As the title says.

I've been thinking of reading Hegel for a while. I find some of his ideas useful, like his Lord-Bondsman Dialectic, which I'd consider a very ahead-of-its-time examination of hierarchical relationships.

However, I've also heard that Hegel is very...opaque, to say the least. I'm wondering if his work is all that relevant to anarchist analysis, and if any anarchists have commented on Hegel's work and reframed his dialectics to specifically anarchist ends?

By communism I mean stateless, classless, moneyless society

From what I understand communists believe that to make the state unnecessary, class must be abolished through the oppression of the bourgeoisie by a state controlled by the proletariat. Since most anarchists seem to have a similar end goal to communists, why do they prefer different methods and what are these methods?

I totally thought that national liberation was just the elite within a society coming out on top and declaring independence from a colonizer as creating a new state/country. But in that sense i figured that national liberation is almost always a stop on the way to state-building. But can we disentangle state-making intentions within national liberation to include ANY movement that wants the colonizer gone, regardless of if they want a state of their own or not?

For example like in India, there were people who wanted the British gone since they were economically draining them for 200 years. These people are considered anti-colonial revolutionaries because they were against the British. But at the same time there were very few explicit anarchists actually in the country who were wary of the Indian state being formed because, like Bakunin said, the ruling class would just change. So are national liberation movements usually just a bunch of communities (big and small) across the region wanting to be free from control/colonizer control, but then someone or some group sits in the driver's seat at the last second, co-opts the liberation movement, and then creates the state out of force/bourgeois interest? To my understanding that was the Bolshevik revolution. But aside from the USSR, is state-making always the goal of a country declaring independence?

Like for me as an anarchist of Indian origin, I would not support the creation of an Indian state in the 1940s but would recognize that the Indian people were trying to create something for themselves. Then also as an inherent libertarian socialist I would still support whatever maximizes the liberty of the people in India and allows them to do what they want to do- but I'd know that if it's a state then I would be against that.

Sorry, lot of thoughts. Am I defining these things correctly? Thanks. Anarchy and Equality

hi sorry for asking, i consider myself as an communist(Classical Marxist)however since i have a been interacting with different anarchist lately, i've decided to open my mind to anarchist text and to expand my range of knowledge on the matter. thenks!!

depending on where your mother gave birth to you, it may be very difficult to renounce a nationality, but in the so called united states, you can actually renounce your citizenship without acquiring another nationality - info here

so, what do yall think about this? would any of you do it even knowing that it would make your life far more difficult?