Early Soviets maybe, before war communism, for like less than a year... There was a reason anarchists tried to assassinate Lenin as a counterrevolutionary.
You can call a federation of communes a "state" if you want. Anarchists are not against this kind of "state". As long as power flows bottom-up by delegation and recall.
I'm not an anarchist, but a lot of people here are misrepresenting anarchism. Anarchists don't reject coordination or planning, only hierarchical state control. Large infrastructure would be built by federated councils, unions, and communes, with common plans and technical bodies coordinated by accountable, recallable delegates. Central coordination without a state hierarchy is entirely possible.
My disagreement with anarchism is different: I think only a state with a strong coercive apparatus can survive sustained imperial pressure and capitalist encirclement.
You're right the identitarian qualifiers were not needed there, I removed that part cause it's also not the point at all and my post stands without it. I'm not claiming Corbyn is a misogynist.
Can you explain why, when he was leading Momentum, by far the largest grassroots movement in the UK, and oversaw the largest surge of Labour membership in history, all completely loyal to him; and old Blairites in the party obstructed and sabotaged him, he didn't pull a similar nuclear option? Why didn't he threaten legal action, involve the membership, write to everyone alluding the pary is being stolen from him, etc? Why didn't he purge the neolibs, Starmer at least proved Labour leader has the power to remove unwanted political elements from the party. Back then the explanation was either "oh Corbyn is just too nice, he'll do everything to avoid confrontation" or "don't hate the player, hate the game! he's doing what has to be done to survive in parliamentary politics". But neither answer works now does it? So what changed?
What he did was both confrontational and a complete self-sabotage, but what remains constant is he's always punching to the left within his party.
(edit) and yeah "Ive never heard of this woman so this is wrecker propaganda" is I think misogynistic
To explain: I don't know you and I'm not saying you are a mysogynist. But look at it this way, when a man challenges female authority most people will at least look him up before writing "who that even is" cause they don't want to appear ignorant. When it's a woman challenging a man, something to the effect of "I've never heard of this woman so I bet she's been synthetically propped up by propagandists to wreck the party" will appear immediately. So regardless of your personal qualities and intentions, I think your comment came out misogynistic.
Sorry but I don't really understand what proof you want.
As a Labour leader, Corbyn banned anti-zionist socialists from the party but was soft on neoliberals and imperialists who obstructed him at every opportunity, this is public knowledge. At the time, the explanation went he needs to build bridges to stay electable, for the optics, and so on.
This time the situation is completely reversed: for the optics he should've joined in the celebration of the new party launch, pat himself on the back for amazing membership numbers, and reprimand Zarah behind closed doors. But here suddenly optics and electability went out the window, he sent a mass mail to all subscribers alleging a fraud, reported Zarah to the authorities, etc. Literally every commentator agrees an amateurish clusterfuck.
So it's not about electability, it's not about the optics, it's not about adapting to the parliamentary politics, it's not about playing the system. The only constant thing here is Corbyn siding with liberals against socialists regardless of tactics, optics, etc.
Here's more: despite being critical of NATO before being elected, once he became Labour leader he didn't make leaving NATO official Labour policy, when even the Greens openly called for UK leaving NATO. Now his team is removing people like Feinstein while a transphobic landlord is given top position in the party. Time and time again he's capturing genuine left movements and pushing them to the right.
There is nothing to prove here, I'm just observing things Corbyn does publicly.
No, because what she did resulted in an unprecendented influx of supporters, she did not wreck anything.
Corbyn still didn't release membership numbers for the new portal so I doubt it's looking good, and that's because he fucking wrecked it.
Should've dealt with Zarah behind the closed doors, instead he sent a mass mail to all supporters alleging a fraud, reported Zarah to the authorities, and then "launched" with a nearly identical email less than a week later.
You wanted proof of bullshit factionalism, it's there. Have you seen leaked screenshots of Karie Murphy removing Zarah's supporters from the party WhatsApp group? She removed Andrew Feinstein, Salma Yaqoob, and others without much explanation:
She didn't unilaterally put herself in direct control of membership and financing. The money went to the independent trust set up for this specific purpose and agreed on.
She unilaterally decided to launch it but Corbyn's response was just pure wrecker shit.
I need to apologise to all the comrades who were saying Corbyn is controlled opposition, a distraction, and no better than Bernie.
You were right all along and I should've seen it back when Corbyn as the Labour leader banned socialists who supported Palestine for supposed "antisemitism" while keeping all the Blairites, neoliberals and imperialists like Starmer. I thought "he has to do that to stay electable and to survive in British parliamentary politics" but the truth of the matter is he was perfectly content to strangle the new party in it's infancy the moment he felt attacked from the left, and suddenly being electable or survival of the party didn't matter at all.
For context, he announced a new party with Zarah Sultana, she quit the Labour party for this, and the moment she went out of line (by launching the membership portal without checking with him first) he immediately threw a public tantrum, threatened legal action, sent a mass mail to all subscribers that the portal is "unautharised" and "if any direct debits have been set up, they should be immediately cancelled" and so on.
The portal was doing great by the way, it had 20,000 paying members within 3 hours of announcement which is completely unprecedented and he wrecked it and completely killed the momentum because he felt threatened by a young, brave, socialist, brown Muslim woman.
Now it seems Zarah has been completely sidelined, there is no mention of her in any communications, and today Corbyn officially registered the party with the Electoral Commission with himself as a sole leader and a transphobic, socially conservative landlord as Nominating Officer.
This is a complete betrayal and I feel sick thinking back to how I kept supporting him. He's a wrecker, I was being a lib and I was wrong.
Every crisis under capitalism resulted in gigantic wealth transfer to the ultrawealthy. They get to scoop up devalued enterprises and properties for cheap while regular people lose their homes, small businesses, farms and whatnot. I actually think people who plan their wealth in centuries care very little about price fluctuations on their medieval palaces, multinational corporations, intellectual property, art collections and so on. They understand the value does not equal price. It's the regular folks who pay mortgage on their only house who care about currency stability.
But this is what they have to say about taxing the rich, just compare the language used, no accusations of "gaming the system" here:
The party’s left flank wants heavier taxes on capital. That might deter investors, including those who buy Britain’s government debt. As well as risking economic damage, creating a concentrated group of big losers can be politically fraught. Some backbenchers fantasise about throwing fiscal caution to the wind.
They end by claiming, without any arguments, as if it's simply self evident, that the closest historical parallel to the current Labour budget is that time Conservatives under Truss tanked the entire economy in a week:
A better parallel is the market panic that followed Liz Truss’s irresponsible “mini budget” in 2022. This caused violent moves in gilts, exposed vulnerabilities in the financial system and imposed a lasting risk premium on British debt. The difference between her cavalier leap and today’s cautious drift is a lot smaller than it looks. If Britain cannot budget responsibly by choice, then markets will force it to do so by necessity—thereby damaging the entire economy.
Early Soviets maybe, before war communism, for like less than a year... There was a reason anarchists tried to assassinate Lenin as a counterrevolutionary.