Nola

I don't think lynchings have been the only way human groups have dealt with crimes against innocents though, historically or presently.

And most of what you are talking about is behavior under capitalist or feudalist systems.

And most crime under those systems is born out of poverty.

I have not heard of the Zapatista's engaging in routine lynchings for example. The biggest threats to them have not been irrational lynch parties inside their society, it had been the capitalist forces outside of it trying to violently conquer them.

And again, I am not an anarchist, so I feel weird trying to speak too deeply past my own understanding of their positions or things I have some crossover beliefs in as well.

I mean this is sort of backdooring itself into the trove of arguments and theory around why a communist revolution has to be an international liberation movement, and why you need a revolutionary vanguard cause you can't hope to achieve communism while capitalist imperialism is still around.

Which is precisely why the question of socialism/communism or Anarchism and how to achieve it goes beyond just seizing control of the state or reorganizing production and the relationship with the state within national borders. It's also became heavily about surviving and overcoming an international system of capitalist power that has both the material incentive and institutional capacity to prevent those alternatives from succeeding.

I don't think many anarchists are arguing for societies comprised of a billion people...Almost like they are explicitly wanting to go in the opposite direction and eliminate such a state.

And just again for clarity, I am not an anarchist, but I also think it's silly to get this worked up over an ideology it's not even clear people have ever spent any time trying to understand in good faith.

Cause you said they all devolved into dictatorships and that is factually inaccurate.

Every example in the OP is from a revolution that occurred in response to an existing non-democratic, capitalist, authoritarian state.

So the revolutions took over states that were in fact not democratic. This is not a moral judgement but a clarification of fact.

Another clarification is the notion of "Have Always"

Do you think those listed are the only examples?

Care to explain the Paris Commune? Allende in Chile? The socialist republic in Spain? Arbenz in Guatemala? Lumumba and the pan african movement in Congo? Nicaragua? The PKI and Sukarmo in Indonesia? And then in East Timor? Just to name a few

It is not a whataboutism to challenge your assertions of factual ignorance.

Could you explain for me what you think that ideology is and what specifically I said would dismantle that and why?

This is a society that is built around a system of forced for-profit market dependency that puts ownership enclosures over the land, commons, and productive forces into the hands of a small percentage of private capital owners then relies upon the forced dispossession of people from direct access to the means of subsistence (land, tools, resources) in order to create a class of individuals with no alternative but to sell their labor for a wage on the market so they can purchase the means of survival.

And that in order to enforce that requires a powerful state capable of using violence when necessary to uphold that.

So yeah, remove the enforcers and that system is likely to break down and a lot of people are going to try and loot and take what they need that they currently don't have for survival in the short term.

It would also likely trigger our innate communal cooperative nature that has been key to our survival and evolution as a species.

I'm not personally an anarchist but I think you might be guilty of many of the things you accuse others of here.

I'm not even an anarchist but this is pretty easy to simply look at history and answer

It would be like most tribal societies throughout human history. Where small to even very large societal level groups rely upon a economic and social system of mutualism/reciprocity, central planning, and social standing.

People that are able and refuse to contribute would receive little beyond their basic needs, likely socially pilloried, or in extreme cases be asked to leave. And violence against innocents would be punished like in any society.

Like the one thing almost every single human society we have had evidence for it's social structure has had a version of the Golden Rule.

Devolved?

Which of the listed nations on the bottom were revolutions that overthrew functioning free and fair democratic systems?

Most people also don't know that the entire tankman saga happened as Chinese forces were LEAVING Tiananmen Square and he wasn't run over. The tanks tried to go around then stopped and he climbed up and talked to the driver for a while then walked off with some people. And this all happened outside the foreign press hotel in an area that had been largely blockaded during that time.

Where western reports were going out speaking of tons of violence in areas near the square.

Which tankman has always been a peculiar moment in history cause in context it very much comes off like it was possibly staged by the CCP, or at least the CCP thought it might work in their favor PR wise, but ends up getting used in a way that is suggestive of that moment being a moment of CCP violence against the innocent.

And of course the even larger context of what was being protested was never and still is not really contextualized.

The system disciplines everyone is the fuller answer.

And AOC is actually a very good case study in how this happens even if you aren't explicitly bought and sold

Cause in fact she is not deeply rooted in corporate super pacs or propped up heavily by conditioned billionaire money. The popular narrative that seems to dominate.

Instead she was disciplined by the system itself and the people she has to work with inside that system and the systems of influence in and outside of the government.

So replacing her is not going to be the core fix for this problem. The next person will face the same pressures and the same disciplining forces.

If the DSA had 100 members in congress things would be different, but even then certain mechanisms of discipline will never fully go away until a more fundamental change in the relationship of the state and who it serves and how it is controlled changes.

Or, you could you know actually address the core points I raised(including inside your own citation that noted how this system is far more nuanced and complex then you seem to grasp) instead of whatever this pedantry is supposed to be achieving?

Like I suspect, but I don't want to assume, that your implication is that this cadre system is itself proof by its mere existence towards the larger Chinese honeypot conspiracy being speculated. And probably rooted in some deeper China-phobic understanding of how the Chinese political and economic system itself operates. And that butts up with an internalized belief in a neoliberal worldview that has never really questioned the core social relationship between the state and private capital and by extension how many of the implications you are putting forward with your logic chain could apply to US CEO's too. Or more accurately, could apply to all our politicians that are co-dependent to corporate money and capitalist billionaires and a state designed to uphold that system. Thus it is in fact just as possible to make a similar argument that every US CEO or politician is a asset for the US empire.

But the question still remains, what is the charge I am supposed to be outraged about here? And is there any proof of some deeper charge beyond someone that may or may not be a Chinese asset engaging in business both had a pre-existing interest in engaging in?

And?

Do you have a point beyond dragging me along as you slowly educate yourself(poorly) about the Chinese party cadre system thru your reactionary lens?