I think the above gets that across pretty well. I imagine the vast majority of that land would be immediately turned over to the various native nations there to do with as they see fit. I’m not super knowledgeable about Alaska specifically, but I don’t see why those principles wouldn’t work.
’s position is full self-determination, up to and including independence, for native nations, the internally colonized Black nation, and all island colonies (Puerto Rico, Hawaii, Guam, etc). So the splitting of territory is an acknowledged possibility and likely outcome - it would be surprising if not a single one of those hundreds of nations chose independence.
As far as breaking up the socialist replacement for the current settler state, I don’t really see the point. Maybe it breaks apart in the course of the revolution, but it wouldn’t be an objective.
Really, really excited to read this!
Oh, what’s the evidentiary basis for that?
According to the Government statistics, there were no killings by police in China yet in 2025… Totally believable.
Oh, you have evidence that shows otherwise? China has plenty of social media and Internet access, so a post showing it? Or a credible reporter? If you believe otherwise, you must have a good, evidence-based reason to do so.
Oh, care to explain? How many police killings are there in China every year?
Why would I watch that video? It might provide evidence that would change my mind - tankie brainwashing.
Wish it was many more
More like a kid trying to give a teacher detention
I gave that first FAQ link a read. I don’t think any serious critique of anarchism as political theory rests on “anarchists want total individualism without any organization” (now, anarchist activists on the other hand do often have that issue). The critique is that the goal anarchists want to achieve - a truly non-hierarchical and voluntary society - can’t be reached in a single step, and hence coercive state mechanisms lead by working-class socialist democracy are a necessary intermediate stage. For example, pulling a Bakunin quote from the piece:
"At the moment of revolution, in the midst of the struggle, there is a natural division of functions according to the aptitude of each, assessed and judged by the collective whole: Some direct and others carry out orders. But no function remains fixed and it will not remain permanently and irrevocably attached to any one person. Hierarchical order and promotion do not exist, so that the executive of yesterday can become the subordinate of tomorrow. No one rises above the others, and if he does rise, it is only to fall back again a moment later, like the waves of the sea forever returning to the salutary level of equality…” [Bakunin on Anarchism, pp. 414–5]
Here isnthe main issue: the moment of revolution itself creates the new world, the new order of absolute equality and abolition of all hierarchy. This is totally unrealistic - huge swathes of society will still be embedded in hierarchical mindsets. The physical infrastructure and supply lines will depend on uneven distribution of resources and knowledge that can’t be instantly turned over. The operation of industrial society is os so vast and complicated that it can’t simply ve rewritten in a single day - very few people and systems are prepared to so radically change without dramatic decreases in production and output.
The egalitarian society must be constructed through hard work across the whole of society with many opposing classes and groups who do not want to build socialism and will work actively to undermine it. How do you deal with the fascists and capitalists who will scheme to tear down the new society and restore their old exploitative privileges? How does the moment of revolution change them such that they cannot carry out those goals? You need capacity to repress those people.
And the ideas of the masses will still be influenced by the old capitalist order, so we must also do the hard work of convincing billions people to live in accordance with free and equal association, which takes a constant and improving demonstration that socialism is worth building and fighting for. What will you do if after the revolution, 40% of people just don’t want to live that way? Will you give up, because it would take the exertion of authority to advance society? I hope not, or the gains of the revolution are wasted.
And of course, what if the revolution doesn’t sweep the whole world all at once? How will you defend your revolution from the massive military machines of the imperialists, which wield their coercive and exploitative systems as an industrial holocaust against you?
I know these aren’t new questions to anarchists, so please direct me to the standing answers.
the other is whether one accepts that anarchist revolutions were actually successful on anarchist terms countless of times
Ok, I’m genuinely not sure what you’re referring to here. Can you give some examples?
The post wasn’t made on Hexbear, I assume specifically for complying with the left unity rule. But it’s also a thoughtful critique of anarchism, or at least trying to be - that’s perfectly permissible within left unity. We can criticize each other.
Sorry, what’s the appropriate response to that high quality comment I was replying to? I made a very basic critique of anarchism after they made a direct accusation of being “traitors”.
Ok that would be really cool, I hope we can skip straight to full communism. You get to work.
No anarchist revolution has ever won
Xi’s ultimate move will be to play the white card, thereby eliminating the basis for euro-American racial supremacy.
Weird how libs never have anything but vague accusations of tankie and totalitarian while actual Marxist-Leninist governments have history’s most successful poverty eradication campaign
Chinese people consider their country to be a functional democracy with massive popular support for its policies and the way it has improved their lives, so “totalitarian” is a lie. Unless that’s just what you call it when billionaires get executed for financial crimes?
Xi Jinping
The book Socialist Reconstruction goes into some detail on the party’s stance on decolonization. The Black Belt Thesis reader is about the argument for a geographic Black nation in the American South. But there’s a limit into how much we give into the post-revolution plan. First, obviously, we just can’t know exactly how things will be. But second, especially with regards to native nations, there’s potential for colonial chauvinism if we think we have standing to say much beyond “it’s your land to do with as you please”.