How would an anarcho-communist revolution go?

[Fourth Internationalist]

I have to admit, I am not familiar with anarchism. I know that in Marxism there will be a dotp and then once revolutions occur in other countries, communism will form. What is the anarchist way of achieving communism? How does it differ from non-Leninist/more libertarian Marxism? And without a state, what will happen if a revolution occurs only in one or a few countries, insufficient for global communism? Thanks! :D
EDIT: Also, why are anarchists opposed to the dotp?

[LOLseph Stalin]

EDIT: Also, why are anarchists opposed to the dotp?

I do know one main opposition by anarchists to the DOTP is that they feel that once a party takes power that they'll never really want to give up power. At least that is one of their oppositions to the Leninist DOTP.

[BIXX]

Basically my opposition is that there will be no will for the DOTP to phase itself out. I just can't see that happening.

As for how the actual revolution will go, I don't think you will necessarily find a unified answer. I would hope for a revolution like what Bellamy (I don't know much about his politics as I've only read a tiny amount of his work, enough to figure out that he had a plan for peaceful revolution and he thought it could work) seems to describe in "Equality", which was a bloodless one. However, I doubt that'll happen, no matter how much I want it to.

[NoOneIsIllegal]

Anarchists are for the dictatorship of the proletariat. We are opposed to the dictatorship of the clique, or the dictatorship of the party.
Dictatorship is used in the sense of ruling, in which the proletariat will wield power over their own lives, seize the means of production, and run society in which is fair for all the working class. Revolution is an act of authority. When anarchists oppose "authority" it's because capitalists, bosses, CEO's, the State, high-level bureaucrats, and others rule with an unjust authority. They seized their power in a way that usually the working-class would be opposed to, or find ways to try and "legitimatize" their authority (whether it be through laws, courts, bourgeois elections, the police, armies, propaganda).
This dictatorship of the proletariat also includes the suppression of the bourgeois, which can go about in many different forms. Currently we live in the dictatorship of capital, so you should understand if we have a few bones to pick with them.

Also, there's no such thing as an anarchist revolution, or a Marxist revolution, so-to-say. It's a working class revolution, or proletariat uprising, or what-have-you. The aspect that makes it's character is who is able to steer and wield influence over the masses, whether it be anarchists, socialist parties, revolutionary councils, etc.

[tuwix]

I have to admit, I am not familiar with anarchism. I know that in Marxism there will be a dotp and then once revolutions occur in other countries, communism will form. What is the anarchist way of achieving communism? How does it differ from non-Leninist/more libertarian Marxism? And without a state, what will happen if a revolution occurs only in one or a few countries, insufficient for global communism? Thanks! :D
EDIT: Also, why are anarchists opposed to the dotp?

It was said yet that anarchism doesn't oppose DoTP. It opposes to to oligarchy that was going to be a “vanguard” party.

Anarchism as an opposition to Marxism firstly is going to dismantle a state and then to give a society through direct democracy called the DoTP by Marxists a power to introduce a socialism.

And if revolution in one country which isn't an island, a revolution is going to collapse as it happened in Ukraine and Spain. State will erase it as it happened.

[MP5]

The reason that i oppose DOTP is because if history has shown us nothing is that power corrupts even the most pure hearted of revolutionaries. Also simply suppressing the ruling class and trying to abolish Capitalism without dismantling the state which is the very apparatus that gave rise to and allows the bourgeois to hold onto power will simply result in a different ruling class only they won't be called the bourgeois. If we think that we as Socialist are immune to the corrupting effects of power and are somehow morally superior to the bourgeois and thus we will be willing to give up power then we are not only engaging in romanticism but we are doomed from the start. None of us are immune to the corrupting effects of power hence why we must destroy the building blocks of power that gave rise to Capitalism, bourgeois society and the class system that it feeds on. Unless we start the destruction and rebuilding of society from the bottom up so to speak all we will do is replace those at the top.

As for how a Anarchist Communist revolution would go off i think everyone has their own idea of that just like everyone has their own idea as to how a Marxist Communist revolution will go off. I am just as influenced if not more so by Marxist writers as i am by Anarchist ones so no doubt others will have a very different interpretation then me.

There would have to be atleast a large minority of people who support Anarcho-Communist revolution. From there we could use voluntary councils to gain control of the means of production. Well armed militias could deal with any bourgeois who refuse to give up the means of production peacefully which would be the majority. As you can only meet force with force it would no doubt be a rather violent revolution. This is not really a bad thing as violent revolution serves a number of purposes. It get's rid of the bourgeois and empowers the proletariat as it shows them that they can emancipate themselves from the slavery of Capitalism without the help of a Vanguard party. Once we abolished Capitalism by taking the means of production out of the hands of the bourgeois we must also smash the state which is the apparatus that protects the bourgeois and gave rise to Capitalism in the first place.

Once the state has been crushed and Capitalism abolished the bourgeois would simply cease to be a class. Would there be a reaction from the bourgeois to try and regain power? Most certainly but one does not need a state to suppress such a reaction. Voluntary workers councils who are armed would be more then capable of keeping the bourgeois out of power. So really we could suppress the bourgeois reaction using the very same methods that we would use to oust them in the first place.

As for dealing with other countries that is a tricky matter indeed and we have seen the problem various state Capitalist countries like the USSR, Cuba, Albania and others have encountered with this. The best we could do i think would be to keep up economic relations with other countries and to try and spread the revolution as much as we could. But yes it has to be international in the end so a world wide revolution and overall rejection of Capitalism would be the most ideal conditions for a Anarchist Communist revolution.

[Durruti's friend]

I agree with MP5 that there is no overall consensus on how would an anarcho-communist revolution go, so I can only give you my opinion.

I believe that the creation of an "underground network" is of essence, and that it has to be done if a sustainable revolution is wanted. Unions are a great example of that. They serve as a way of pressuring the bourgeoisie under capitalism, and can act as a "shadow government" on the workplace. If the majority of workers are in an anarchist (revolutionary) union, we can start planning the revolution itself. And the revolution's goal would be simply driving away the bourgeois management. After that, the workers would be able to take full control over the workplace.

Finally, workers' militias would be organized to fight off any possible attacks and to spread the revolution, primarily to the countryside which isn't organized itself, as it has been done during the Spanish revolution.