dil

Agree that retrenching isn't a sign of things going well, but surely you also agree that there are material conditions outside of the control of the Zapatistas that influence things not going well? E.g. drug cartels a problem in many parts of Mexico.

The new Zapatista structure is more decentralized, pushing more power to local centers: https://enlacezapatista.ezln.org.mx/2023/11/13/ninth-part-the-new-structure-of-zapastista-autonomy/

The organization of those local centers into larger federations is where communism and anarchism start structurally looking the same. The primary difference is that anarchists promote bottom up organizations, and communists tend to advocate for more centralized power.

The methods that have been used by Marxists to successfully organized movements that overthrew capitalism. They differ from what anarchists do in having a unified vision and a professional vanguard.

Yes, anarchists don't organize around a vanguard party taking control of the existing state. Honestly, I think that's a bad thing to organize around.

Going on strike has historically been the best way to get concessions in the workplace, but union organizers don't organize around going on strike. Workplace organizing is listening to people's needs, giving support and reassurance, and empowering folks to apply the existing power they have to get concessions (even if they start small). Ideally, a workplace never actually goes on strike, and management realizes the workers hold all the power and concedes.

To me, that parallels broader political organization in two ways:

1. Most folks are unlikely to actually engage in a movement based on a high-risk action that requires a not-yet-reached critical mass
2. With collective pressure applied effectively, concessions can be won without violence (though there are obviously limits to what porky will give up without a fight)

Regular folks want their own specific needs met, and do not care about a professional vanguard. You can try to convince them that they should care, or you can just work on meeting their needs (even if you start small). And that means not having a unified vision beyond "organize people and empower them to make their lives better." That may involve a vanguard party at some point, but only when it becomes a practical tool for improving people's lives.

... Anyway. I'm sure you're not convinced, and that's fine. I hope we can agree that both approaches have merit as ways of improving people's lives, even if we disagree on which is more effective in doing so.

The narratives in the media fetishize lone rebels "fighting the system" through symbolic acts such as heists or sabotage that never threaten the core machinery of the system.

This isn't a portrayal of anarchism. Anarchism is not a bunch of lone wolves, and it is not a system with no rules or organization.

I haven't seen all the shows you mentioned - are the characters explicitly called anarchists? Tbh it seems like you don't understand anarchism and are incorrectly attributing things to it.

I agree that media fetishizes individualism, but a much more plausible explanation is that doing so promotes Great Man theory, which is used as justification for capitalists hoarding wealth.

Meanwhile, Zapatistas are very much not doing great in Mexico

Changing the organizational structure to try solving problems their people are facing seems like a feature, not a bug.

start focusing on proven and effective methods of organizing instead

What methods are those, and how do they differ from the organizing that anarchists do?

1. Anarchism as portrayed by the media is a bad source for anarchist's actual beliefs. Animal Farm shouldn't be used to decide what communists believe. Capitalism twists both ideologies.
2. Communism and anarchism both believe in building collective power outside of the existing state. They'll disagree on verbage, but they also generally agree on the structure of a post-revolutionary society. Disagreement is primarily limited to "what is the best path from here to there?"
3. The action needed now for both is getting people organized, and I think we should start by doing that under the banner of anti-capitalism. Once we have enough collective power, we can talk about where we throw our weight.

Personally, I like that anarchism starts by instilling post-revolution values in people (collective agency), and I think that will necessarily lead to a better world. On the other hand, I've found it's easier to sell someone on the vision of communism, since it's a smaller step from the existing structure of society.

Ultimately, there are strengths and weaknesses of each, and I think we should view every project as an experiment to learn from, and not just shit on each other.

China is doing great, but I think there are valid criticisms to be made about allowing seeds of capitalist power.

The Zapatistas are doing great in Mexico, but don't have the power of a centralized state to direct resources.

What do you hope to gain by saying "anarchism bad"? To me, it seems like it's distracting from the real work of getting people organized.

They're also great to bust open when scared, to make a quick getaway. Making zoidberg noises as you scuttle away is optional, but recommended.

Google says solar system formed 4.6 billion years ago, but I'm gonna say 4.7 billion bc that would mean the planet would need to travel one light year every 100 million years.

And it would not need to go fast to do that - about running speed according to wolfram alpha

So there's definitely a chance! Which I wouldn't have expected.

Per reddit, our probes take about 16,000 years to go one light year.

It's unlikely that a random system would orchestrate a gravity assist as well as we can, but even at 1,000x slower than us, that'd put the planet leaving the solar system <1 billion years ago (~750 million years ago).

Thanks for responding! I definitely agree on the major points. I'm having trouble making questions, but here are some statements that you should feel free to challenge:

(Focusing on just the US)

My perception is that there's more than enough productive capacity to meet everyone's basic needs (food, water, shelter, healthcare), and the reason folks go without is capitalism's failure to prioritize meeting everyone's needs. I agree that the simplest solution is to nationalize firms/industries, put them under democratic control, and collectively direct them to work for the good of the people. I'm down with that being priority #1, since people are fuckin' dying.

We seem very far from having enough power to do that now, and I like anarchism's prefiguration as a way of building a mass movement that is able to ultimately gain enough influence to make that happen.

I'm also personally fascinated by the emergent properties of a group of people and like viewing human society through the lens of a superorganism. Under that lens, the values a society holds guides each individual's behaviors, and the aggregate behavior of individuals shape society. It's certainly not materialist, but it's why I focused on individual incentives above.

I'm mostly pulling from here for concerns about the state and here (and here) for individuals mutual influence with society.

Do you have pointers to help me understand what makes you prefer Marxism? I know there's been a bunch of discourse on it already, and this probably isn't the spot where we resolve it, but I'm relatively new to leftism and am interested in learning more.

Short(ish) version I have for preferring anarchism to Marxism:

My ultimate end goal is that everyone ascend Maslow's hierarchy of needs and self actualize.

Self actualization requires freedom, agency, and control over things you care about. Pursuing self actualization is hard, though, and human brains want to be lazy.

I'm anti-capitalist, but a positive of (small-scale) capitalism is that it incentivizes individuals to think, "What should exist, but doesn't? What can I do that others would like?" and then actually go do it. Our aim should be to encourage those types of actions, but with an incentive structure that doesn't result in... this.

My concern is that a centralized state will result in folks voluntarily giving up their agency over stuff administered by the state, since it's easier than feeling ownership of it. Over time, I worry this would would atrophy individuals' agency and result in a kind of bystander effect, where folks look for the state to do things for them.