What made you leave?

  1. Andrei Kuznetsov
    Andrei Kuznetsov - 3rd December 2009, 19:05
    What was it that made you leave Anarchism?

    For me, it was when I realized that after the revolution, you would need a centralized people's army and defense structure to protect the gains of the revolution that small people's militias and local unions just couldn't do.
  2. ComradeMan
    ComradeMan - 7th December 2009, 22:17
    Is that necessarily the case? I hear what you are saying but is that not why an anarchist revolution would have to be on a global scale and not a country basis as I think Malatesta pointed out too? That is why I sometimes think that all this "localised" supporting of every cause that happens to be anti-US or anti-capitalist in name is not always the right way to go.
    1. People need to liberate themselves before they can liberate others.
    2. True revolutions begin in the mind.
  3. fa2991
    fa2991 - 10th October 2010, 22:18
    Realizing everything I learned about the socialist states in high school was bullshit. If M-L provided a viable and successful option, there is absolutely no reason to castrate the revolution by throwing out the state right away.
  4. neosyndic - 13th October 2010, 10:15
    the realisation that capitalism is not only about the exploitation of man by man, but also about systematic and brutal police/military state repression in order to secure the preservation of private capital.

    "liberty" is the false freedom of the liberals. a smokescreen to cover up a social reality of inequality and exclusion.

    after reading rosa luxembourg's "the mass strike", i understood that in order to confront and defeat the capitalist state there needs to be discipline and organisation. in order to operate the means of production the workers have to organise the technical aspects of that production.

    i am still "anarcho-syndicalist" as far as the definition of "working class". i go by the classic syndicalist definition posited in 1909 by the french CGT:

    the INDUSTRIAL subset of the urban working class in general. all workers are subjected to wage slavery under capitalism, but only industrial workers are qualified to govern an existing socialist political-economy.

    i guess that in abstract theoretical terms i am post-syndicalist neo-luxembourgean. not a ''marxist'', but a fellow traveller of karl marx.

    in recent years i came to understand the progressive nature of the latin american second independence process and as a consequence i am a fellow traveller of the sandinistas, zapatistas, bolivarians, evo-masistas and correistas.
  5. Tomhet
    Tomhet - 11th November 2010, 02:40
    Why? because It simply is not at all realistic, in the current state of the world, the function of (some form) of government is nessesary, I don't believe a society with no direction at all can be progressive to any beneficial extent..
  6. Jalapeno Enema
    Jalapeno Enema - 2nd December 2010, 18:26
    . . .because I was just a teenage poser anyway.

    I heard about it in '99 (WTO in Seattle), and thought it sounded cool.

    When I tried to learn the theory I couldn't find a congruous theme with any rationale or logic I was familiar with.

    By 2003 I was identifying myself as a Trot instead.
  7. The Man
    The Man - 23rd March 2011, 05:28
    Well, I guess I just entered myself into Rehabilitation. I found that Anarchism was simply a dream and cannot be obtained without taking over the state.
  8. The Red Next Door - 30th March 2011, 17:46
    anarchism is bourgeoise and had been reduce to people reading zines.
  9. Rodrigo
    Rodrigo - 20th September 2011, 17:04
    After I began reading Marx, Engels, Lenin, etc. instead of ranting against Marxism with no knowledge on the subject. LOL

    After I realized, like many here, that anarchism needs a perfect situation to be possible; and perfect revolution is just a dream. The State is a necessary and temporary evil.
  10. revogirl
    revogirl - 13th October 2011, 05:29
    Yes great thread you've got going here.
    I am not anti anarchists per se however what an ultimate cop out.
    Of course there are all sorts of different types of anarchists and communities but when the ones that live outside the law and society think that they are so clever and smart it really winds me up.
    The state can smash these communities up absolutely anytime and any way it sees fit.
  11. revogirl
    revogirl - 13th October 2011, 05:35
    Oh so in an answer to the original question
    I left anarchism if indeed I ever really was an anarchist for mostly the same reasons as other posters in this thread have put.
    I want to smash the state and capitalism and the only possible chance of doing that is collectively organizing ourselves.
    That is why am now in a revolutionary communist organization.
  12. Brosa Luxemburg
    Brosa Luxemburg - 9th March 2012, 19:11
    What was it that made you leave Anarchism?

    For me, it was when I realized that after the revolution, you would need a centralized people's army and defense structure to protect the gains of the revolution that small people's militias and local unions just couldn't do.
    I pretty much left for those same reasons. I realized from studying revolutions in Cuba, Nicaragua, Vietnam, and other ones that after a revolution has succeeded that certain revolutionary society is in a chaotic time. There are threats from counter-revolutionaries hoping to put in place the old regime, there is a need to stabilize society, there is a need to promote a common struggle towards socialism, national independence, or whatever the revolution is hoping to promote, etc. While that society could possibly move toward an anarchist vision, due to the chaotic nature of revolutions it is highly unlikely that society will just become "anarchist" per se.
  13. NoahZoahaar - 1st July 2012, 04:56
    I found Anarchism at its base to be a liberal dream. Though I of course supported their goals of a classless and stateless society (as every Marxist does), I do not think that Anarchism, or at least immediate Anarchism is sustainable. After the revolution, a strong state, led by a vanguard party, is needed to construct the socialist system and fight counter-revolutionary and reactionary enemies. Looking at the history of Anarchist failures, I believe we should not be afraid to use the state as a weapon to destroy capitalism. Though I support the eventual withering of the state, we must first make the state strong in order to defend the gains of the worker's revolution. Once the socialist state has been established and made strong, and all reactionary and capitalist elements are defeated, then the slow disintegration of the state into communism can begin.
  14. International_Solidarity
    International_Solidarity - 23rd September 2012, 08:57
    I steadily came to believe that having no effective means of centralization would destroy the post-revolutionary world. Going straight from Capitalism to Anarchism seemed to not take into account the many Bourgeoisie that need to be taken care of right afterwards.
  15. billydan
    billydan - 2nd June 2013, 05:22
    I feel like we need a government to stay structured or else it would be complete chaos
  16. Dropdead
    Dropdead - 5th June 2013, 13:14
    asd
  17. Dropdead
    Dropdead - 5th June 2013, 13:15
    -
  18. Akshay! - 25th June 2013, 05:51
    What made me leave Anarchism? Stepping into the real world?
  19. ShadowStar
    ShadowStar - 21st November 2015, 10:37
    I left Anarchism because I had previously blindly followed Anarchism but when I read actual anarchist theory it always fell short in dealing with crime and counter-revolutionaries.