapatistas lasted a little longer, and even scored some military victories, but still didn't make it to 10 years.

It's all well and good quoting various proclamations and describing the policies of these areas in defence of anarchism, but it's glaring how short-lived they were, and how that life got cut short. A political ideology is useless if it can't defend itself.

See the problem is that you haven't done a nearly adequate enough job of tying the military defeats of the anarchist movements to anything the anarchists actually did or did not do - as I pointed out above in the response to TT, I don't think there was anything anyone in the Republican government (let alone the CNT) could have done to beat Franco because of the pure material disadvantage they were at. Likewise with the Free Territories - what could they have done differently to change the material conditions in thrice-scorched Ukraine? Save perhaps for the same lesson the CNT should have learned, which was 'never trust tankies, they will shoot you in the back the moment they have the opportunity', that is.

There were also people of major factions on the republican side who ended up going along with a coup in 1939 in order to try and negotiate a peace deal with Franco's nationalist army. Among them were Spanish anarchists and socialists who decided to drop the struggle due to a perceived inevitable loss. So much for sticking it to the man, guys.

[Nilokeras]

And of course classical literature and its post-classical reception in places like Renaissance Italy is saturated with polemics about how bad and unstable democracies in the Athenian/Hellenic model are. There's a reason why the cultural touchstones of the early modern democracies were the Roman Republic and its genteel oligarchy, not Athens.



See the problem is that you haven't done a nearly adequate enough job of tying the military defeats of the anarchist movements to anything the anarchists actually did or did not do - as I pointed out above in the response to TT, I don't think there was anything anyone in the Republican government (let alone the CNT) could have done to beat Franco because of the pure material disadvantage they were at. Likewise with the Free Territories - what could they have done differently to change the material conditions in thrice-scorched Ukraine? Save perhaps for the same lesson the CNT should have learned, which was 'never trust tankies, they will shoot you in the back the moment they have the opportunity', that is.

There were also people of major factions on the republican side who ended up going along with a coup in 1939 in order to try and negotiate a peace deal with Franco's nationalist army. Among them were Spanish anarchists and socialists who decided to drop the struggle due to a perceived inevitable loss. So much for sticking it to the man, guys.

As your own article points out, the sole unifying belief tying together the conspirators was a desire to get rid of the then communist-dominated, minoritarian faction in charge of the Republican government at that time. Which is a fairly typical thing to happen to governments that are losing war - cabals spring up where the vital thing is to get rid of the regime seen to be botching the war effort or what have you, and which immediately fall apart in the absence of that unifying force.

In early February top military commanders tentatively agreed that in case Negrín – at the time trapped in isolated Catalonia – returns to the central zone, he should be removed from power. The conspiracy involved commander of all armed forces in the central-southern zone army general Miaja, his chief of staff general Matallana, commander of the Army of Levante general Menéndez and commander of the Army of the Centre colonel Casado.[2] Around the same time 3 major Anarchist organisations, CNT, FAI and FJL, tried to sound Miaja on creating a “united anti-fascist organization” which would assume power in the central zone; its purpose was not that much commencing peace talks, but rather sidetracking the Communists.[3] The proposal was followed up by talks between Casado and the Anarchist military commander of the IV. Army Corps, Cipriano Mera.

...

In early 1939 the Anarchists were firmly opposed to what they saw as almost unveiled Communist dictatorship in the Republican zone. The party leader Juan García Oliver, since early February on exile in Paris, declared that it was necessary to remove Negrín.[6] Similar position was adopted by the Madrid Comité Regional de Defensa (CRD); though technically a sub-unit within larger Anarchist structure, in practice it emerged as the key Anarchist decision-making body. Its leaders were José García Pradas, Manuel Salgado Moreira and Eduardo Val Bescos, who acted as the party executive troika.[7] They had overwhelming support of the wide array of Anarchist organisations; a stormy plenary meeting of February 24 confirmed vehement hostility to the Communists and endorsed labors against “any sort of dictatorship”, though it remained inconclusive as to seeking peace with the Nationalists.

...

Political differences within CND became apparent almost immediately following the triumph of the coup. The Anarchists imagined that further resistance against the Nationalists would be offered as means of securing best possible terms of surrender; the military intended to arrange ceasefire as soon as possible.

For the anarchists' part, removing the communists was always goal number one of the coup, and no consensus was reached on whether or not to try and hold out longer or surrender before the end swept over the Republic.

[Hestonworld]

There were also people of major factions on the republican side who ended up going along with a coup in 1939 in order to try and negotiate a peace deal with Franco's nationalist army. Among them were Spanish anarchists and socialists who decided to drop the struggle due to a perceived inevitable loss. So much for sticking it to the man, guys.

For the anarchists' part, removing the communists was always goal number one of the coup, and no consensus was reached on whether or not to try and hold out longer or surrender before the end swept over the Republic.

I've heard of that before. It's really funny that instead of taking responsibility for their actions, they would blame one faction among republicans they had a political rivalry with in the middle of a civil war. Laughable, even. Imagine that happening to the revolutionaries against the British or the Union against the Confederacy. You're supposed to all be some sort of socialists anyway if not just republicans, so you'd think you'd all stand together and died for your ideals and for the Spanish people.

[Nilokeras]

For the anarchists' part, removing the communists was always goal number one of the coup, and no consensus was reached on whether or not to try and hold out longer or surrender before the end swept over the Republic.

I've heard of that before. It's really funny that instead of taking responsibility for their actions, they would blame one faction among republicans they had a political rivalry with in the middle of a civil war. Laughable, even. Imagine that happening to the revolutionaries against the British or the Union against the Confederacy. You're supposed to all be some sort of socialists anyway if not just republicans, so you'd think you'd all stand together and died for your ideals and for the Spanish people.

Responsibility for what though? Again, the CNT and other groups involved in the coup were sidelined by the Soviet-aligned Republican government. The Soviets during the course of the war were in the midst of their own Great Purge and their advisors and members of the Third International in the Republican government were very interested in rooting out ideological opponents, particularly the anarchists and Trotskyists. It even hampered the Soviets' own efforts to aid the Republican cause, because Soviet leadership (particularly Stalin) deeply distrusted the Soviet officials sent to Spain because of how close they had to work with ideological enemies. If you asked coup plotters for their reasoning for supporting the coup, they'd probably tell you that was them taking charge of the situation by removing that dysfunctional influence.

[Chan Island]

Except that Athens existed as a democracy for hundreds of years and was a hegemon in it's local Mediterranean region during that spell. Except that countries like Florence, San Marino and even Britain had proto-democratic tendencies during the time of the American war of independence and had done so for a long time. Was it democracy as we know it? No, but it doesn't have to to disprove that mental image you're giving. That snooty British aristo had to get elected if he wanted to become an MP.

And of course classical literature and its post-classical reception in places like Renaissance Italy is saturated with polemics about how bad and unstable democracies in the Athenian/Hellenic model are. There's a reason why the cultural touchstones of the early modern democracies were the Roman Republic and its genteel oligarchy, not Athens.

But where's the anarchist equivalent? The Free Territories, which you cite often, lasted less than 2 years before the bolshevik army beat them. The CNT didn't make it to its third birthday, before it was overrun by Franco's fascist army (in a campaign that lasted a mere 2 months). The Zapatistas lasted a little longer, and even scored some military victories, but still didn't make it to 10 years.

It's all well and good quoting various proclamations and describing the policies of these areas in defence of anarchism, but it's glaring how short-lived they were, and how that life got cut short. A political ideology is useless if it can't defend itself.

See the problem is that you haven't done a nearly adequate enough job of tying the military defeats of the anarchist movements to anything the anarchists actually did or did not do - as I pointed out above in the response to TT, I don't think there was anything anyone in the Republican government (let alone the CNT) could have done to beat Franco because of the pure material disadvantage they were at. Likewise with the Free Territories - what could they have done differently to change the material conditions in thrice-scorched Ukraine? Save perhaps for the same lesson the CNT should have learned, which was 'never trust tankies, they will shoot you in the back the moment they have the opportunity', that is.

And yet still they were there, no matter how much they got rubbished. Can anarchism say the same?

Except we can link it. Let's start with the CNT. They took over Barcelona... also known as Spain's most industrialised city, a title it had had for literal centuries. It was a beating heart of manufacturing, and should have been well able to fuel a war effort in the 1930s, as it had done in both the first world war and other previous conflicts. But that didn't happen. As others have pointed out in this thread, the restarting of the factories was sloppy, the workers lacked direction, and the supplies never sufficiently organised. Some of that can be blamed on the war, sure, and some can be blamed on the fact that other factions controlled some sectors of the city's infrastructure- yet we can't pretend the CNT made no mistakes.

Mistakes that seem to repeat themselves in other serious anarchist attempts, like Ukraine, Manchuria or the Zapatistas. Failure to organise under a strategic vision. Failure to delegate. Failure to guard itself from being undermined by internal enemies. Failure to maintain it's own existence under the stress of war time. Failure to craft functional alliances with other powers or factions. And I don't see any reason why this wouldn't repeat itself again.

'Thrice-scorched Ukraine'- which is why famously the army of next-door Poland failed in its bid for independence. Which is why Serbia, devastated by 3 consecutive wars, famously failed to repel the first Austrian invasion in WW1 and tragically no longer exists as a nation. Which is why poor Lithuania, squashed between the German and the Russia armies, stood no chance against the bolshevik menace in 1919. Except, that's not what happened. All 3 of those projects succeeded despite the hardship and brutality of war- against the exact same enemies that the Ukrainian anarchists faced to boot. Because they did things like organise under a common strategic vision, organise supply chains and guarded against internal enemies. 'Thrice-scorched Ukraine' is an excuse, not a reason, for Makhno's failures.