Anarchist in their most pure form lmao
NERD FIGHT!
Guys stop killing eachother while we still do have a common enemy.
The meme Is correct since that Isnt anarchism, there Is a real anarchism wich Is very good.
Ik this Is a marxist instance but real communists dont fight anarchists, since actual anarchist have the same goals as them
Anarchists and Marxists may share the imperialists and capitalists as a common class enemy, but take their practice in different directions. Anarchism is primarily about communalization of production. Marxism is primarily about collectivization of production.
When I say “communalization,” I mean anarchists propose horizontalist, decentralized cells, similar to early humanity’s cooperative production but with more interconnection and modern tech. When I say collectivization, I mean the unification of all of humanity into one system, where production and distribution is planned collectively to satisfy the needs of everyone as best as possible.
For anarchists, collectivized society still seems to retain the state, as some anarchists conflate administration with the state as it represents a hierarchy. For Marxists, this focus on communalism creates inter-cell class distinctions, as each cell only truly owns their own means of production, giving rise to class distinctions and thus states in the future.
For Marxists, socialism must have a state, a state can only wither with respect to how far along it has come in collectivizing production and therefore eliminating class. All states are authoritarian, but we cannot get rid of the state without erasing the foundations of the state: class society, and to do so we must collectivize production and distribution globally. Socialist states, where the working class wields its authority against capitalists and fascists, are the means by which this collectivization can actually happen, and are fully in-line with Marx’s beliefs. Communism as a stateless, classless, moneyless society is only possible post-socialism.
Abolishing the state overnight would not create the kind of society Marxists advocate for advancing towards, and if anything, would result in the resumption of competition and the resurgance of capitalism if Marx and Engels predictions are correct.
Yeah
What Is the right choice…well depends
Sincerely idk, both work and have worked without a problem, on different scales of course
In general, Marxism-Leninism has been the most successful in establisbing socialist states and uplifting the lives of the people. On top of that, its theoretical groundings have been most consistently affirmed by testing in reality.
Yes marxism Is more common and i know that in marxism there isnt a sudden change so It does appeal to more people
It’s not about being common, it’s about being tested in reality and affirmed by it.
Well they both have been tested and affirmed but marxism has done a Mich bigger impact
Yes, anarchists have had some degree of localized success, but the scale and longevity of Marxist projects speaks more to its own successes over anarchism, not simply the popularity of ideas.
If you think anarchists are controllwd by the cia and designed to split the left. Why, instead of playing to there cards, dont we work with them for the parts we agree on e.g. a revolution.
I know this is a tankie instance so I didn’t downvote but I’m surprised again and again how ignorant tankies are about the concept of prefiguration or “unity of means and ends” or “building the new in the shell of the old” or what ever you want to call it. It’s not about the state vanishing over night but about building a dual power that will fight the authority of the state. It’s the same type of people who say anarchists can’t read that have no idea about actual anarchist theory. Do better. Leave this strawman behind. It never was true and didn’t age well.
Marxists aren’t ignorant of prefiguration, we agree with some of it, such as building dual power. We don’t agree that doing so erases the basis of class, and thus doesn’t also erase the basis od the state. Marxists in general take the opposite approach to solving class struggle, believing in collectivization of all production and distribution to suit the needs of all, rather than creating loosely organized communalist cells, and this is because of analysis of class struggle being different for Marxists (and I believe more correct).
Sorry, I was overgeneralizating. I wasn’t talking about Marxist Leninists or Marxists in general or all tankies but I encounter this attitude OP shows far too often. People read Engels’s On Authority and think they know stuff which is frustrating.
I think having a shallow understanding of theory even within our own tendencies is a common problem that just comes with trying to study dense topics that are deliberately hidden from us. It isn’t a fun problem, but it’s one that comes with the territory. I try to do my best with it, that’s why I made my intro Marxist-Leninist reading list for those that want one.
So building a rival state?
Build a stateless, hierarchy-critical, egalitarian society that rivals the hegemony of states
Where?
Take Rojava as an example: they built a system of councils that didn’t yield any real power until their day came (2011 if I’m not mistaken) and after the revolution, there was no power vacuum but this decentralized system took over. Same idea is anarcho syndicalism: they do union work now but are ready to run the factory/company when the opportunity is there.
Take [irrelevant microstate with same interests in the region as the USA] as an example:
Would you say the same about the Zapatistas? Or the Makhnovshchina. They fought against the Bolsheviks so in your black white thinking, they are evil, right? But back to West Asia: the common interest they share with the USA is to fight the IS or Islamism in general. The USA supported islamists when they fought against communists. Isn’t this “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” logic that made the US support Islamists until they didn’t and now Rojava got a little support but that doesn’t mean any ideological alignment as you seemed to imply.
Also, it’s not a state but I don’t expect tankies to get that.
For the Zapatistas, not so much (though they explicitly reject being labeled as anarchist), for Makhnovschina, absolutely, they were glorified bandits correctly seen through by anarchist Lucy Parsons.
As for Rojava being a state, it still has private property and class struggle, and as such does have a state:
Private property is still constitutionally protected by article 70 of the DAANES constitution: “Private property is protected and may not be taken away except for the public interest. It must be compensated fairly, and this is regulated by law.”
Would you say the same about the Zapatistas?
Not sure, to be honest, I would have to read more about the Zapatistas. They absolutely are a micronation with no geopolitical power whatsoever, though.
Or the Makhnovshchina. They fought against the Bolsheviks so in your black white thinking, they are evil, right?
I never called Rojava evil, and I don’t think they’re evil, so don’t put those words in my mouth. Regarding Makhnovshchina: if they weren’t capable of enduring a civil war-destroyed red army, how were they supposed to survive Nazi genocide? How is a loose set of preindustrial farmers going to stand a chance against total extermination by an industrial power? And no, Vietnam isn’t an example because Vietnam was well funded and armed by the Soviets. No Soviet weapons, no Vietnam.
