Comrade_Spood

This guy's playing both sides so he always comes out on top

From the earth I rise, to the earth I shall one day return

Good soldiers follow orders

Nationalizing the economy goes against anarchist ideals due to nationalizing means giving it to the government (entirely contrary to anarchist thought). The second one, even after the "trial period", has ended is still taking the fruits of your labor. Under anarchism, there are no companies. They are free associations of workers. The workers who work the capital own the capital. And there isn't money, that's contrary to communism and no matter how you split it money is unegalitarian. A worker keeps what he wants from his labor, and communalizes the rest. And is thus entitled to what he needs from the community.

Edit: Rojava is also not an anarchist project. At best it's a libertarian socialist project. And I've never heard of this "trial period" stuff in anything I've ever read about and anarchist example

I believe people are like this due to the conditions they live in. Capitalism is a system that encourages selfishness in order to survive. I whole heartedly believe that if conditions changed, people would change. Not immediately of course. No anarchist is saying that it wouldn't be a rough transition, or that it's a flawless society, or any of that. But we do think that it would work and that it'd be better in the long run than what we have rn

They would probably vote. How they'd vote idk, that's not for me to decide.

The community themselves decide. If it's enough of a problem, the community will organize to address it how they see fit. That's the whole point of anarchism. We don't have all the answers and we don't claim to, the people that run into these issues will find the solutions that best suites their needs.

You missed the third camp. Anarcho-communists would hate both of these solutions.

People will volunteer to do the job because it is something they (and everyone) needs done. People won't let their entire community collapse because people "didn't want to do it". But these unsavory jobs would theoretically also spark innovation to make the jobs more bearable and probably even unneeded. Better working conditions and more free time leaves time for people to do things like invent and think.

I like the story about how Francisco Ferrer got the funding for his school. He taught Spanish to this old, heavily religious and conservative, rich woman. He was able to change her mind by being respectful and not attacking her beliefs, but by having respectful discussion with her. He was never the one to initiate the discussions, which helped keep her from getting defensive and shutting down. And she ended up funding his rationalist secular school.

No one is a lost cause.

I am an anarchist. And I understand that. I flip flop between having hope and thinking there is none. Some days I think we missed our chance and now we're too far gone. Other days I look at movements like the Zapatistas and Rojava and think that their may be hope. Ultimately I don't think any first world country is gonna have it happen. Maybe if a country had a successful anarchist revolution and society, it'd be able to inspire people in first world countries. But I do think our hope lies outside of first world countries. At least till there is a proper example to inspire people.

I do still try to put an effort into organizing where I live. As I think it is still important to do that. Even if I don't think it will garner fruit till there is a true example of anarchism in action.

Just ignore the Zapatistas who are a current example of anarchism in practice.

And saying the Soviets held little power in the Spanish Republic is just a bald faced lie. The Soviets withheld supplies from non-soviet militias and actively damaged the war effort because they'd rather focus on garnering power than actually fighting fascists.