Quote:
|
The problem with anarcho-syndicalism (left-wing anarchism) is that it's impossible. People always want to rule over others. It's an instinct left over from evolution. Where there is anarchy, the next person to take control is usually very authoritarian (e.g. Franco), since nothing is stopping the strongest from simply taking power. Anarcho-capitalism might be possible because it would be a de facto plutocracy, but that is hardly an ideal society. Regarding communes, if someone wants to set one up that's fine by me (it's perfectly legal even in capitalist America), but when such communes are faced with opposition in a volatile political situation, especially from a right-wing authoritarian, they crumble, since they have little organization or wealth while the conqueror has both.
|
Force Anarco-Sydicalism is not left wing anarchism. I certainly place it to the right of me. Sydicalism believes in the trade unions taking full control of the economy and most other aspects of life (education etc.). Personally i don't see it solving social problems, even if it is fairly easy to implement and it does redistribute wealth more fairly.
What i'm talking about (and i think you are) is Anarco-communism. The belief that local councils and communes should organize the economy and most other aspects of life. I don't know where you get the impression these communes are weak to outside influence. In the Spanish revolution when facing overwhelming opposition from the Fascists (backed by Germany and Italy) they managed to hold until they were also attacked by the authoritarian Marxists aswell. A anarchist society is well organized and can be extremely productive. Once again i can use the examples of the Ukraine and Spain.
Why i stick with Anarco-Communism is that i can be done through local council elections (although i'd want smaller areas and instantly recallable representatives) thus eliminating any need for violent revolution.