I’ve read Graeber and Kropotkin. Debt was interesting, Conquest of Bread was just an old man writing down his thoughts on papers – he figured people will spontaneously turn to anarchism once his revolution starts coming together lol.

The societies they describe were and are classless. But history and pre-history are two different things, and primitive communism was only widespread in prehistory. Changes in our material conditions (probably agriculture) naturally led to class distinctions once you had people whose job was not to produce tangible goods like food or clay pots, but to keep track of them and allocate them – administrators.

I know anarchists love the Hadza people and I think it’s great they have their way of life (though it has led them to many problems in the 21st century, as they have to turn to wage work without knowing their rights or having any) but let me tell you right now: nobody wants to live like the Hadza. I want antibiotics, I want electricity, I want food security, and you have millions of people who need this like me. We’re not going to go back

their police does not have any form of monopoly on violence: they derive their power from the community, not from a centralized authority

So they still have the monopoly on violence, they just exercise it differently. Which means there is a class character to the state and it’s not the tool itself that’s a problem, but how you use it – and why you would use it in one way and not another. So then we can theorise that the state represents the interests of a certain class. Capitalist police is going to enforce the laws of the capitalists, and proletarian police like with the Zapatistas is going to enforce the laws of the proletariat. I’m reminded of Engels’ words: “[anarchists] think that when they have changed the name of things they have changed the things themselves”.

wealth accumulation becomes almost impossible which makes the project really unappealing to capitalist/gentrifying types

Until people in the commune decide they don’t want to live with black people. Though I’ve heard the undesirables will just be able to form their own commune in this somehow anarchist world that I still haven’t heard how will come to exist lol. Most answers I get is that it’s for the people that will be fighting the revolution to figure out.

Kropotkin is a good example of that: he chose to live in misery according to his ideals rather than bow to the bolshevik State

Yeah, and who won the revolution? Would Kropotkin’s anarchist Russia have held on for more than a few months? I can’t think of any anarchist experiment that survived past months.

I’m sorry but get some perspective. Read some Marx, Engels and Lenin and at least then you’ll have heard of another point of view that looks like yours and you can sill not like it if you want.

French police: uses explosive tear gas grenades that maim people, then the gov refuses them compensation for it. Defends the use of these explosives.

HK police: does not draw their guns even after being shot at with arrows, shows incredible restraint against violence even as their cars are surrounded or they are beaten to the ground, only got their weapons out in rare cases when rioters were trying to steal them from their belt.

You: these are exactly the same thing because they both have the name police.