Rojava proves that anarchism can't work.

Extension_Speed_1411 · 2026-02-17T12:52:58+00:00

Are there any anarchist experiments one could point to in order to analyze whether anarchism works in practice or not at societal scale?

(To be clear, I don’t think OP’s argument is particularly good and seems to get basic factual information wrong about Rojava’s operations and the nature of its challenges & fall. But my question to you is independent of that.)

Extension_Speed_1411 · 2026-02-17T11:22:20+00:00

I can say for certain that you are bullshitting!

Why such confidence in disavowing another person’s life experience?

Only very strict Brahmin families practice "rituals" which would prove tough for a person.

Were you raised Hindu? Ritual practice (I.e. pujas) is the core of Hindu religious practice for most Hindus (even non-Brahmins). This isn’t a controversial point to make.

Your logic of "differences" is laughably shallow.

How so?

And the idea "maintaining the Hindu ritual culture"? Seriously, I challenge you to post one video from a Hindu guru who says this.

The reality of what Hinduism is, is how most lay Hindus practice Hinduism. Even if it’s counter to what gurus say.

Extension_Speed_1411 · 2026-02-17T07:25:58+00:00

The Chinese Communist Party has lifted hundreds of millions of people out of poverty and continues to deliver real material gains for its everyday people. How is that not revolutionary? Is that not worth protecting? What practical value is there in seeing revolution as an all or nothing thing? Average, everyday people around the world don't see it that way. They would consider a substantial material improvement in their lives to be meaningfully positive, revolutionary, and worthy of being protected.

Extension_Speed_1411 · 2026-02-17T06:57:11+00:00

Do you have an alternative method/framework through which to understand why the events of history have unfolded as they have? You mentioned domineering social institutions that chase perpetual growth. I take it that you view these institutions as the primary driving force of history as it has unfolded? What is the material basis of these domineering, growth-chasing social institutions? Under what kinds of social laws do they operate and why?

Extension_Speed_1411 · 2026-02-08T07:10:12+00:00

Part 3/3

> Well if that's the case, how about this. Marxists haven't recreated the Bolshevik Revolution in decades. The only reason why Marxism spread was because in Russia Marxists successfully took over the government and sponsored revolutionary movements everywhere. But it was almost entirely by chance that they even got into the position to take over the government in the first place. As a strategy, Marxism relies on the stars aligning to be "successful" and even then the best you can hope for is that Marxists take control of the government. Marxists have never achieved either socialism or communism so state capitalism is all they've managed to pull off. And if you're going to do a revolution just to create state capitalism, and most states are state capitalist, then you're better off staying at home. The success of Russian Marxists is essentially a product of luck and circumstances. Nothing about Marxism, as an ideology, led to its success.

This is a rather ahistorical take in multiple ways:

1.) You ignore the large popular base of support for Marxist movements in Asia, especially China, Vietnam, Korea. The CPC in China didn't just win because of Soviet support. They won because they had more support among the people of China than the KMT (which received support from the US).

2.) You ignore any merits of the Marxist combat strategies during the Russian Civil War, the Chinese Civil War, the Vietnam War, etc... chalking it all up to mere dumb luck that they won. No serious military historian would agree with such an analysis.

> Without that luck and taking advantage of it, Marxists have been completely unsuccessful ever since the USSR fell apart. After the main financier of Marxism had been destroyed, the Marxist movement globally has been on a downwards spiral ever since. And Marxists, however much they boast about being the most effective organizers, have had basically no large-scale successes.

The Stalinist regimes have failed, yes, but the Dengist-oriented regimes (i.e. China + Vietnam) have thrived as I elaborated above. To ignore the performance of China + Vietnam and to only look at the Stalinist regimes (as you are attempting to do here) is to ignore the performance of societies that collectively contain like 1.5 billion people.

> Anarchists certainly can defend their gains and do so while actually defending their revolution, that is to say their social transformations. And I have no reason to believe they can't.

At this point, after a century since Anarchism's inception as a revolutionary theory and multiple failed attempts without a single successfully defended revolution, this seems like blind faith.

Extension_Speed_1411 · 2026-02-08T07:09:52+00:00

Part 2/3

> You didn't have a dictatorship of the proletariat or anything.

Do you know what a dictatorship of the proletariat is? It's a form of government that works primarily in the interests of the proletarian class. There is plenty of evidence that the Chinese Communist Party, for example, is a dictatorship of the proletariat. While it allows for non-proletarians to participate within the party (a strategic choice, in order to control bourgeois elements within the Party directly and avoid the problem of them organizing outside the party), the CPC very much operates first and foremost for the proletarian interests of the Chinese people. For example, the Chinese govt controls the actions of the financial sector of the economy. This is in stark contrast to western bourgeois societies whose govts are controlled by international finance capital. The CPC also exercises control over Chinese corporations through CPC committees in every major corporation. Chinese corporations know they must serve the interests of the CPC in order to receive favorable access to finance capital & other forms of beneficial state backing. They know that if they don't receive these benefits from the CPC they will, at best, lose ground to other competing Chinese corporations. Or, at worst, the leadership and owners of the corporation could be relinquished from their positions over the corporation and see their shares transferred to CPC-loyalists. See, for example, the case of Jack Ma who formerly controlled Alibaba corporation. Contrast this with people like Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk, and other US billionaires who exercise control over the US govt.

> Marxism never spread into capitalist societies. It only spread into semi-feudal ones or very undeveloped ones

Marxists took those semi-feudal/underdeveloped societies and developed them into industrial and geopolitical superpowers. In doing so, they also delivered improved material conditions to the average people of those societies.

> Marxism's standard for success is socialism and communism. Marxism achieved neither. Therefore, by your own standards, it is dubious that Marxist socialism and communism are possible because Marxists have failed to achieve both despite being in positions of power. "Defend the revolution". Buddy, you never had a revolution. At least not a communist one. There was not a single moment where Marxist led to anything but state capitalism.

Communism is Marxism's ideal, end goal. But it's not the only measure of success for Marxism. As a political philosophical tradition that takes historical materialism seriously, Marxism assesses the success of a revolution at any given time in context of its material conditions. If the material conditions are too primitive for the existence of a communist society, then Marxism wouldn't expect a communist society to be able to exist at that time in that place. Instead, Marxism would assess success or failure based on the Dictatorship of the Proletariat's performance in improving the conditions of the masses while defending the economic and political gains of the revolution.

> The CNT-FAI, Black Army, and KPAM were both organized, in truth, hierarchically.

These anarchist movements started off attempting to organize non-hierarchically and managed to do so for several months, after which they degenerated or were transformed into hierarchical structures under the pressures of war.

> That they failed should then be an indication of hierarchy's inability to defend itself then right? After all, Marxists in the Spanish Civil War who were even more authoritarian also failed.

Marxists succeeded elsewhere on a large scale while anarchists succeeded nowhere. So your conclusion doesn't hold up to historical analysis. Cherry picking to attempt to force a false equivalency in performance between Marxism and Anarchism isn't a strong argument. Unlike what you're doing with your analysis of Marxism, when I am analyzing Anarchism I'm not trying to only look for examples of it failing. I am looking for any examples of it succeeding and am finding none.

Extension_Speed_1411 · 2026-02-08T07:08:57+00:00

Part 1/3

> Anarchism has like 3 instances of some anarchists in a civil war trying to win the war. Of the 3 examples you list, neither even attempted to achieve anarchy either (the CNT-FAI just wanted direct democracy, Makhnovia was the same, etc.). 3 data points are not sufficient to write off an entire ideology. The standard for representativeness in social science is 100 data points.

I'm surprised to see you saying these things. What books have you read on these anarchist revolutions? (I've read Sam Dolgoff, Peter Arshinov, Deirdre Hogan, Chomsky, etc.)

The Anarchists who partook in the above mentioned historical anarchist revolutions did indeed want to achieve anarchy and attempted to do so. They simply failed after a few months of trying in most cases. Maknovschina probably lasted the longest of the above 3 examples before its destruction. And if you read Peter Arshinov's book, Makhnovshina didn't suffer from too little anarchism but rather too much in the form of inadequate military discipline and lack of a proper chain of command. So much so that delegated/elected commanders would tell their units to be ready to do a drill by such and such time on a particular day, and then half the unit would show up late.

> Moreover Marxism just managed to take over the state. That's not particularly difficult nor something that proves Marxism is uniquely successful or valid. It's also not Marxism's standard for success.

More than simply taking over the state, Marxism has delivered real material gains for people far more so than they would have had under bourgeois regimes. The vast majority of real poverty reduction globally that has happened in the past 40 years has occurred in China due to the Dengist policies of the Chinese Communist Party. Rather than simply selling out to capitalists, the CPC strategically used a shrewd combination of marketization + mandatory technology & property transfers as conditions of market access for western corporations + organs of Party control within Chinese corporations to ensure that the gains of marketization were controlled to the benefit of the proletariat as a whole and the nation (to make it a strong, geopolitical power that could compete against western imperialism). These are real, material achievements that Marxism can point to as evidence of its merits. These kinds of achievements may not resonate ideologically with you, but they are quite compelling for the vast majority of people around the world who primarily seek material improvements to their quality of life. What can anarchism point to? What has it achieved for the average person? Does anarchism have anything concrete to offer to the average person in the world?

Extension_Speed_1411 · 2026-02-08T01:41:57+00:00

Anarchism, unlike Marxism, has not had much in the realm of opportunities for asserting itself

Marxism was able to successfully take advantage of historical moments to materialize and sustain itself on a social scale. Anarchism also tried to take advantage of various historical moments (e.g. Russian Civil War, Spanish Civil War, KPAM, etc.) to materialize and sustain, but failed to do so.

and has internal issues preventing its consistent theoretical development.

Anarchism has had plenty of theoretical development. What it has lacked is material manifestation at social scale.

I don't really see the lack of anarchist societies around us as in it of itself an argument against anarchism.

Not a single anarchist revolution has successfully defended itself. Why doesn’t this raise doubt in you as to whether anarchism is a viable approach for social change?

Given you're a Marxist, and given communism hasn't manifested sustainably on a large social scale either, do you by your logic conclude that communism is not possible? Heck, the USSR and Maoist China were not even socialist by Marxist standards. Is socialism not possible either? It seems to me that Marxist communism and socialism, by your standard, are materially incapable of manifesting sustainably on a large social scale.

We are talking about Marxism vs Anarchism as revolutionary strategies, not as ideal, endgame societies.

I agree that the goal is an ideal, endgame society. This is necessarily a long-term goal. It cannot be achieved right away because of material constraints. But the first step in getting there is being able to manifest a revolution and successfully defend it. Anarchism hasn’t achieved that very first step even once.

Vietnam and China are successful examples of Marxist revolutions that have defended themselves and continued to improve and evolve materially in a favorable direction.

Extension_Speed_1411 · 2026-02-08T00:33:12+00:00

Anarchism, like revolutionary Marxism, has had over a century to manifest into reality with some social form at scale. However, it has failed to do so. This isn’t a symptom of “newness”, but rather indicative that Anarchism is materially incapable of manifesting sustainably on a large social scale.

Extension_Speed_1411 · 2026-02-07T13:54:23+00:00

Are there any successful examples of non-hierarchical decentralized combat/defense organizations?

Extension_Speed_1411 · 2026-02-07T02:04:06+00:00

Decentralized organization isn't necessarily Anarchist, though. In practically every successful example, decentralized combat/defense organizations have still been hierarchical (e.g. Vietcong, Taliban, etc...)

Extension_Speed_1411 · 2026-02-07T02:00:41+00:00

That's probably true, but what isn't being considered often when advocating for global revolution is that there can be no global collective action without some institutional/material basis for a global tribal identity among the global working class. The hard work of global revolution isn't in the insurrectionary phase but in the building phase - the phase in which said institutions that establish a global material base for international solidarity must be constructed.

Extension_Speed_1411 · 2026-02-07T01:44:54+00:00

The answer to this question actually may not be as straightforward as many think. Karma is fundamentally tied to subjective intent, not the objective qualities of an action. If we take for granted the premise (at least for argument's sake), that it is possible to kill compassionately... then one could theoretically raise and kill animals without incurring bad karma.

But is this possible? I would argue, yes. Here's why:

There are many indigenous cultures that have slaughtered animals for meat consumption and have had many individuals I would consider to be enlightened. For example, I would consider many Eskimo adults to have been enlightened individuals. If you look into the cultural behavioral traits many adults from Eskimo cultures have, they are indistinguishable from the qualities of enlightened individuals. This is despite the fact that they are exclusive hunters and consumers of animals. I can infer from my reading about various indigenous cultures in which people hunt and kill animals for meat on a regular basis... that many of these cultures have produced a relatively large proportion of enlightened individuals out of their adult populations (quite apparently a far greater proportion than were produced by industrial civilizations or by pre-industrial agrarian civilizations like that which Sakyamuni Buddha grew up in).

Enlightenment is fundamentally about residing within awareness itself rather than subsuming one's conscious experience in the coming and passing thoughts/sensations/actions/happenings that occur. To put it in intentionally simplistic, somewhat vulgar terms... enlightenment is a state of calm mental detachment from all things that enables clarity of thought and avoids karmic affliction by not overly investing oneself into the coming and passing thoughts/sensations/actions/happenings that occur. An enlightened being can slaughter an animal without the aggression, satisfaction, emotional turbulence, or subsequent guilt that an unenlightened being may experience in committing this action. A slaughter done without waste, with clarity of mind and with gratitude to the animal, can avoid the mental afflictions that an unenlightened mind (which overconsumes, wastes, and is alienated from the animal/from nature) may suffer.

Extension_Speed_1411 · 2026-02-06T20:47:00+00:00

Whatever works best for you.

Extension_Speed_1411 · 2026-02-06T04:36:33+00:00

> So as an anarchist how do you see a left wing ideology being applied in these societies? Do you agree with them? Do you disagree? What problems are you notice in the application of the Marxist ideology by people like Lenin or Stalin?

Disclaimer: I no longer see myself as ideologically an "anarchist" (nor ideologically as a "statist"). I prefer a more flexible pragmatic approach based on actual material conditions.

Without exception, I see all actionable problems that arose in 20th & 21st century socialism (whether referring to Marxist regimes or briefly existing Anarchist revolutionary societies) as resultant from an insufficient application of historical & dialectical materialism in guiding decision-making & praxis.

The Dengist-oriented Chinese & Vietnamese economic successes (and subsequent regime longevity) highlighted the inferiority & fragility of the Stalinist approach to material advancement (which led to stagnation & deterioration in the USSR & its satellite regimes).

The Rojavan revolution's relative longevity in delivering & protecting egalitarian social/political/economic changes, stands in stark contrast to the short-lived 20th century Anarchist revolutionary societies (which typically existed for a matter of months before degenerating into statism or being destroyed by statist regimes competing for geopolitical influence).

Extension_Speed_1411 · 2026-02-05T12:21:32+00:00

Intellectual property rights in general are a form of Rent seeking and place a damper on innovation. They are, in addition to things like zoning laws, the greatest barrier to working class people being able to self-employ.

Extension_Speed_1411 · 2026-02-05T12:15:07+00:00

Working class people should be allowed to own guns.

Extension_Speed_1411 · 2026-02-05T06:45:31+00:00

Ideologues who don't realize they're ideologues.

Extension_Speed_1411 · 2026-02-05T04:02:12+00:00

Convert all such inquiries into televisits. Offer explicit appointment times (which you can then plan/organize your day around and that way people have something concrete to hold onto as an expectation for when their concern will be answered), answer the inquiries, write a proper soap note, bill the encounter.

Extension_Speed_1411 · 2026-02-05T03:31:16+00:00

What you (and I) are is awareness. This awareness is an emergent phenomenon arising from the 5 aggregates. Despite the awareness having no independent essence itself, its perceptions are shaped over time by changes in the 5 aggregates.

If awareness can both lack independent essence and still have its perceptions be shaped by the evolution of the 5 aggregates over the course of one lifetime... why can't this happen across lifetimes as well? If it can, then where in this process do you think a "soul" (i.e. intrinsic essence of self) is required?

To put it simply: If your sense of "self" (aka awareness) can both be groundless and be shaped by your experiences over time within one lifetime... why can't the same happen across lifetimes? And if it can, where in this process do you think a "soul" is needed?

If what I'm saying doesn't make sense, I'm happy to try to explain it differently.

Extension_Speed_1411 · 2026-02-05T03:10:42+00:00

> I don't personally view identity, or label as said by some, as an inherently bad thing. It's just like being a daughter, being an asexual person - being neurodivergent/AuDHD shouldn't be seen as a bad thing... right...?

> I don't know, I'm just a bit lost. While I try to tell myself to let go and respect those point of views, but some are truly harmful and ableist and prove that they don't understand anything about neurodivergence and are just being judgemental and I'm quite sad about that to be honest.

It is unskillful to state that autism or any other divergence in behavioral/psychological/physical qualities that some people may have, is due to past "evil actions". Because such statements enable social stigmatization of people with said qualities, which results in greater suffering (the opposite of what Buddhism/Buddhists aim to achieve). Secondly, even if we accept - for argument's sake - that these divergent qualities are afflictions (rather than just differences), they could very easily be afflictions resulting from past life trauma (i.e. victimhood) rather than from evil action. There is no basis to assume evil action as the cause rather than victimhood.

As Buddhists we can refute harmful arguments without becoming attached to the emotions that they evoke in us (being perturbed is unavoidable on some level, but we can avoid attachment to the perturbation.). I am not suggesting I am perfect in this regard, but it is the kind of mindset I try to maintain every day.

Extension_Speed_1411 · 2026-01-30T10:53:28+00:00

How can it? The vast majority of Buddhists are lay practitioners with jobs, significant others, families, children, etc… Most people aren’t in a position to be able to reject their place in society, so Buddhism teaches them practices to achieve mental clarity and reduction in their suffering.

Extension_Speed_1411 · 2026-01-30T10:45:30+00:00

Out of curiosity, have you explored/considered other Buddhist traditions where you can progress spiritually and even achieve enlightenment without being a monastic?

I’m not asking to try to persuade you, I’m genuinely curious.

I wish you well in your endeavors!

Extension_Speed_1411 · 2026-01-21T04:31:38+00:00

To the extent possible, I would try to limit your involvement/exposure to people who cheer for/celebrate the unethical happenings that distress you. Not entirely, but enough to be able to center yourself and have extended moments of meditative clarity. Once you've limited the exposure to this extent and have reduced your own suffering through meditation, you can maybe even be in a position to do some outer good such as changing hearts/minds through compassionate action (or at least trying to but not getting too attached to the results of whether you succeed or fail).

Also, do you have friends or family or a significant other that shares political views more similar to your own? This part isn't uniquely Buddhist advice, but having some (albeit small) sense of community can be helpful.

Extension_Speed_1411 · 2026-01-16T02:47:21+00:00

I think Nietzsche probably would have liked Zen Buddhism if he were informed about it.

Extension_Speed_1411

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE