Commiunism

The right also has some prominent socio-economic writers such as Thomas Sowell and other writers adjacent to Austrian school thought, so it's not just media slop but also book slop.

It's just a bit unfortunate that the right doesn't read any theory, even ones that agree with their worldview, they just like talking about the authors because book = smart. Same with the left - there's lots of people who proclaim themselves to have some theoretically heavy position (e.g. communism or anarchism) then proceed to say the most stupid shit.

Almost as if commodity production-based economies aren't there to provide for the people but to make profits and waste resources. It's a shocker

Gotta switch to a meta build and strategies to compensate

Same - and it's weird to see so many leftists immediately jump to unconditional support for Hamas, who are literally a reactionary, religious fundamentalist force and who have done horrible things towards Palestinian people.

Armed resistance to Israel does not negate its evils or its reactionary internal role.

No, I hate music

Yeah, this is one of the differences between anarchists and communists I doubt we'd ever find agreement on due to the nature of our views. Anarchists reject the notion of power altogether, while Marxists don't deny that power can entrench itself but attempts to explain why and under what historical and material conditions it can be overcome.

I have strong doubts that the people in charge will just give up power once it comes to that, and sadly most experiments with communism/socialism (in Eurasian at least) lead exactly to that.

To be clear, my intention isn't to defend the past socialist experiments as seen in my original comment, but using them as examples where people in charge refused to give up power misunderstands theory and history. The countries were never in position to "give up power", as they didn't ever reach a point where state became unnecessary, and there are reasons for that.

If you look at a country like post-revolution USSR, the country was agrarian with vast peasant majority. The productive forces were far from developed to properly transition into socialist mode of production and meet everyone's needs, which is one of the purposes of the centralized state, and this is something that would have taken a really long time given their productive capacity. Lenin and Bolsheviks did try to go for an international revolution angle in hopes they would escape this predicament, but they failed, leaving USSR isolated, forcing it to adopt capitalist markets and then quickly degenerating due to opportunism and the 'bad actors' the system inevitably creates over time as leadership changes.

Marxists such as myself would argue that USSR was doomed from the start due to their material conditions at the time unless they could have found success internationally. This is something that Anarchism wouldn't resolve - decentralization in an undeveloped, isolated and hostile environment would weaken defense, cripple the development of productive forces and very likely would have lead to an accelerated collapse.

Also apologies - I can't help but write unreadable walls of text.

To touch up on some of your questions you have at the bottom, and be warned that this will be somewhat anti-anarchistic:

After a successful revolution, bourgeoisie fall and people cheer in the streets. What now, do we go full horizontal hierarchy mode and decentralize? The truth of the matter is that post-revolutionary period is incredibly volatile (as seen by the fact that most revolutions happened in cascades) and faces a multitude of immediate issues, such as: 1. The previous ruling class trying to get themselves back into power again via counter-revolution or armed uprisings using their resources and connections, be it foreign or internal. 2. The need to overcome capitalist commodity production and reorganize it into planned production to satisfy human and economic needs (aka socialist mode of production). 3. Defense against foreign capitalist threats who would love to get more land/resources or major political influence via coup. 4. The need to spread the revolution internationally, as a country that doesn’t operate under capitalist mode of production simply cannot survive in a global capitalist world (can elaborate on this if anyone cares, don’t want this wall of text to be too long).

Decentralized horizontal systems are quite detrimental when it comes to solving these immediate issues - it fragments authority, decision making, delays responses to armed insurrections, foreign invasions and production reorganization. You need quick, decisive action during a revolutionary period or collapse follows even before “bad actors” become a problem.

The working class must seize state power - whether through a vanguard party, council republic, or equivalent to suppress the bourgeoisie, defend the revolution, and transition from capitalist commodity production towards planned economies to satisfy needs. Of course, the state must fulfill the immediate goals to no longer become necessary and for the state to wither away in a timely manner - else, and I agree with Anarchists here, the revolution will degenerate (into red bourgeois states) usually with the help of ‘bad actors’, as seen with USSR and China.

Also as a short addendum, comparing societies of today to primitive egalitarian horizontal societies is an error - these societies operated under radically different productive forces, population scales and social complexity, production was localized and individualistic. Today’s production is inherently social, large-scale and global, requiring entirely different forms of coordination and past forms simply cannot be revived or even be compared.

To preface, I'm a Marxist and not an Anarchist, our frameworks differ substantially.

I agree that "but what about bad actors" criticism is quite bad, but for different reasons. They don't "spawn in" out of nowhere and ruin systems, the opposite is the case - it's the system that produces them through inequalities, ideology and reward mechanisms. Capitalism rewards antisocial, domineering behavior because competition, capital and power accumulation demands it in order to "be successful". This is something inherent to the system and its structures, not something you can fix simply by moral policing, so focusing just on the individual is a mistake.

The vertical power structures like the state aren't there merely for individual power hoarding, but rather it's a structure of class domination - the bourgeoisie control over proletariat. Enforcement and protection of private property (such as factories/company offices/other means of production), legal systems controlling who gets into power and what they can change, education and media promoting the status quo are but a few examples of this. The state isn't merely there to preserve itself, it's there to preserve the capitalist system.

If that's my coffin for when I die, then I ain't coming to the funeral

Oligarchs are only a symptom and not the issue, don't get distracted. Removing the oligarchs or so called "bad men" won't suddenly make things right, as capital/wealth concentration are structural features of Capitalism and not some anomaly caused by a group of bad actors.

This isn't an issue that can be fixed by better taxation or social protections or reformism like that - workers will keep getting exploited and earn less than the value they produce and staying relatively poor/powerless, bourgeoisie will keep getting disproportionately more capital (with reforms only slowing it down slightly) and power as a result, and inevitably will work towards erasing these reforms to have their rate of capital accumulation grow further and we're back at having oligarchy.

That is assuming these reforms can actually be implemented, which massively overstates the power of boycotts/protests and our liberal democracies in general - sure, they can sometimes happen under pressure like in the case of postwar welfare states, The New Deal, social democracies from back in the day when they actually did things, but these happened as concessions under the pressure of a possible revolution, later got reverted and look where we are now.

I was germophobic my entire life up until like a year or two ago where I kinda got over it and stopped giving a shit, but I'm still incredibly paranoid about food expiration, even when the best before day hasn't been reached as is 1-2 days away.

Thanks for sharing! Though, given today's world and seeing the state of movements that want to change the present state of things (communism, anarchism), I would argue it's even worse now.

According to this letter, 100 years ago there was theory but no practice - people would sit in their little book clubs and theorize, dreaming about a possible world and all that jazz. Now, if you look at your average anarchist (and communist but to a much lesser extent), there's neither theory nor practice. Very often, it's treated as an identity, a mere individualistic lifestyle choice or just a mere aesthetic (I hate solarpunk for this especially) rather than an actual coherent movement that aims to change society.

Without theory, you don't know who the true enemies are, it's a recipe for falling into traps and ideology laid by our current system and its narratives (like electorialism) and just in general results in blind, frustrated action that is more than likely to be counterproductive due to police crackdowns. Without practice, the movement places its faith onto future generations to try the plan in the real world, and put themselves at a severe risk of fizzling out. Without both, the movement is a farce.