In order to organize the masses, we need to spread across the country in an unpredictable and semi-aleatory manner. Not through a vanguard party, but through community councils.
As such, we need to create *vectors*. Groups of people (mainly young, like highschool or university students) will be educated and trained on capitalism and anarcho-communism. These *vectors* **must be ideologically* motivated. That is, they must have conviction in their beliefs and actions. Otherwise, they will quickly dropout.
These leaders will then organize their communities and repeat the cycle. As a result, the masses will quickly and independently organize. Obviously, communication among all these councils must be established for organized action and planning.
Advantages: decentralized, fast, federations, no great leader needed, hard to block by the State.
Obstacles to overcome: to properly train the *vectors* (ideology, discipline, etc.) and avoid infiltration.
This can't be halfassed. This is possible, we just need balls, tenacity, perseverance, discipline, and courage. No excuse. In today's horrible world, only ideology can push people forward.
The role of the anarchists today is to kindle the heart of the masses and offer guidance. So that the we can build an army of men willing to give their life for anarchy, akin to the Makhnovshchina.
9 posts omitted.>>2477684There have been a few studies on this and there's Andrea Giloti's reporting. Despite the supposedly democratic bodies, the PKK network maintains control and rates of participation are low. This is more or less how ML parties maintain power. They set up democratic institutions but use a vanguard party to keep those bodies under their effective control. Giloti claims that locals more or less avoided these democratic bodies or didn't care about them. They've also built a Stalinist cult of personality. The Social Charter enshrines a sectarian system similar to Lebanon and Iraq where positions are reserved for ethnic groups. This inevitably creates conflict and let's the state police ethnic distinctions by defining them and determining their roles, divide and rule. The claim that this is somehow challenging the nation-state model is absurd. The introduction of civil marriage effectively allows the state to police sexual and marital norms, entering into citizens bedrooms and governing kinship structures. It also more or less allows the state to encroach on religious norms, despite claiming to be secular. Like it or not, this type of power is the disciplinary power of a state. Strip away all that libertarian municipalist gloss and you find a state.
None of this should be a surprise. Ocelan was a hardcore Marxist-Leninist and a good chunk of his Ocelanist writings are ripped straight from Marxist-Leinist and ethnonationalist sources. He's even ripped off jihadis like al-Suri. Rojava is a revolutionary disneyland.