I just thought of a way to go about revolution.

Submitted by succtales_backup in Anarchism

I call it "Scorched Earth Revolt." It's where instead of waging a bloody war against the capitalist, we simply get large amounts of Proletariat to seceed from capitalism, therefore, forming various fortified communes throughout the countryside. The reason for this is that the Capitalist class can only sustain itself through labour, and when all labour is directed to more constructive purposes. If this gets far enough, than even the military could secede, and there would be no need to Lynch the capitalists. They would have about as much power as anyone else, and if they maintain a military to invade the various communes, than a simple solution is an increase of fortification, and space between communes. It may not be the fastest path, yet it's the least violent method I could think of, and we could get Anarcho-Pacifists such as my mother on board, and event Reformists on board.


You must log in or register to comment.

ziq wrote

In order for the communes to not pay taxes, be evicted for squatting, or killed for tresspassing, it would require big numbers of people willing to stand up to the state/capital.

Carving out an autonomous zone that rejects the state's authority would be seen by the state as an act of war. The state exists because it brutalizes anyone that would reject its authority over them.

So for this to stand a chance at working, the members would need to be prepared to face a full onslaught. If there are just a few dozen of them, the state would march in and break it up in no time. There need to be hundreds or thousands of people willing to stand their ground even against a military incursion. The people would all need to be educated, fully prepared, and ready to die for their freedom.


alqm wrote

Here I go saying this again. Something like that happened in Brazil by the end of the 19th century. They formed a village of tens of thousands of people because they rejected the newly instated republic. The military invaded and killed every single citizen. So, yes. They would rip us to pieces if we did that again, and the general population would applaud and cheer as our heads fall to the ground. See the article for more detail.


red_pepper wrote

I've been toying with a version of this idea for a while. I'm of the belief that 1. capitalism's collapse is inevitable and imminent, but also 2. the first-world has very low revolutionary potential. By the time capitalism's decay advances to the point that the first-world has the potential for revolution, civilization will have begun a full-on retreat into barbarism. My believe is that some form of red-prepping will be the only way to survive this transition. (I might as well plug /f/collapse while I'm on the topic)

The solution I came up with was a federation of communes controlling non-overlapping small town/rural county protectorates. The basic idea is that the commune forms the inner-core of capitalist secession and builds dual power within the protectorate in the form of revolutionary unions, cooperatives, and militias. Each protectorate consists of the locale that the commune occupies, and which it will seize control of after the collapse (or seize before collapse if possible).

The focus of the commune can range from enduring capitalism until its collapse to replacing capitalism within the protectorate before it collapses, depending on the commune's size and economic strength. A commune focused on endurance would mostly focus on getting off the grid and supporting local power structures that could survive the loss of the global economy. A commune focused on replacing capitalism would do those things, but also focus on seizing control over local power structures and replacing them with anticapitalist alternatives. Both would avoid open conflict with capitalist structures unless absolutely necessary.

A scenario I've toyed with goes like this:

  1. A group enters an agreement to pool all of their resources together and form a commune. They don't have to actually do so yet, since a few more steps need to be taken first, but the existence of an agreement is important. At this point in time the members would decide on how decisions are made and what the goals of the commune are. It may also begin raising funds in other ways, such as with crowd funding or sponsorship from a party or somesuch.

  2. The group finds a protectorate to establish the commune in. The basic rules are to look for a county with a small population, a town with low property values, and stagnant/declining population growth. The protectorate should be no bigger than the commune thinks it could protect after the collapse (hence the name), and should be in an economic situation which indicates they need help to survive capitalism now. This way, the commune won't be overwhelmed or feel like an invader to the locals. Members may decide to move early at this point until the commune can establish itself more fully.

  3. The commune makes a property purchase, forms a housing cooperative, and fully moves into town. Depending on the resources the commune has access to, the purchase may consist of housing or undeveloped land that it will put prefab housing on. Space may be limited at first, so early movers would get preferential housing in the co-op. The housing cooperative now begins a transition to insteading, such as by installing rain water collection and wood burning stoves and solar panels. Ideally, the cooperative would be able to go entirely off-grid and be a rally point during a collapse.

  4. Before starting the process of dual power building, the commune must integrate with the local community. It is extremely important that the commune doesn't act like an invading force or is seen as something foreign. This means joining the local church and local clubs, meet-and-greeting the neighbors, volunteering for local organizations like the fire department, getting jobs within the community, watching people's kids and mowing lawns and doing other odd jobs for locals, ect. Get a feel for the local culture. Make friends. Each commune member must also be a valued member of the local community.

  5. Now the exciting part: building dual power. Once the commune has established itself as a friend of the community, it can begin organizing and creating services for the community. Organize a tenant union for local renters and protect them from their landlord. Start a garden cooperative and turn unproductive lawns into productive sources of local produce. Expand those odd-jobs into official services provided by a cooperative. Help unionize local work places. And, very importantly, ensure that commune members make up a democratic majority of all of these dual power structures so as to ensure they can be guided strategically by the core commune support.

From here, it really depends on what the commune wants and what the local community needs. If the goal is to endure capitalism, then most of the commune's resources would go into preparing for collapse and focusing on making the existing structures as bearable as possible. If the goal is to overthrow capitalism, the commune may begin expanding and taking over those existing structures (such as by using the tenant union to put the landlord out of business and then the housing cooperative buying the property when it goes to auction). It might even be possible to completely take over the local government and get commune members elected to town, county, and municipal positions. It might also begin communes in other areas and form a federation.

It's not really a fully fleshed out idea, but what do you think?


mofongo wrote

That's a city state and I find it unfeasible; as soon as the group starts buying land, the price will rise, when it becomes hip the (I forgot how it's called) (and it will considering increasing property prices and the new people that most than likely have more money than the locals) the locals will be forced to move out either by getting a really nice sum for the property or being unable to pay property taxes.


red_pepper wrote

Gentrification is the word you're looking for, and yeah that's a legitimate concern.

The commune can mitigate this problem by implementing antigentrification measures to keep property values low. On the less extreme end, the tenant union and housing cooperative can play a big part in this by disincentivizing landlords with low rents and harsh pro-tenant contracts. Service unions can also play a big role in making those trendy little storefronts too expensive to run. On the more extreme end, radical concepts like depaving, vandalism, rewilding, and direct action against yuppies are also possible avenues the commune can take.


jadedctrl wrote

I feel that, if the communes were to build to any sizable number, the negative effects to the local economy (or national?) could hurt the proletariat not entering the communes-- making them resent leftist causes rather than embrace them.


BlackFlagged wrote

Isn't hurting capitalism our whole mantra though? If some people would rather keep capitalism going so their property values don't go down or whatever, then I'd consider them a lost cause.


jadedctrl wrote (edited )

Hurting Capitalism isn't out mantra-- I'd say it's more about helping the proletariat and ending dialectical history by killing it. Hurting it-- when "hurting Capitalism" just means hurting the workers-- would just tarnish the left's image and reduce the amount of people who would join in it's cause, ultimately shooting ourselves in the feet.

The commune idea's a pretty good one for a peaceful revolution… but it would only work on a very massive scale, and just wouldn't scale well. Maybe enough people would join the communes to hurt the workers while the bourgies sit comfortably-- but enough wouldn't join the communes to kill Capitalism.


[deleted] wrote (edited )


mofongo wrote

My first concern is environmental, That amount of people would destroy whatever is left from nature duplicating farms and living spaces, many cities are in unhabitable areas so they're migration would surely cause issues.


succtales_backup OP wrote

Didn't think this would get so much attention. Guess I'm just used to the echochamber effect of Reddit, where only the most dumbed down schlock ends up getting any attention.


happysmash27 wrote

My idea is to create a commune either on the ocean, in Antarctica, in space, or in disputed lands, using online activism and Esperanto to make it very international, called Anarkikomunismolando. A big problem with this at the moment is that not enough people have given their input to the project, and I am stuck making the description vaguer and vaguer because I want it to be a democratic project which reflects the ideas of people everywhere, not just me. Do you have any input? It can be found here at /f/anarkikomunismolando. Hopefully I can make the website better in the future. There is already a wiki under construction!


ziq wrote

Antarctica is better off without settlers.


happysmash27 wrote

Do you have a better suggestion? Antarctica seems by far the cheapest. What could go wrong anyway? Environmental problems would hopefully be addressed by simply not doing anything that destroys the environment, such as having coal power plants or running trains through habitats not on bridges or in tunnels. Being sustainable is very important to me, at least. I don't think I submitted that as a proposal for a guideline, though. Maybe I should…