How do Anarchist plan to attain that society?

[R_P_A_S]

I know this questions is pretty loaded. I know how communist ultimately want to get to a communist society. There's more than one "ism" and these methods are different than the other I seem to always hear about how different communist want to achieve communism. I don't believe to have found anywhere how Anarchist plan to get to their ideal society. The only think that I've read (and I have not read a great deal about Anarchism, I'm just starting out) was this:

Anarcho-syndicalists, like other syndicalists, want to create an industrial union movement based on anarchist ideas. Therefore they advocate decentralized, federated unions that use direct action to get reforms under capitalism until they are strong enough to overthrow it.

Every other description of "anarchist trends" just sorta gives me a brief summary on how they intended for it to function. Nothing really on how one will get there. Everywhere one looks socialist and communist seem to have their theory and plan pretty set in stone etc.. However I don't really hear much about Anarchism's plan.. Any suggestions?

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Anarcho-syndicalists [. . .] advocate decentralized, federated unions that use direct action to get reforms under capitalism . . .

No.
Like, you're beginning from a really fundamental misunderstanding of direct action. Direct action aims to attain specific ends directly, without mediation. That is to say, the goal is not reform (though it could be a consequence), but the goal is inseparable from the activity itself.


I don't really hear much about Anarchism's plan.. Any suggestions?

How do you get communism? Do communism.
I know that sounds wacky, but think of it this way - what about evaluating the effectiveness of a strategy by the ways in which it actually approaches realizing its goal? In this sense, anarchist activity aims to prefigure emancipatory communist futures, and through prefiguration begin to realize them materially (or at least suss out strategic means of doing so).
Of course, this is the opinion of one vaguely anarchist weirdo, and can hardly be taken as "anarchism's plan" but, arguably, that's inevitable, since we ultimately have to deal in terms of specificities and not ideology.

Yup.

[IAmNotTamerlane]

I've never been fond of Insurrectionist-Revolution or Propaganda-by-the-Deed - violence makes me break out in cuts and bruises. I've always thought that we should just, well, go and live anarchistically, or communistically or how ever you want. Like a hippy commune, but with better PR.

[Tjis]

Platformism seeks to unite as many anarcho-communist groups as possible under a shared theory and strategy (a platform) with the goal of building a mass workers' movement. Unlike the mass partyism of orthodox Marxist (and Leninist) traditions, and unlike syndicalism, a platformist organization is not to be a mass organization itself, nor is it to lead one. Rather, the idea is to assist in progressive grassroots struggles wherever they arise, providing people within these struggles with an extensive solidarity network, connecting them with like-minded groups, training organizers and assisting in the building of long-term centers where left-wing ideology can be freely discussed. In short, the idea is to raise the potential for workers' self-organization rather than making workers dependent on any particular organization. Eventually then, the degree of organization among the working class will be so high that it can be considered one big mass organization, capable of taking over society when a revolutionary situation arises.
The reason for bringing together anarchist groups in a federation with a shared theory and strategy (rather than keeping cooperation at an informal level of solidarity) is to be able to form one front within this budding mass movement. In past uprisings (with some notable exceptions) anarchists have been pushed to the background by better organized groups or factions, who through their level of organization simply had more resources available to them, were able to act more quickly, and who were able to propagandize a consistent message. In my opinion, if anarchism is to be relevant in a future revolution, an explicitly anarcho-communist organization with an actual ideology and plan is absolutely required.

[TheRedAnarchist23]

However I don't really hear much about Anarchism's plan

Anarchists usualy only talk about anarchism when we are teaching someone. This forum is an example of how anarchists prety much all agree on what is to be done after the revolution (if you exclude the social vs individualism thing).

Anarchists want to have the revolution, just liket he communists, but we advocate a direct transition from this system, to anarchy (also known as communism). We beleive the state is harmfull, and unnecessary in any situation, and so we do not believe in revolutionary state, and vanguard parties.
We beleive in self-discipline, and workers' self-management, and that the people can organise and colectivise without a state. We go further, and say that state is an obstacle to the revolution, and it is an institution that will not allow the revolution to happen.
While communists think the state is a weapon that can be put in the hands of the workers to purge capitalism, and bring forth communism, anarchists think the state is not a weapon, and will not follow the will of the workers, if doing it means its own destruction. So we say the state cannot be controled, and must be destroyed so that the revolution can be successfull.

If you have questions you can ask me!:D

[Art Vandelay]

Anarchists want to have the revolution, just liket he communists, but we advocate a direct transition from this system, to anarchy (also known as communism).

So, in other words, you want to abolish the state (as if such a thing could be done) before the material conditions arrive which necessitate the absence of a state.


We beleive the state is harmfull, and unnecessary in any situation, and so we do not believe in revolutionary state, and vanguard parties.

Quite clearly you have no understanding of the origins of the state and the material conditions which not only bring said institution about, but necessitate it's existence.