a good example, the Paris Commune. a complete direct democracy, a true worker's state, again only lasted three or so months, but it would have held strong against the Royalists if the anarchists and the socialists could get along, and organize proper guerilla skermishes in the streets.
The idea of a "Paris Commune" or a "Anarchist Catalonia" or even a "Anarchist Ukraine" is that it still falls short of my desires. A funny conversation that I never hear take place is what would the Anarchists do to each other if they ever won? People more critical of civilization would still have to keep fighting and the "anarchist communists" would have to...repress them?
without revoltion how do you suppose we dissolve a government?
the bolshies didnt organize the armies, they had the armies already, aside from organizing a red guard of workers. the majority of soldiers on the frontlines against germany were on their side. either way thats irrellevant to your reply. but what i want to know is, other than not having a revolution which i still dont understand, how do you suppose you fight a government without a structured military? ive seen citation of Zapatistas, and guerilla fighters. however, i do not equate the ability or the power of the Mexican Federales to that to the US military. Especially if you are going to fight your war against the government of a post industrial nation, you definately need strategy, finely organized attacks, and the dicipline in your soldeirs to fight the way they need to inorder to not only win, but at least to put a decent dent in the enemy.
and that statistic of 10 percent is straight from the book Ten Days That Shook The World by john reed. (John Reeds own first hand accounts of the bolshevik revolution) only ten percent of the farmer peasantry of russia backed the october revolution, the farmer peasantry made up at least 90% of russia's total population.
but yes, in a modern post industrial nation, its going to need to be a much higher percent of the population, especially one such as US's of whom hold a great deal of personal arms. You cant win them over with out having them understand what the current system is doing to them. and they wont just fall on their knees finally understanding your mission agianst government when they read about the spanish civil war, or even the paris commune.
Awareness within the population, (as i implied) involves a great deal more than just knowing that anarchism can exist, its knowing that it is a BETTER alternative to capitalism and government. and knowing that requires reverting the programming of all the intricacies that bind the people into capitalism and government.
without doing that you have NO chance in hell of getting them on your side. and then whats your alternative? the upper class can burn for all i care, but eliminating the middle class all together the majority of a post industrial nation? the middle class will never give up the security in the lives they live without either death, or slow, reasonable convincing.
i dont see whats evangelical about passive activism.
and lastly? no governance? none at all? in no form what so ever? not even your own self saying "no i probably shouldnt do that"? that sounds to me alot like if while driving you come across red lights at busy intersections and due to your unfliching ideals ran them every time, eventually you are going to get into a very bad accident.
you cant escape governance completely, its called causality. somewhere along the line you have to realize your actions effect things and that can be detrimental to your livlihood.
Surely there are other tactics than the outdated revolution? You yourself claimed you only need 10% of the population, do you think you and 10% of America can take on the National Reserve AND (if it got that out of hand) the United States combined military (Air Force, Army, Navy) head on?
If the Reds in Russia didn't organize the revolution, why did the create a Vanguard party? A structured military is susceptible to infiltration and easier to repel because of their visibility. You'll simply be a noticeable troop of poorly armed insurgents easily taken out by a technologically advanced industrial army with all the governments resources at their disposal. The Federal Mexican government isn't a match for the US, true, and the Zapatistas aren't even a match for the Mexican government. They are allowed to exist for fear of international cries at best. Despite that Zapatistas have been killed by federal agents anyway. Their model is useless to me and is more of a "how NOT to do things" than a guide (like most leftist/revolutionary examples). It seems like that's what the US military runs on, so wouldn't disorder throw them off? Sporadic assaults that don't give them time to react. I don't know, the Viet Cong seem to have fared better than the Anarchists in Spain...
I think A LOT has changed since October 1917.
They won't fall to their knees even if you seem to be gaining a foothold (forget an upper hand).
If you think that's best, go for it. I think taking time to study weaknesses and finding out what fulcrums to use to best attack the joints of "the Leviathan" is time better spent.
I don't think I need them on my side. The middle class is already losing their comforts.
If you can't see the comparison, then it's moot to me. It's not just "passive activism" (since when does passivity accomplish anything, even if our daily lives?) but the whole converting people to anarchism. I mean that's what you've advocated through out your piece, and you can't deny that. Whether you want to call it "knowing that it is a BETTER alternative to capitalism and government", you're pitching them something the way a salesman or priest would.
Yes, absolutely none. Personal restraint or personal interests isn't governance, and your metaphor doesn't apply. Organic communities based on common interest based on SELF interest at best. Gatherer/Hunters disband when they no longer agree and go separate ways.
pure communism is anarchism, since both are stateless. I believe the best path to a stateless society is one where grassroots community action is happening. I think history has shown that a state controlled communistic path is not the way to go at all, since there will be power struggle at the state level. this sort of path eventually stops progressing when the government is affected by greed and capitalistic virtues.
The whole thing about good and evil is not moralistic. I dont believe in morality, but thats another story. with The whole good evil thing, i meant to say that war begets war and peace begets peace. a lot of anarchists are inclined to a militant view, "your with us or against us," "class war", "riots", but by doing all that it looses focus on what anarchism is. instead of focusin on what is wanted (freedom, peace, love, community), these anarchists focus on what is not wanted (hatred, war, anger, seperation (seperation between us and the current government, for example)). By focusing on what is not wanted, even tho we are fighting against what is not wanted, we fuel what is not wanted in the first place. the government fights back. the word "anarchism" has a social stigma because of this. war begets war.
so instead of being angry at what ever is wrong, lets dream of the best way to live. What do you want society to be live? how do you want your family, neighbors, community, countrymen, and fellow humans to live like? Id like everybody to be fed, be happy, be loved by one another, and be treated like humans and family. Now that i know what i want, I take steps to towards this direction without ever loosing heart, and if i do lose heart, i just focus again on what i want.
You lost me at "stateless society". There's a lot more wrong than just statism and capitalism.
Freedom, peace, and love do not exist solely. There will always be violence and conflict. We are not naturally inclined towards anything, but we are animals and we will fight when threatened. Talking about focusing on what you want won't wish the state away. This isn't about some weird abstract positive energy/thoughts. That's a bigger dead end than some vanguardist army. Plus this whole idea of "violence begets violence" is a little awkward.
Does the violence a victim inflicts on their rapist/attacker/oppressor really mean they're justifying the actions of that rapist/attacker/oppressor? 
