probablyasocialecologist

Revolution, and particularly the social revolution, is not destruction but construction. This cannot be sufficiently emphasized, and unless we clearly realize it, revolution will remain only destructive and thereby always a failure. Naturally revolution is accompanied by violence, but you might as well say that building a new house in place of an old one is destructive because you have first to tear down the old one. Revolution is the culminating point of a certain evolutionary process: it begins with a violent upheaval. It is the rolling up of your sleeves preparatory to starting the actual work.

Indeed, consider what the social revolution is to do, what it is to accomplish, and you will perceive that it comes not to destroy but to build.

Alexander Berkman, What Is Communist Anarchism? 
It is above all necessary for the partisans of anarchist communism to be organised in an anarchist communist ideological organisation. The tasks of these organisations are: to develop, realise and spread anarchist communist ideas; to study the vital present-day questions affecting the daily lives of the working masses and the problems of the social reconstruction; the multifaceted struggle for the defence of our social ideal and the cause of working people; to participate in the creation of groups of workers on the level of production, profession, exchange and consumption, culture and education, and all other organisations that can be useful in the preparation for the social reconstruction; armed participation in every revolutionary insurrection; the preparation for and organisation of these events; the use of every means which can bring on the social revolution. Anarchist communist ideological organisations are absolutely indispensable in the full realisation of anarchist communism both before the revolution and after.
Platform of the Federation of Anarchist Communists of Bulgaria (FAKB), 1945
probablyasocialecologist
The revolution abolishes private ownership of the means of production and distribution, and with it goes capitalistic business. Personal possession remains only in the things you use. Thus, your watch is your own, but the watch factory belongs to the people. Land, machinery, and all other public utilities will be collective property, neither to be bought nor sold. Actual use will be considered the only title - not to ownership but to possession. The organization of the coal miners, for example, will be in charge of the coal mines, not as owners but as the operating agency. Similarly will the railroad brotherhoods run the railroads, and so on. Collective possession, cooperatively managed in the interests of the community, will take the place of personal ownership privately conducted for profit.
Alexander Berkman, What Is Communist Anarchism?
transkafka
At all times the Group articulated an anarcho-syndicalist ideology, although it also voiced radical criticism of the CNT and FAI leadership. But it is a huge leap from that to claiming that the Group espoused marxist positions. In any case, we have no problem agreeing that analysis of the reality and of the uprisings in July and May led the Friends of Durruti to espouse two fundamental notions which can scarcely be described as essentially marxist - though they are that, too - so much as the most elementary idioms of any proletariat-driven revolutionary uprising. Those two notions are, to borrow the Durruti-ists expressions, are as follows:
1. That one must impose a revolutionary program, libertarian communism, which must be defended by force of arms. The CNT, which had a majority on the streets, ought to have introduced libertarian communism and then should have defended it with force. In other words, which is to say, switching now to the marxist terminology: the dictatorship of the proletariat ought to have been installed.
2. There is a need for the establishment of a Revolutionary Junta, made up of revolutionaries who have taken part in the proletarian uprising, to exercise power and use violence to repress the non-proletarian factions, in order to preclude the latter’s taking power, or embarking upon a counterrevolutionary process to defeat and crush the proletariat. That this Revolutionary Junta, as the Friends of Durruti call it, while others call it the vanguard or the revolutionary party, can shock only those who are shocked by words rather than by the defeat of the proletariat.

Arif Dirlik’s latest offering is a revisionist perspective on Chinese radicalism in the twentieth century. He argues that the history of anarchism is indispensable to understanding crucial themes in Chinese radicalism. And anarchism is particularly significant now as a source of democratic ideals within the history of the socialist movement in China.

Dirlik draws on the most recent scholarship and on materials available only in the last decade to compile the first comprehensive history of his subject available in a Western language. He emphasizes the anarchist contribution to revolutionary discourse and elucidates this theme through detailed analysis of both anarchist polemics and social practice. The changing circumstances of the Chinese revolution provide the immediate context, but throughout his writing the author views Chinese anarchism in relation to anarchism worldwide.

Socialisme Ou Barbarie’s 1967 theses on Mao and the Chinese revolution.

1. When the armies of Mao Tse Tung and of General Chu Teh crossed the Yangtse river in April 1949, the seal of defeat was almost set on the forces of Chiang Kai Shek. His power had collapsed and before the autumn the Kuo Min Tang was to be driven from the mainland. The world started talking of a ‘victory for communism’ in China. The Kung Tsiang Tang (the KTT or the Chinese Communist Party) was however to characterise its military victory over the Kuo Min Tang as the ‘victory of the national bourgeois democratic revolution’ which had begun 38 years earlier. What the KTT proposed and what Mao Tse Tung considered his first task-was the ‘stimulation of the revolutionary process’. The bourgeois revolution, according to their beliefs, would be followed by the proletarian socialist revolution. At a later stage the ‘transition to communism’ would be on the agenda. There is a striking resemblance between the ideas of Mao and the KTT on the development of the Chinese revolution, and those of Lenin and the Bolsheviks on the development of the Russian revolution.

2. This similarity is not coincidental. In both countries the revolutions resulted from similar factors and conditions. Both countries were backward at the beginning of this century. Their relations of production and their patterns of exploitation were semi-feudal(or related to feudalism) and were predominantly based on agriculture. Their populations were largely peasant. Religious beliefs permeated both societies, reflecting the social conditions: in China Confucianism, and in Russia Greek Orthodoxy. The social reality In each country formed the basis of similarly oppressive regimes: the Tsars in Russia and the Manchu Emperors in China.

3. In both Russia and China the revolutions had to solve the same political and economic tasks. They had to destroy feudalism and to free the productive forces in agriculture from the fetters in which existing relations bound them. They also had to prepare a basis for industrial development. They had to destroy absolutism and replace it by a form of government and by a state machine that would allow solutions to the existing economic problems. The economic and political problems were those of a bourgeois revolution; that is, of a revolution that was to make capitalism the dominant mode of production.

probablyasocialecologist
The exchange of commodities by means of prices leads to profit making, to taking advantage and exploitation; in short, to some form of capitalism. If you do away with profits, you cannot have any price system, nor any system of wages or payment. That means that exchange must be according to value. But as value is uncertain or not ascertainable, exchange must consequently be free, without “equal” value, since such does not exist. In other words, labor and its products must be exchanged without price, without profit, freely, according to necessity. This logically leads to ownership in common and to joint use. Which is a sensible, just, and equitable system, and is known as Communism.
Alexander Berkman, What Is Communist Anarchism? 
transkafka
It is unrealistic to expect the entire working class to study leftist political theory and become militant anarchosyndicalists - however, this is not necessary for an anarchosyndicalist revolution to occur. The “theory” of anarchosyndicalism is not about dictating to workers what their political desires should be; it is about establishing political institutions which allow them to express these wills. That is to say, anarchosyndicalism does not seek to instill any specific political program in the minds of the working class - it merely insists that workers deserve to implement whatever political programs they see fit through self-administration.

At the same time, we realize that the working class has been systematically deceived into identifying their interests with capitalism and the “free market,” and as such, their revolutionary desires have been supplanted by the propaganda of the major political parties and bureaucratic trade unions. In order to present and demonstrate their political program to the workers, anarchosyndicalists should form separate political groups for the purpose of maintaining informal influence over the social movements and labor unions. For instance, the anarchosyndicalists of Spain formed the Iberian Anarchist Federation (FAI) to prevent the major anarchosyndicalist union (the National Confederation of Labor, or CNT) from being derailed to reformism. These anarchist political groups must work inside, not apart from, the unions and movements to maintain a revolutionary presence amongst workers.
transkafka
Whether we work in coal mines or coffee shops, on factory assembly lines or at grocery store conveyer belts, whether we are undocumented, single mothers, or queer, as working class people we are all similarly deprived of the wealth we create. To assign a revolutionary role to the working class does not mean to value miners, construction workers, or factory workers (all very masculine roles) over social groups such as the undocumented or the unemployed (themselves segments of the working class). The working class does not simply exist in relation to the Factory; we exist in relation to our landlords in apartment complexes, in relation to our neighborhoods and our neighbors, and so forth. In short, the working class is immersed in a world far more expansive than their place of work. Working class revolution should never be confused for workplace revolution.