I apologise, but I'm going to have to narrow this down a bit - I'm typing this in-between power failures. You know... third-world problems.
I didn’t find Anarchism itself as one of those reasons.
Of course you didn't... anarchism itself is perfect and cannot have deap-seated theoretical flaws and contradictions that lead to failed praxis that their enemies can take advantage of. Right?
Right?
Are you telling me that the FAI ignoring the CNT's attempts to create a banking system that would allow the agricultural collectives monetary independence from Spain's liberal-controlled financial institutions didn't come back to bite anarchist Catalonia in the ass?
According to Bolloten, Payne and Esenwein from "The Spanish Civil War - Revolution and Counterrevolution"
"Nor is it any wonder that when the workers in some of the collectivized plants asked Jose Tarradellas, the
left Republican councillor of finance in the regional government, for financial assistance, he attempted, according to his own testimony, “to use their predicament to capture control of the collectives."
"Outside Catalonia, finance minister Juan Negrin, a centralist and a strong advocate of nationalization, also hoped to exploit the economic dislocation. “When the war broke out,” he told Louis Fischer, “working-men’s committees, often Anarchist, took over the factories. . . Now they have no money. They are coming to me for running expenses and for raw materials. We will take advantage of their plight to gain control of the factories.”
Seems pretty cut and dried to me how anarcho-communist orthodoxy gave the liberals an easy way to co-opt and destroy the collectives... and that's just one glaring example I found with little trouble.
I found that the specific time it took place, as well as the previous industrial capacity of Spain itself, were likely two of the biggest contributors.
Yes. The conditions was difficult. The conditions will always be difficult and/or next-to impossible. That is not something that will ever change no matter where or when the socialist experiment takes place.
Therefore, glaring mistakes based on bad theory is something that should be avoided by dumping the bad theory, don't you think?
The fascinating thing to me about anarcho-communists is that they fetishise the idea of a "moneyless society" to an even greater degree than even the most hardened Marxists - it's really hard to die on a hill nobody else even wants.
Again... tankies can do this. They proved it in Mexico and northern Syria. Can anarchists? I'm not seeing it - at least not in any anarchist discourse I've seen or particpated in on reddit, youtube or lemmy over the last decade. In fact, doing so seems to be the furthest thing from their minds.
“Infantry win battles, logistics win wars.”
We can talk about the logistics of war and peace all day long - it's a subject the revolution romanticisers completely ignore - but that's an entirely different discussion.
What source mentioned that?
It's literally there in the description - "Disillusioned by the systematic corruption of power after the Iraq War, ex-diplomat Carne Ross examines anarchism as an alternative solution to democracy. Anarchism offers a solution to the brutalities of Capitalism and the dishonesties of Democracy."
If you are going to allow liberalism - a fundamentally anti-democratic ideology - to dictate the meaning of the term democracy to you can you truly tell me you've "killed the liberal inside your own head"? If you do that, why not just allow tankies - who peddle a fundamentally anti-socialist ideology - to dictate what the term socialism means to you as well?
The working class is not going to negotiate on ideas like democracy - there's a good reason why liberalism co-opted it and turned it into an oligarchy-sustaining farce instead of simply repressing it.
Extreme suppression of Anarchists by state governments in most areas,
Face it... the CIA spent most of the (so-called) "Cold War" repressing third-world nationalism - not anarchism. And state repression cannot be blamed for the huge gulf which exists between anarchist narratives about the status quo and the wider working class.
The working class is not going to cross that gulf - anarchists are going to have to do so. And they better bring narratives that actually mean something to the working class, which anarchism has not been able to manage for a very, very long time now.
It's a choice between going back to the drawing board, or continue going nowhere slowly.
which was only avoided by FDR’s economic reforms
So, you're telling me the libs know how to beat the socialists? And the socialists have no way of beating their methods?
Sounds to me like that requires new modes of thinking because the old ones don't really address the machinations of liberalism, doesn't it?