Question for Anarchists: What is your strategy for achieving a revolution against the capitalist state and ensuring its overthrow without a centralized vanguard party?
I am not an anarchist
59.5%
I am an anarchist (answer below)
40.5%
Poll ended at .

@Radical_EgoCom The global capitalist system doesn't need to be overthrown, because at some point it will inevitably fall by itself. Its unsustainability is a known fact. IMO the more important question to focus on is how to cultivate the resilience to not let it drag us down with it. As the old systems start to slowly decay and crumble, local networks of mutual aid will grow to fill in the cracks out of necessity. I hope that at some point such local and communal solutions will overtake capitalist states as people witness the old systems failing to protect them.

Now, an argument could be made that we can't afford to wait around for fossil capitalism to cause things to get that bad. I'm much too pessimistic to think that any large scale revolution could be achieved before the masses start to lose their bread and circuses. Things will have to get worse before they get better, but they're already slowly getting worse and will continue to do so for a long time. May we live in interesting times.

@aumalatj

That's false. Capitalism will not fall by itself. Capitalism has ways of self-sustaining itself and prolonging its existence. When capitalism is in decay, fascism arises to maintain capitalism's existence through force, specifically by smashing proletarian movements that would otherwise push for the abolition of capitalism and the creation of socialism. If we just wait around for capitalism to die on its own, fascism will arise and destroy any chance of it dying.

@Radical_EgoCom Fascism is just capitalism in decay, ergo a more extreme, totalitarian form of late stage capitalism. As such it will continue to be unsustainable and therefore it can't be sustained. Widespread fascism is most certainly to be expected, we're seing it creeping in already. Yet I stand by what I said. All the resources the system pours into enforcing itself through violence will be off the plates of ordinary people, who will then increasingly seek alternatives.

@aumalatj

You're claim that fascism, being capitalism in decay, will destroy itself is untrue. Tell me, is Germany still capitalist? What about Italy or Spain? Yes? But they were fascist countries, so by your logic, capitalism shouldn't exist in those countries. Fascism is unstable, but when it inevitably fails, it doesn't result in the abolition of capitalism. It results in the restoration of the old, or very similar, capitalist order, which is literally the whole point of fascism.

@Radical_EgoCom I'm not talking about the stability of a political system in and of itself. I'm talking about sustainability in the context of a global climate crisis, soil degradation, overfishing, global biodiversity loss etc. etc. In a word, polycrisis. Switching between unsustainable capitalism and unsustainable fascism won't change the fact the underlying capitalist mode of production is unsustainable and thus by definition has to end at some point, willingly or not.

And so I return to my original comment: The problem then is to not let the system take us down with it.

@aumalatj

Still, your claim that capitalism will abolish itself isn't true. Capitalism is inherently unsustainable and will inevitably end, but if there's no working-class movement to actually abolish capitalism when it's weak, then capitalism will just continue to sustain itself through its various tactics of prolonging its survival, such as fascism. Ultimately, capitalism will have to be forcefully overthrow by the proletariat because it's not going to die by itself.

@Radical_EgoCom I think abandonment is more accurate than abolition to describe what I'm thinking of.

Economy exists within ecology. Historically, when capitalism has ceased to benefit the commoner, fascism has swooped in. Tyranny requires constant effort. My hope is that at some point in the future the ecological and environmental stresses applied on the economic system will force the state to spread its resources so thin that cracks open for communal solutions to grow in. Solutions that meet the needs of the people better than the increasingly strained state struggling to maintain control at the larger scale.

Sure, that could result in a collection of syndicates forming an armed opposition against the state, but that may not be necessary. If the state is so strained that it can't take care of its citizens, at some point it would just become irrelevant in the shadow of the communal networks.

@aumalatj

Your "solution" for getting rid of capitalism isn't a solution at all. It amounts to waiting for capitalism to mess up the environment and society to a severe degree and then hoping that it just dissolves by itself. Any solution that relies on hope doesn't have the assurance necessary for me or many other rational people to take it seriously.

@Radical_EgoCom @aumalatj I think his "solution" doesn't really need your or other peoples seriousness to work anyway (; but if you are looking for a "solution", whatever that might be, a theory, a critique, a prognosis I think you are a hunting a ghost. In the end, mostly what you can do is to built more robust and complex relationships and, and that is the more abstract part, you have to critique the living shit about this joke of an society. I think the first step is to make power relationships transparent, in the end people don't want to be ruled, neither today nor in a future centralized vanguard party.

@Bl4ckst4r @aumalatj

What people want doesn't change what has to happen in order for a proletarian revolution to be successful. People may not want to live in a vanguard one-party state, but that doesn't make it any less necessary.

@Radical_EgoCom @Bl4ckst4r @aumalatj no what people want does effect the stakes. And to say a vanguard is necessary is an opinion. Some will disagree and resist the actions and ideas that say we need statehood and will act accordingly in a way where they do not use statehood to resist capitalism.
@Radical_EgoCom @Bl4ckst4r @aumalatj I personally think capitalism and statehood is unsustainable and will collapse on itself, eventually.Building communities that R decentralized With a focus on social responsibility and cohesion that is hostile to coercion May lead us to a just solution but there’s so many possibilities that IDK, where the solution, revolution will follow suit but ignoring people who say they don’t want 2 b ruled is not a solution in my opinion. All perspectives must be equal
@Radical_EgoCom @Bl4ckst4r @aumalatj also if the proletariat party tries to oppress, suppress, or force people to abide by its rule and attempts to force people to accept the rule of a one party state. There will be even more injustice that gets added to the pot in my opinion

@Madaligned @Bl4ckst4r @aumalatj

1/3 The idea of a vanguard party being necessary isn't just opinion (it is not a subjective belief based on personal feelings), it's a hypothesis, a proposed explanation for how a revolution realistically has to be done, one that is based on logic and evidence. The logic behind the necessity of a vanguard party derives from the fact that the revolutionary people need ideological unity and strategic/tactical cohesiveness in order to be successful, and...

@Madaligned @Bl4ckst4r @aumalatj

2/3 ...therefore, supporters of vanguard parties conclude that a vanguard party that promotes revolutionary ideology, organizes the masses strategically and tactically, and helps guide them towards their revolutionary goals is a requirement for a revolution to succeed. The evidence for this comes from practically every single successful revolution in history, all having some kind of political organization that led the revolutionary masses to success.

@Madaligned @Bl4ckst4r @aumalatj

3/3 There may have been successful revolutions that had no kind of vanguard party, but given that the vast majority of them did, I would say that those instances are the exception and not the rule.

@Radical_EgoCom @Bl4ckst4r @aumalatj and i would just have to disagree with you no big deal. I’m not a proponent of your theory. And I don’t think these are exceptions to the rules more than I think they’re telling us the “rules” have been disproven

@Madaligned @Bl4ckst4r @aumalatj

Is there any logical or evidence-based basis for this disagreement, or is it based on subjective personal preference?

@Radical_EgoCom @Madaligned @Bl4ckst4r @aumalatj you seem to be asking for a lot of evidence, but offering only conjecture.
@Radical_EgoCom @Bl4ckst4r @aumalatj and you didn’t say this but I just want to point out I personally don’t think if there is organization by leaders in an revolution it automatically means means a revolution is non anarchistic as long as it’s decentralized in nature.
@Radical_EgoCom @Bl4ckst4r @aumalatj I think revolution could and can be centralized in some aspects but can and must also be decentralized in others and that’s allowed in anarchic theory. I think I disagree both personally, and based on evidence
@Radical_EgoCom @Madaligned @Bl4ckst4r @aumalatj by that logic, Vanguard led revolutions lead to oppression of the proletariat (as a rule)

@andho @Bl4ckst4r @Madaligned @aumalatj

I don't see how that logically follows at all.

@Radical_EgoCom @andho @Bl4ckst4r @Madaligned There may have been vanguardist revolutions that had no kind of oppression of the proletariat, but given that the vast majority of them did, I would say that those instances are the exception and not the rule.

@aumalatj @andho @Bl4ckst4r @Madaligned

That still doesn't disprove the logical basis for the necessity of a vanguard party.

@Radical_EgoCom @aumalatj @andho @Bl4ckst4r the logical basis for a vanguard party is a belief you hold.That benefits the principles & standards you’ve created to determine what validates a revolution or not. But logically you’re revolution demands other be ruled despite what people want or their personal opinion or despite their lifestyle being taken into account.Your revolution will produce an injust society in my opinion. Everyone does not need a one party state to lead/ guide their tactics
@Radical_EgoCom @aumalatj @andho @Bl4ckst4r you don’t need to be engaged with a structure that doesn’t work for you let revolutionaries be nomads, be loners, be united and decentralized, let them work towards different objectives during the revolution. They Don’t need the a okay from someone with status in the vanguard to push for revolutionary changes. We won’t know everything that happens during the revolution and we can’t demand that all revolutionary agents report back to the proletariat.
@Radical_EgoCom @aumalatj @andho @Bl4ckst4r revolutionaries can be allowed to just do. And we can either learn to quickly and un strictly adapt to new circumstances. Or let those new circumstances kill of an organizational struggle because said structure didn’t want to allow the ungovernable to be ungoverned

@Madaligned @aumalatj @andho @Bl4ckst4r

1/3 No, the logical basis for a vanguard party that I listed is not just a belief, as in a subjective opinion with no evidence or logic to back it up. Above in this thread, I gave logical and evidence-based reasoning for a vanguard party, and none of it was subjective opinion. I suggest you read that and give any objections if you desire.

@Madaligned @aumalatj @andho @Bl4ckst4r

2/3 The revolution I'm proposing does take into account what people want and need, as well as taking their personal lifestyles into account. I want a vanguard party because I've deduced that such is necessary, but I want that vanguard party to exist solely to benefit the people, their wants, and needs.

@Madaligned @aumalatj @andho @Bl4ckst4r

3/3 Letting revolutionaries take different revolutionary paths will be detrimental to the revolution. A revolution is dependent on the revolutionary masses collectively working together to achieve a successful revolution, and doing so will require some level of unity in ideology and action, otherwise, if everyone is just doing whatever they want the cohesiveness that a revolution depends on for success won't be there and the revolution will fail.

@Radical_EgoCom @aumalatj @andho @Bl4ckst4r a belief can have evidence and logic that backs it still a belief and opinions can also be fact sometimes idk why that’s such a focus
@Radical_EgoCom @aumalatj @andho @Bl4ckst4r and if you don’t let revolutionaries take different paths you’re not taking in consideration their wants and needs. You’re denying them to determine one path they may not agree strategically with. Your cohesive glue probably won’t stick together if you don’t take that into heavy consideration. And learn how to unite based on large differences in goals.you can’t force unity it needs to be organic and sometimes that means letting the left be un-unified

@Madaligned @aumalatj @andho @Bl4ckst4r

No, an opinion by definition can not be a fact. An opinion is a subjective belief about something. A fact is something that can be proven to be true regardless of personal beliefs.

@Radical_EgoCom @aumalatj @andho @Bl4ckst4r we’re just gonna have to disagree on definitions I think you can have an opinion that the earth is round and that opinion also be a fact at the same Time.

@Madaligned @aumalatj @andho @Bl4ckst4r

No, an opinion and a fact are different types of statements. A fact is something that can be objectively verified and proven true or false, while an opinion is a personal belief or judgment that may vary from person to person and cannot be proven objectively true or false in the same way.

@Radical_EgoCom @aumalatj @andho @Bl4ckst4r I don’t agree that’s your standard and may be many other peoples standard but I just use the words differently. And I’ve explained how I use the words and understand the concept. Why can’t we just move past it. Why do I have to agree to the way you use the word

@Radical_EgoCom @aumalatj @andho @Bl4ckst4r language and understanding is a weird thing from the get and proven to be ever changing and unstable and questionable and it really can’t be pinned down forever it should be allowed to be such as well in my opinion

Anyway I see opinions and fact like how a square is a rectangle but not all rectangles are squares. You and others may not see that way but i do

@Radical_EgoCom @Bl4ckst4r @Madaligned @aumalatj if majority of x had y, than y in x is the rule not the exception. The statements from you and me both follow this logic.
@Radical_EgoCom @Madaligned @Bl4ckst4r @aumalatj the exceptions also prove that the Vanguard is not "necessary".
@Radical_EgoCom @Madaligned @Bl4ckst4r @aumalatj "the fact that the revolutionary people need ideological unity and strategic/tactical cohesiveness", how is this a fact?