Kropotkin is a nice start, though if you want an introduction I think Errico Malatesta’s work is a lot better for that. The essay “Anarchy” is short for leftist standards and is very good. Also “At the cafe” is honestly an amazing introduction piece and it’s written in a regular language as socratic dialogues, so it’s perfect for starting. It even adresses a lot of counter arguments from many perspectives.

Otherwise Anarchy Works by Peter Gelderloo is also amazing.

For the standards of leftists in the USA, they’re massive.

What would be different about this revolution that would see it go right (or what examples am I missing?)

I would say there’s no way revolutions of today will go in exactly the same path as before. Remember that China’s and Russia’s revolutions happened in extermely rural, agrarian, over exploited and basically completely ruined countries. If there’s a revolution in the global north, just the difference in conditions and systems is already going to make a huge difference. But even if it happens in the global south, most of it is at least partially industrialized and not agrarian, as far as I know.

Anyway, other than that, I can’t really give you an objective, unbiased answer. I was actually the same as you a couple of years ago, actually. I had the same concerns as you. I think you would really resonate with anarchist theory, analysis and critique of past revolutions, if you’re interested in digging into it.

Enormous by socialist standards. The fact that they can have so many members in this day and age is commendable. A few decades ago any socialist thought being given an honest platform at all among the general population was a miracle.

I think you’re seriously underestimating what most young socialists believe. It is true that they don’t believe in revolution, but many of them change when they grow older and they lose faith in the system. I’m confident that will keep happening.

No, an average person in the DSA believes in wayy more than any regular social democrat. I agree that they’re not radical enough, but they’re an enormous organization of people against the status quo and so many of them genuinely care, so it’s no surprise that a huge part of current radicals are ex-DSA members.

That’s what the media has always done. It’s just that in this age it’s the easiest it’s ever been to see past red scare propaganda.

Actually socialism is more popular now than ever. Enough that mainstream media constantly writes scare articles about how socialist the young generations are.

Sure, have a great day.

I would rather not say for privacy. But my country of origin is irrelevant to my points. I do not support it in any way and I try to rely on it as little as possible, if that’s what you’re asking. It’s also not a colonial power at all.

Sure, that’s a valid and respectful question.

I would say the biggest example is social democracy. There is no denying it brings great improvements to quality of life and general happiness. They are obviously not enough to us radicals, but they do exist. Greater healthcare, greater education, greater prison systems, less homelessness, etc etc etc. But we of course know the dark side of all of that. The colonialism and “soft power” behind it. We know that, because it is still ultimately capitalism, it doesn’t eradicate the misery, it just hides it away. It makes other people have it instead of them. And we also know all of those nice things are merely concessions given by the ruling class that can easily be taken away at any time. Thus, if such a system brings improvements through means like those, I don’t care how great the improvements are, I don’t support that system.

We can also use what I’m saying to refute the fascists who say “oh, at least the trains came on time” “oh, at least everyone had a house” “oh, at least there was less crime”. Rather than going into the long and most probably ultimately pointless task of proving none of those things were historically true to the person saying them, I prefer to simply say “I don’t care. Even if that was true, if it was achieved with fascism I don’t want it.”

Give me a specific reason, and we can talk about it. I can’t really reply much to such a generic statement.

Hey, thanks a lot for the respectful reply.

I don’t really understand what kind of point you’re making, though. There are plenty of economic and political systems that can reach all the development and improvement to quality of life and literacy you want, yet they do it through horrible, brutal and harmful means. You yourself would be opposed to attaining these things you’re talking about through colonialism or slavery, or even through capitalism as I’m sure you’re also against social democracy like I am. My argument is that the means communist countries used to get to these ends are bad enough that I don’t care about the ends they reached. Just like I would never care about the ends reached by colonialist means.

I am not denying capitalist countries didn’t suffer from the same problems or didn’t commit the same or even more attrocities. This doesn’t excuse anything though. I am opposed to these things by principle, no matter who does them. And I’m not going to pick between two systems that do the things I’m against all the same, but one leads to prosperity quicker. I’m not playing that game.

You don’t know their quality because you refused to engage with them on principle. You locked yourself into your own safe little bubble and found an excuse to dismiss anything that challenges you. You just have to say it’s “extremist propaganda” and you can stay safe. If you wanna do that go ahead, but to then be smug to others and tell them to educate themselves when you’re unwilling to even listen to the positions of the people you’re arguing against is incredibly dishonest. Who do you even think you’re fooling?

Why would a farmer not want to farm?

Having the smug to say “educate yourself”, only to be shown articles about the topic and refusing to engage with them is exactly the kind of brain rot I’d expect from a “centrist”

This is something that I realized recently. There is no middle. Neutrality doesn’t exist.

If you accept the way things work, you’re complicit, if you don’t accept them, you’re not. End of the story.

If there genuinely, no matter what, is no way to get someone to work on something without threatening them with starving to death if they don’t do it, please ask yourself this: Is that work necessary? Is that work worth it?

That’s called market socialism if you’re interested in reading about it.

There is no contradiction. Both kinds of states are bad. Economic growth is not a “level of country goodness” meter. If it happens through horrible and harmful means I don’t care about it.