What's wrong with anarchism?

We have nothing against their ideas. What we do have against is their tactic, organization and anti-leninist problems.

What's wrong with Anarchism is that in terms of strategy it's completely bankrupt. History has proven that revolutions will always be crushed if the revolutionaries do not seize state power. I'm still pretty sympathetic to Anarchism because I like the ideals and stuff (the ultimate ideal of all communists is classless stateless freedom, aka anarchism, after all) but I just think that it's strategically incorrect.

Yes.
There can be no logical strategy for an ideology that seeks to instantly abolish the state and jump to communism, because any logical strategy to reach communism will involve using state power. The successful Anarchist territories (Spain, Ukraine, Shinmin, etc) all had workers' states of some kind set up, even if their proponents deny this. An organised force to secure working class rule and oppress counter-revolutionary elements unquestionably existed in these territories. Same is true of the Paris Commune, the Zapatista territory, and all the other places Anarchists claim are awesome. So yes, they do have bad theory and bad practice, and the only times they have good practice is when they violate their theory, abandon Anarchism, and adopt statist socialism. No socialism without the state.

I am not an ex-anarchist, but I would be interested in conversing with yourselves.

I feel the views above are somewhat sweeping. Most anarchist successes have been crushed by larger forces around them, but that does not make anything wrong with the anarchists themselves.

If you are bullied by someone bigger than you then are you in the wrong?

As an anarchist, I'll tell you what I think is wrong.... it is too fragmentary, there are too many suffixes and adjectives added on all the time, there is the lack of an "heroic figure" or icon, the movement is often too cerebral and is al far too misconceived from outside.

These are factors anarchists need to address.

But there is no anarchist "theory" as far as I know. . .all they seem to have as "strategy" are black blocs, drugs and veganism

you're an idiot

I am not an ex-anarchist, but I would be interested in conversing with yourselves.

I feel the views above are somewhat sweeping. Most anarchist successes have been crushed by larger forces around them, but that does not make anything wrong with the anarchists themselves.

If you are bullied by someone bigger than you then are you in the wrong?

No, but it does mean that you are weak. We're not saying that Anarchists are 'in the wrong', just that strategically the movement is weak and not able to last. Why are Anarchists crushed by larger forces around them while Marxist-Leninists have succeeded in holding their own in similar situations ? It is because they harness state power. Without this, the movement, the revolution, and the working class are all weak.

As an anarchist, I'll tell you what I think is wrong.... it is too fragmentary, there are too many suffixes and adjectives added on all the time,

Well the same is true of statist socialism aswell. Just look at all the differant sects and tendencies of Leninism. I agree its a problem but I don't think it is catastrophic, because clearly Leninists have had a lot of successes throughout history.
There's also the issue of discipline and centralism. Statist socialists, particularly Leninists place a lot of emphasis on discipline, which helps keep the movement together as well as making it more powerful.

there is the lack of an "heroic figure" or icon,

Cults of personality IMO don't help a movement. They create a false and forced admiration without understanding. It alienates the movement from the people.

the movement is often too cerebral and is al far too misconceived from outside.

These are factors anarchists need to address.

Communism in general is misconcieved from outside, not just anarchism.

1. The weak argument. Well, from a moral point of view that is not really defensible is it? What is this? The proverbial law of survival of the fittest... I think it might be a dangerous line to take. As for the anarchists being crushed etc.... briefly, as I understand it in the Spanish Civil War, had the anarchists not been turned on by their former allies the communists then the fascists would not have succeeded in wiping them both out- very simplistic I know, but one example. The Cuban anarchists were also the longest running revolutionary force in Cuba and had part of the revolution, to be crushed by Fidel.

2. Not really- I am talking about the general perception. If you say "communist" people know where they stand. If you say anarchist, then the next question is usually, "What kind?". I think you'll find that true anarchism demands an enormous amount of self-discipline, the differenece and perhaps the flaw is in not imposing this discipline on others.

3. Cults of personality- I did not mean an individual in the sense of the stereotypical "Che T-shirt", but there is no well-known iconic and heroic anarchist movement. Most normal people know Marx, how many know Malatesta? Perhaps I worded it badly... sorry about that.


4. Communism in general is misconcieved from outside, not just anarchism.
You also have a point here, but much like my point above I think it's far worse in the case of anarchism. Most people have at least a vague idea of communism and communist ideals but this is not the same for anarchism. The best you usually get is that it means "anyone can do whatever they want" in some kind of chaotic free for all.

Because of anarchist disdain for authority and hence their rejection for a workers' state, this ensures that for workers, anarchism will be suicidal to say the least. Authority is needed to protect the revolution and start the transition to socialism.

I repeat, anarchist movements do not usually implode, they are usually stabbed in the back and crushed to the detriment of the so-called victors. In a nutshell the Spanish debacle and the victory of the fascists was down to the communist betrayal of the Barcelona based anarchists. There were, I admit, the "incontrolados" who went beyond and thus shot the anarchist movement in the foot but on the whole taking the Spanish Civil War as an example the suicidal move from a revolutionary point of view was made by the communists.

I used to be an anarchist, first of the capitalist kind, then a collectivist anarchist. However, I eventually realised that anarchism of all types can't work. Not immediately. It requires all people to be socially altruistic at the time of the revolution, and that isn't going to happen. A period of communist government (dictatorship of the proletariat) is needed to ensure the plague of liberalism and individualism is wiped away.

I completely agree that he biggest flaw in Anarchism is lack of clear strategy. But the thing that pushed me away from my old Anarchist beliefs was mainly the impossible perfection required for it to really work. Yes, it would be great if the state wasn't needed, but just because it seems like a great idea doesn't mean it's possible or even logical.

After a while of being a hardline Anarchist it all started to seem like a far-left wet dream. I have no personal problem with Anarchists though. Their hearts are certainly in the right place, but their priorities just need a little sorting out when it comes to Capitalism and the State and which is the true enemy.

Yes.
There can be no logical strategy for an ideology that seeks to instantly abolish the state and jump to communism, because any logical strategy to reach communism will involve using state power. The successful Anarchist territories (Spain, Ukraine, Shinmin, etc) all had workers' states of some kind set up, even if their proponents deny this. An organised force to secure working class rule and oppress counter-revolutionary elements unquestionably existed in these territories. Same is true of the Paris Commune, the Zapatista territory, and all the other places Anarchists claim are awesome. So yes, they do have bad theory and bad practice, and the only times they have good practice is when they violate their theory, abandon Anarchism, and adopt statist socialism. No socialism without the state.

I completely agree with you on these points. All histories of successful revolutions that succeeded in taking power shows they were ALWAYS attacked by counter-revolutionaries and/or imperialists! The Soviet Union, Cuba, Vietnam, Grenada, Nicaragua, Venezuela, Chile, etc. have ALL had that problem and had to use military and state power to fight back to defend that people. This does not mean I support these societies or defend the obvious deformities and oppressive decisions they made, but we can learn from their mistakes and successes. One thing to learn is you have to take state power and prepare for the obvious counter-revolutionary attack. That doesn't mean you have to silence all opposition and crush critics like some of those countries listed had done, but you need to be ready to fight, and anarchism does not prepare society for that.

Also, anarchism has a very big workerist and immediatist tendency to it.

Anarchists seem to be completely clueless when it comes to seizing power. They seem to think communism can be achieved from capitalism right away without taking into account all the reactionary elements of the old capitalist society which will seek to restore their old society.