Yeah, I feel this. We’ve been forced into a system that treat life like a nonstop grind instead of something we’re meant to actually live. Real connection got replaced by control. It’s crazy how unnatural all this ‘normal’ really is.

YOU CAN’T DENY THE WAVEEEEE

I’m been using linux mint for over a year now, and it is legit liberating.

You’re claiming that because anarchism can be misrepresented by capitalist media, that’s proof it’s inherently weak. By that logic, the fact that “Marxism” has been weaponized by authoritarian regimes to justify gulags, purges, and secret police would mean Marxism is inherently corrupt too. But obviously you’d say that’s a distortion of Marxism, right? Same here. You don’t get to say “anarchism is fake because it’s misrepresented” and then handwave how Marxism has been used to justify new forms of domination for the last hundred years.

Second, claiming that the USSR, Cuba, China, etc. weren’t oppressive because they weren’t capitalist is just word games. Was there a ruling class? Yes. Was there state violence against workers who dissented? Yes. Were new hierarchies built concentrating power in the hands of a few? Yes. You can call it whatever you want, it wasn’t worker liberation. It was swapping out old bosses for new ones.

You also argue that “diversity of tendencies” is a fatal flaw. Maybe if your whole strategy is to seize the state and impose one line on everyone, sure. But if the goal is actually abolishing domination, not just repainting it, then diversity is resilience, not weakness. Monocultures look strong until they collapse. Ask the Soviet Union.

You keep saying Marxists “overcame” state violence. The examples you point to are movements that became state violence. That’s not liberation. That’s just flipping who holds the gun.

As for anarchists “having little to show,” you’re acting like the only valid measure of success is building a new state. If the goal is liberation, not new domination, then actually anarchists have a lot to show. The CNT’s collectivizations in Spain. Makhno’s Free Territory in Ukraine. Rojava today with their federated councils and militias. Were they perfect? No. But none of them built gulags or cults of personality. I’d rather fail fighting for real freedom than “win” by building a new boot to put on people’s necks.

And calling me ignorant because I won’t pretend that copying centralized hierarchies counts as revolutionary isn’t an argument. It’s just coping. You think seizing state power is the only path because you can’t imagine anything beyond it. That’s fine. But don’t act like history has proven you right. Some of us are trying to actually build something better. Not just repaint the old cage.

Ok, you’re raising solid points. I’m not going to pretend anarchism doesn’t have issues it needs to address. But I think the framing here misses what’s actually going on.

First off, the “anarchism” being promoted by capitalist media isn’t anarchism. It’s depoliticized rebellion. Aestheticized lone-wolf heists and symbolic sabotage that don’t touch capitalism’s foundations. It’s the same way capitalism promotes “feminism” as buying more stuff or “environmentalism” as using paper straws. Real anarchism (collective organization, mutual aid, dismantling hierarchy) gets either ignored or crushed. If anarchism really was compatible with capital, you’d see Amazon Prime making shows about federated workers seizing factories and abolishing landlords. Weirdly, they don’t.

Second, yea, revolutions need discipline, organization, and the ability to defend themselves. But the choice isn’t “be organized or be anarchist.” Real anarchists know this. The Spanish CNT had armies. The Makhnovists in Ukraine fought off both the Whites and the Reds. Rojava exists today under constant siege because they take organization seriously without surrendering to top-down hierarchy. Discipline doesn’t have to mean centralizing power into a new ruling elite. That just recreates the same shit under new colors.

And sure, anarchism has a lot of tendencies and disagreements. So what? Diversity isn’t the problem. Capitalism is hyper-centralized and still constantly fractured by crisis and competition. It’s not fragmentation that kills movements, it’s lack of strategy, material support, and the overwhelming violence of the state. Saying “anarchism failed because it’s messy” ignores how much raw force is thrown at making sure it fails.

Honestly, history shows centralized “revolutionary” states usually end up as new oppressive regimes. You can seize power in the name of the people and still end up building gulags and secret police. Anarchists aren’t in denial about the need for revolutionary force. We’re in denial about handing that force over to a new class of rulers.

My bottom line is: the answer to anarchism’s problems isn’t “become authoritarian but with good intentions.” It’s building better ways to organize collective power; horizontally, democratically, and with real teeth when necessary. That’s way harder than just copying capitalist hierarchies, but in my honest opinion it’s the only thing actually worth fighting for.