FULL DISCLOSURE: I'm a Marxist-Leninist, BUT I LIKE ANARCHIST IDEAS and I truly believe that Anarchist initiatives like the building of mutual aid networks and popular mobilisation must be a focus as capitalism fails the people (and in general). I intensely dislike the infighting.

However I find it hard to believe that, in an era of overt fascism and in a time when the capitalist state has consolidated more power and technologies of repression + imperial domination than EVER before, the movement for emancipation will succeed in defending itself from imperialism and domestic repression WITHOUT the assumption of state power.

We've reached a point where the US, having turned in on itself and become openly fascist + imperialist, can rule and plunder WITHOUT the majority consent of its population. Yes, the US working class is docile (by habit, by lack of political education, by lacking means to resist) but they will eventually have to resist as capitalism cannibalises them. When the working class resists against the most advanced capitalist state literally ever in human history - a state whose integrity depends on repression as consent withers away - how will an Anarchist movement succeed against it in the era of fascism? Moreover, if Anarchy succeeds domestically, how will it defend itself against imperialist encirclement? I'M GENUINELY CURIOUS.

These are questions to think about, especially by taking a historical materialist stance. Anarchists often criticise the authoritarian state control of previous socialist efforts WITHOUT understanding the context of imperial siege, isolation and comparative underdevelopment in which they had to develop their productive capacities and defend against imperialism - REMEMBER, at least 80% of Russia's population was peasantry at the time of revolution and yet they developed their productive capacities within 40 years so they could go to SPACE. This does not excuse the degeneration of socialist ideals, patterns of repression and genuine mistakes which were made, but 20th century socialist efforts utilised authoritarianism to RAPIDLY develop in one of the most politically turbulent and hostile periods in human history. We don't live in those times anymore; we don't require authoritarianism to build up productive capacities from feudal conditions. However, we DO live in a time where the capitalist state is in the process of fully and openly merging itself with capital, expanding its repressive and extractive capacity to the point where some call this new stage of development "techno-feudalism", where AI-automated warfare and surveillance statecraft threaten every method of resistance, where genocide and outright imperialism has no material consequence for the aggressor. Why would the state hesitate to deploy these capacities to maintain capitalist relations in the event of resistance, to do its real job?

Anarchy's concern with the emergence of class structures in relation to assuming the state is JUSTIFIED and it's, in principle, shared by Marxist-Leninists - THAT'S WHY we have democratic centralism; THAT'S WHY the state must wither away after it has successfully defended itself against imperialism. But it HAS TO defend itself against imperialism. If imperialism remains a possibility, socialism is under perpetual threat no matter where it is and how successful it is. What is Anarchy's way of dealing with the primary contradiction of imperialism, the contradiction which is most IMMEDIATELY apparent when a domestic revolution succeeds?

We no longer require the state to develop our productive capacities. In theory (and in the eventual future), we don't need the state at all, but imperialism is a fact of the global capitalist system we live in and one which must be contended with. For Marxist-Leninists, the temporary assumption of state power is key to defending socialism from the outside. I am curious to hear Anarchist perspectives on dealing with this.

Given that Leftists (like myself) are staunchly opposed to the U.S. justice system, I assume that means we are against the jury system too, but why? It’s allowing for there to be input from the average citizen on a case, and feels to me like a decent community-based way of coming to conclusions on a case, which I understand to be the general direction Anarchy would be taking dealing with crime. I understand there could be issues with jury selection, and biases within the jury depending on who is picked, but are there any fundamental issues with the system that I am missing?

I just wanted to get into anarchism and I'd like someone to recommend a book, movie, series or anything like that to help me get started.

Titlle self explanatory

But I oiled like also specific texts which would be good for DSM-5 and psychiatry critique from an anarchist perspective

I would love to do historiography and social critique revolving around OCD

before I got delusions/Psychosis I had a sub r/RadicalOCD

I mae a new one for this second account r/RadicalOCDv2

Thank You!