Basically what I've seen here is you revert to basing your answers as an Anarchist on counter points against (your version of) "Marxism", so essentially every substantial theoretical question I raise to understand anarchism reverts to you talking about Marxism, why it's so "authoritarian" and just about "Hero worship" and state capitalism, a mate's story about some book club.
What a few peeps in a squat?
It's absolutely the antithesis of what Marxism or anything claiming to be Marxism is, yes it's nice to dream, but fuck, I;m asking you in a pre revolutionary country how Anarchists intend to achieve their aims.

Mike wrote:
I'm not sure what "substantial theoretical questions" you're actually asking beyond 'how will you model your future society' in sweeping terms. I struggle with what answers you're looking for. I can't say well in an anarchist society this, this and that will be done because that's just me making stuff up that has no more validity than saying well when anarchy happens we'll genetically engineer dinosaurs like in Jurassic Park, feed the bosses to them then have a big dinosaur parade through London.
I view anarchism as a way of looking at the world, as a set of political principles that guide action, not as some blueprint for how things will be done. Which kind of defeats the object as this creates political dogma which leads to vanguardism which leads to disastrous botched opportunities like the Soviet Union.
The story about the book club was just to illusyrate the dangers of theoretical masturbation.

Well people could live in a squat, but generally regular people typically with jobs and houses and kids and stuff. What makes you imagine anarchists are automatically going to be people living in squats?

And conversely, I'm inviting you to say how Marxists intend to achieve their aims.
I can't tell you how "anarchists" intend to achieve their aims because I'm not their spokesperson. "Anarchists" are doing their own thing based on what their groups decide to be doing. At this point, I'd say the prime goal though is to try to build some kind of 'movement' because it currently does not exist.

dogsmilk wrote:
Marxists just want more of the same old socialist crap with some new leaders instead.
Rinse and repeat, the proles just feel happier about it for a while til they get pissed off again.

Dogsmilk:Nope, i'm not asking about your future societies shape or form, pointless question, if you abolished the state and all laws tomorrow I know what it would look like, a mess, as I said earlier actual anarchism would require 100years of Communist production to work.
My Question is what action do Anarchists advocate to achieve a revolution or achievement of some of their most basic aims?

Or is Anarchism just an attitude, a reaction/coping mechanism for people oppressed in the status quo?
To clarify no theory whatsover on how to combat and overthrow the dictatorship of Capital?

I'm genuinely interested in what way this anarchism here differs from Liberal Utopianism, I don't see what point or relevance Marx or my thoughts have on the subject other than serving to change it?

<<An anarchist society is and always will be an aspiration, an ideal —a ‘star’ to follow — one that provides us with an ethical code, a moral barometer and a libertarian political template for our everyday lives. If and when a social revolutionary situation recurs again (in this country or anywhere) the role of the anarchist will be to do what they can to ensure that the social institutions required to ensure that any human society (including health and welfare,and security/defence services), function justly, fairly and as conflict-free as is humanly possible, are — and remain — fundamentally democratic, libertarian and answerable to the community. It’s not about achieving Nirvana or a Utopia, only religious zealots and ideological fundamentalists believe in the ‘rapture’ that creates the Kingdom of Heaven on earth, or the ‘last fight’ mentioned in ‘The Internationale’. Anarchists appreciate only too well how ‘imperfect’ human beings are and, doubtless always will be, which is why they reject institutionalised power structures as the bedrock for the creation of oligarchies (well-meaning or otherwise) and the corrupting of the body politic.>> (Stuart Christie - "Thoughts of a Veteran Anarchist")

Mike wrote:

Its an evolutionary concept not a revolutionary one.
It is therefore a complete waste of time to try and explain it.

how did the Bourgeoisie, the Urban third estate, overthrow the feudal and religious upper caste?

Completely changing Europe and the world in a few centuries?

Mike wrote:
Nothings changed, ur still fucked.

andyh wrote:

Who creates wealth?

andyh wrote: There are clear cut and obvious obstacles to evolution, what do anarchists think we should do to remove constraints?

Mike wrote:
Nothing.
You let happen what naturally happens.

Passive eh, big force in evolution nature is it these days you think andy?

Mike wrote:
You think evolution is something you force with a political movement?

There are obstacles to evolution, how do anarchists propose we overcome them?

I'm curious as to why you think any anarchists of today would have the answers to any of these questions you're asking?

Mike wrote:
What is "wealth"?

psketti wrote: I'm asking them what being an Anarchist means?

Dogsmilk I just mean the general term Wealth, who creates the vast fortunes of the worlds billionaires and industrialists?
I take it by questioning my question on that specific word you were making a point, which is?

Mike wrote:
I think this post from oi about covered it.
oioioi wrote: