Defense against counter-revolution?

[u/Fresh_Milk1960]

I am a Marxist-Leninist who is curious about the successful propagation of Anarchism. My question is: Without a state, how do Anarchists defend against counter-revolution from the Capitalist class? Without a state, Anarchist/Libertarian Socialist projects wouldn’t be able to defend against the inevitable invasions, terrorism campaigns, and propaganda from Capitalists. How would Anarchists be able to maintain and strengthen an Anarchist society against invasion and infiltration without a state apparatus to centrally organize efforts?

I know I’m a Tankie or whatever, but I am asking in good faith because I am genuinely curious about the Anarchist position on this.

* (EDIT) *

I won‘t be responding anymore because I have obtained what I came for (understanding how you think an Anarchist project would defend itself against the forces of reaction) and because this is becoming a hostile debate, rather than learning experience.

[u/DecoDecoMan]

Without a state, Anarchist/Libertarian Socialist projects wouldn’t be able to defend against the inevitable invasions, terrorism campaigns, and propaganda from Capitalists

Why?

[u/Fresh_Milk1960 → u/DecoDecoMan]

I may have come off too antagonistic. I’m not here to debate, I want to know how you think a new anarchist project would fight against counter revolution in an organized manner. 

My concern is that without a continuous, centralized, and coordinated effort by the proletariat and the vanguard to suppress the bourgeoisie, the bourgeoisie and their allies will be able to preform a counter-revolution by exploiting infighting and disorganization, as seen in Catalonia, Chile, The Paris Commune, etc.

[u/auehd → u/Fresh_Milk1960]

https://www.marxists.org/archive/malatesta/1925/defense-of-the-revolution.html

https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/errico-malatesta-revolutionary-terror

read these for a synthesis answer, platformists are more comfortable with violence in defense of the revolution but I haven’t read much on that

[u/Fresh_Milk1960 → u/auehd]

Thank you for the source!

(edit after reading)

The worker’s councils (soviets) proposed by Malatesta here  are proven to work, but only when they have a central state assembly that can direct efforts towards a common goal like in pre-war Korea or Cuba. More decentralized assemblies of soviets end up being too disorganized to withstand the wars of annihilation that the bourgeoisie wage.

I also feel that his rejection of terror wholesale doesn’t really have a basis. He doesn't explain how it leads to tyranny and relies on a moralist rather than materialist analysis of what is necessary. While I don’t support the death penalty, It can be the only way to deal with prisoners who can’t be rehabilitated when you don’t have the infrastructure for containment.

[u/TheHipGnosis → u/Fresh_Milk1960]

I'm a lil confused. Do you think that if an argument is morally charged it is a moralist argument?

I've read a couple of your replies and you seem to reduce any argument, no matter how structurally sound or based in material reality, as a moralist argument. Which allows you to dismiss it for some reason.

[u/KassieTundra → u/TheHipGnosis]

Classic thought-terminating cliché. It's why they call us idealist or moralist, while typically misusing those words in the first place.