How can I start an anarchist revolution?

First you need to pick someone to lead this revolution.

Then you gather anarchists around this leader.

Then you all laugh because leaders are lame

Don't call it anarchism and dress it up as a micro government & micro economic conglomerate under the ideals of Mikhail Bakunin. This appeals socially to the liberals parties with their 'muh equality' and to the conservative parties due to individual and group freedoms. Also since the overarching government would be non organic the socialist parties and nationalist parties could exist amongst their own ideals, the issue is creating a police force to, without bias, enforce the doctrine of said non organic government and preventing any conflicts or disputes amongst the different communes

Kick over some trash can and punch people who have different opinions than yours

Can you explain the difference?

>having the same views as different people on one issue makes you the same as them

One is actually anarchist and one is pretending to be.

which is which?

PIRATES
I
R
A
T
E
S

Left anarchism wasts to get rid of the current state and replace it with smaller states centred around workers' councils while right anarchism wants to get rid of the state altogether.

Get the stick.

Come on, fetch the stick, boy.

You can't.

>implying they don't have differing views of hierarchy

jeez do you even anarkiddie

I bet they do.

There areobjective definitions of 'anarchy' and 'states' and left 'anarchists' are in favour of states not anarchy, regardless of their views of hierarchy.

What would stop Statist societies just invading Anarchist societies?

The anarchists will simply shout "I do not consent" in a shrill voice and the statists will leave them alone.

They do have differing views of hierarchy and from those differing views comes their different proposals.
Almost like they're two schools of thought coming from separate places that are lumped together by people who never really read any of what those different anarchists are talking about.

Also, the idea of 'objective definitions' in political philosophy is a little bit dated.

The NAP and the free market, obviously. What are you, a bootlicker? I have thirty guns in my trunk! Pig!

>They do have differing views of hierarchy and from those differing views comes their different proposals.
Sure.

>Almost like they're two schools of thought coming from separate places that are lumped together by people who never really read any of what those different anarchists are talking about.
I agree with this, the only thing they really have in common is the use of the word anarchy.

Also, the idea of 'objective definitions' in political philosophy is a little bit dated.
Fair enough, but if you're to say that what 'state' means to left anarchists is a government that allows capitalism, then Stalinist governments aren't states and therefore Stalinists are anarchists too.

Eh, most anarchists I know hate tankies and generally decry the USSR (and most large bureaucratic institutions) as State capitalism.
I get where you're coming from, as soon as you get into political discourse at the fringes all the words no longer matter because everyone's got their own lexicon that they daren't deviate from.
Same whether it's Rojava or the Patriots Militia.

You wait till summer holidays

All socialist states ever in existence have practiced market socialism in the long term. Pure socialism has shown to create terrible shortages and so socialist governments have always moved to compromise with market socialism.

I however am not criticising left anarchism on its practices, but on its theory, which is self-contradictory.

And like you said, when you have conversations across ideologies, definitions aren't objective, but definitions must be agreed on to make proper arguments. Unless we are to change what the dictionary definition of anarchy is however, left anarchists aren't anarchists.

If we're gonna play the dictionary game, you can't call a tiny cooperative or local council a 'state' by any definition.

You can't.

>right anarchism wasts to get rid of the current state and replace it with smaller states centred around private property while left anarchism wants to get rid of the state altogether.
FTFY
The same thing preventing statist societies from invading other statist societies.

>right wing anarchist

Could you give us some example?

I never called a tiny cooperative or a local council a state though.

>right anarchism wasts to get rid of the current state and replace it with smaller states centred around private property while left anarchism wants to get rid of the state altogether
And what states are promoted to exist within right anarchism?

Right wing anarchism would probably not be brought about by revolution.

>And what states are promoted to exist within right anarchism?
Private property effectively becomes a state with the property owner or their representatives having the monopoly of legitimate force along with complete control over it and over anyone who comes on it. It is effectively no different than feudalism.

No one "starts" a revolution on his own, if you think like that

>start any kind of revolution
>fail
>Anarchists will eventually claim that your revolution was an example for a successful Anarchist society.

>The same thing preventing statist societies from invading other statist societies

But Statist societies invade other Statist societies on a regular basis

You don't have the monopoly of legitimate force on private property.

It's not lawful to invite someone on to your private property and immidiately kill them before asking them to leave.

It is completely different to feudalism since feudal titles to land were completely hereditary and serfs were born into contracts they did not consent to. They key difference is that no one forces you to be present on their property.

Meanwhile workers' councils do not allow you to break away and start a private factory with your own accumulated capital, hence more like states by your metrics.

m8, if the whole world is parcelled up into private property with no "common" you are forced to be present on someones.

The the ones which can't fight back. Besides, if people started to let go of the superstition of authority they wouldn't allow themselves to be murdered so that their elites can get richer.
>It's not lawful to invite someone on to your private property and immidiately kill them before asking them to leave.
And states aren't allowed to execute diplomats they've invited. It's a monopoly of legitimate force, which means your guest isn't allowed to use any force that you don't give him permission to, nor is a trespasser allowed you shoot back.
>It is completely different to feudalism since feudal titles to land were completely hereditary
Same as most property.
>serfs were born into contracts they did not consent to.
All serfs had to swear an oath of fealty, as they obviously would because a 16 year old boy has no where to go except stay on his family's property on his lord's demense. Which didn't change the fact that the peasants did all the labor but still had to give rent because it was their lord's land.
>They key difference is that no one forces you to be present on their property.
As said. If I don't own property I have to be on someone else's to survive, thereby beholden to their quasi-laws.
>Meanwhile workers' councils do not allow you to break away and start a private factory with your own accumulated capital
Sure they would if that was possible which it wouldn't be since a single individual wouldn't be able to accumulate enough capital through their own work to do that and if they could no one would work for them and have their surplus labor be exploited. A more realistic situation would be leaving the collective farm and go farm some undeveloped land by yourself, which you'd be allowed to do.

You've given me some ideas to think about.

I'm pretty tired so I'll hit you up with some arguments if the thread's still up.

You can't.

an anarchist revolution doesn't need a leader, idiot

you can't because it's unnatural for us at this point and everyone is too comfortable under the system to try to contemplate surviving without it. Everyone with even the slightest stake in the current state of affairs will resist based on their own selfish desires, and so anarchism will never take hold by the very nature of modern people

>The same thing preventing statist societies from invading other statist societies
The threat of organized military resistance and international action by other states?

Cool. Cya later m8.
Yes, essentially. Everyone would know that threat to their society and have the structure in place for effectively fight back against it. Imagine somewhere like Switzerland where all citizens are armed and can be quickly combined into the military.

An armed temporary militia can't defeat a standing army, navy and air force.

I guess Switzerland is shit out of luck if they ever get invaded.

The anarchic society would have an industrial base they would turn to war production, and likely already have tanks, AA, planes etc.