I always enjoy the comments anytime this meme gets posted.
Tankies telling on themselves is never not amusing
Literally just grabbed a bag of chips lol
I wish. The world would be a much better place if the left could agree until we differ
Of course it would but see only my ideology gets that!
The problem is Trotskyists and Marxist-Leninists and anarcho-communists and anarcho-syndicalists and …
/s
The left has to rally around all sorts of nuances to reach agreement. The right basically just has one thing: fear.
No we don’t. The CIA and FBI intentionally created this culture in leftist movements, why do we need to debate and reach consensus on everything?
We can just stop infighting, shut up about praxis and labels, and march together until we differ. It would leave us in a better place to go even further, however we might envision it
Healthcare, lower rents, higher pay, workers rights, tax the rich. Just get on the bus, you can get off whenever you like but we can’t all hold up the bus driver
I don’t think it’s a psyop. Leftism as an ideology values diversity and reconciling a diversity of views and life experiences is hard. The only bus fit to leave is intersectionalist. If it’s not, you’re asking people to get on a bus where you’re better off but they aren’t.
No, I mean this is a well documented thing that happened… They literally infiltrated leftist groups and would sow division and call for endless votes and debates on banal issues
I am talking about intersectionality, but I don’t think we should use that word. It’s big and scares the common idiot. Also it has implications about being idpol, which is thoroughly tainted at this point
I’m not saying you have to give ground… I’m talking about focus on good messaging. You don’t have to throw trans people or Palestinians under the bus. You don’t have to hide your positions or be apologetic either
But we all need to focus on message discipline. We need to be evangelical. Houses. Healthcare. Food. Wages. Tax the rich. Fix our democracy
Basically everyone agrees on the real issues, and we must be as Mumdani. He doesn’t back down, he’s totally unapologetic about his stances, but he doesn’t get distracted
Tight, focused messaging. Universal problems, simple to understand solutions. No pamphlets, no scary words
I still think it’s a genuinely harder coordination problem to solve compared to rallying around conservative ideals and that it’s not solely due to CIA and FBI interference. But I upvoted you and I agree with a lot of what you’re saying.
I do agree with that, fascism is really easy to organize… Granted it always has a shelf life for the same underlying reasons
But conservatism more broadly? It only feels that way because there’s been a concentrated effort for a century to propagandize people. Liberals gave so much ground that cutting social programs and public private partnerships became the default position for both parties. There’s so many lies that go uncontested… Some of the myths commonly believed about capitalism and government are insane, and that isn’t an accident
In the days of FDR it was really easy to organize for progressives… The momentum was there. People’s lives were improving noticeably, they had hope for the future, and they had confidence in the leadership
Political momentum is the key. The pendulum is shifting quickly left, so it’s becoming easier to organize on the left than it’s been for generations. It’ll get even easier if the promises are delivered on, disenfranchised voters will need less and less convincing to mobilize
And racism.
Yes but that’s fear-based
The far left can’t agree because most of it is not found in functional rationality. At least the right is too stupid to think and thus can actually achieve things 🙈
I’m a leftist. If capitalism was destroyed I would love to debate and implement different economic and state systems as we work to improve the lives of all people.
But, having said that, we don’t live in a world without capitalism yet. So I will support any form of resistance of a people to Imperialist powers and capitalist interest. Unfortunately, we can’t put on a red hat and just support the guys with the red hats. It’s why I can support certain actions of groups and states ranging from Hamas to DPRK to even parts of the EU (but never never NATO).
This is why when there is “leftist infighting” I will almost always support the ML faction over any DemSocs or anarchist. Why? Because ML methods of resistance have been the only successful methods of resisting imperial occupation and influence that has been sustainable. If an anarchist faction destroys the state and is somehow able to defend itself from imperialist powers I’ll support that too. But we have Cuba today; we have the DPRK today. Are they the types of states I want to exist? No. But they do exist.
If another means of imperial resistance proves more effective than I will adjust my opinions and support. If your a leftist and not acknowledging the success of ML factions you’re not really a leftist. Especially if you spend all your time fighting with “tankies”. And if you’re a ML and not willing to adjust to changes in successful resistance (especially as the empire is shaking as it is now) than you’re not really a leftist but in a cult.
Okay, well I disagree on the effectiveness of ML methods, they industrialized quickly but easily fell to corruption and ended up falling to capitalism
But do we really need to debate that? I’d love to build something better than capitalism, but a glorious revolution isn’t on the table.
In the mean time, I totally agree.
I bet we’d agree with everything possible to do right now. I think imperialism is bad, but I’m worried about the future for my friends and family. I’m worried about my neighbors, about my country, about human rights violations against my countrymen
But I’m not going to live or die on stopping imperialism or on Palestine - we have to fix our county so we even have the ability to resist the forces of capital at home if we ever want to reign it in globally
I don’t think we should sacrifice these issues either, but I don’t think we have to… I just think we have to focus on that can be done now. We’re not going to unwind the World Bank and the IMF to get the global south off the debt treadmill tomorrow
We could overturn citizens united and start trust busting tomorrow if we fix healthcare today. If we fix housing, and food availability. If we bring back social programs
The empire is collapsing. I think that’s set in stone.
But Rome never truly fell, the people woke up the next day. The question is, do we fall into a dark age as we wait for the contradictions of capitalism to make the economy go poof, or do we wind it down gently
I think we can make material conditions for people better, which means that when the music stops progressives will be in power and have the trust of the people
And we can argue about how to build something better then. The next steps are the same
If you believe in ML or aspects of it, fine. I don’t care if you’re a full on tankie. You can be a militant vegan or radical environmentalist too.
But when progressives march, we all have to set down (not give ground on) our single issues to join them. Because they’re the movement marching against capital right now under a banner that we can all fit under without compromising any of our goals or ideals
Well put
they industrialized quickly but easily fell to corruption and ended up falling to capitalism
Without mentioning they are the biggest polluters in the world. The USSR did so much damage that it’s still the top in some pollution statistics.
ML is a destroyer of worlds.
Nah anarchists and non-ml communists get along great because we want the same thing.
yep, this is just the standard “hey leftists! fight each other now! don’t have the revolution until after you fight each other as much as possible!”
It’s working brillianty for the owner class so far.
you pretend to agree with me yet you’re the one posting FUD…
I don’t think that’s the message of the meme. The way I get it is that we can and should be aligned at least until we abolish capitalism. I don’t pretend to agree, I do agree - I’d work with anyone who opposes capital from the left. Including MLs even if I don’t buy everything in ML. Or anarchists for that matter.
fake rationalizing still means you’re fud
Yeah.
Giving power to the central power to help defeat capitalism.
What could go wrong.
Not really… no
Ignoring that there are many instances of MLs and anarchists getting along great, Marxists in general (including MLs, which are the most numerous among Marxists) are aligned with anarchists against capitalism and fascism, but have entirely different analysis on what to do about them. Anarchism is primarily about communalization of production and distribution, while Marxism is primarily about collectivization of production and distribution.
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.
None of this was specific to Marxism-Leninism, but Marxism in general.
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.
But,
internationalist.
I think you misread, the idea here is that this same decentralization provides the germ of capitalism again. Collectivizing globally stops this process.
Okay, I’ll keep an eye out for that, in [>40 years of] free software, largely decentralised. [Though argue as one may, that it’s born of a statist, using the state to assure the [4] freedom[s], but still in practice, it’s largely decentralised.]
And I’ll not cease noticing the cascade from Marx to Stalin was not just a move to more authoritarianism, but at least half as much a drift towards the economic right too.
There’s a pretty big difference between free software, and running production and distribution of physical goods, as well as the geographic communalization anarchists tend to propose. It’s not that all decentralization leads to capitalism, it’s that decentralizing nearly everything related to production and distribution definitely can.
As for Marx to socialism as its practiced in the real world, I’m really not getting what you mean here. Marx himself was clear that the process of building communism is long and drawn-out, so existing socialist states that don’t have the full characteristics of communism aren’t at odds with Marx. Nor is the use of authority by the working classes against the capitalists and landlords. Marx’s famous quote on the working class wielding authority against the capitalists is as follows:
We have no compassion and we ask no compassion from you. When our turn comes, we shall not make excuses for the terror.
Here’s another analysis for you: Anarchism is about creating social structures and improve the lives of those in these structures. There is no end goal or concrete structure to these structures. They change and adapt as the people within them change, leave or enter.
Anarchy is not about resources or class or opposing archists. But about creating spaces and communities in which people can safely exist as themselves. About creating social structures that are based on mutual aid and human connection instead of ability or need. Anarchy isn’t about making a single system that everyone follows. It’s about creating many overlapping systems doing many overlapping things. Different cells are not some distinct group of people with their own flags and names where you need to apply to join. It’s just a name for a group of people that have something in common. The same person will belong to different cells as every cell represents some part of society. They cannot form states because a state needs to have polity and anarchists should reject polity wherever possible.
But that’s just how I see it. other anarchists will disagree and that is the most anarchist thing ever.
My problem is that this is an unsustainable, unmaintainable ideal rather than a plan. It is nothing more than liberalism in infancy. We’re stuck playing Monopoly and this is a desire to start the game over rather changing it fundamentally. The outcome will be the same no matter how many times you start over.
the precolonial societies that eliminated their hierarchies have a very consistent pattern of continuing to train military practices while also practicing pacificism. i’m not saying that’s the answer for a post colonial society, just that humanity has escaped from hierachy before and people living within the three empires probably need to do an uptick in listening, and that distributed access to violence amongst pacifists is likely part of it
The piece I struggle with, is how do you deal with power? I’m a commie, but I’m the kind who actually believes in an endless struggle against oppression. As long as there is injustice, there will always be struggle, so I’m not looking to create a socialist state and then my job is done. My job is to create the party, then criticize it and develop it through struggle. After that, the goal is internationalism, not a socialist state. The state can only be transitional, a socialist state is at best, a way to keep power out of the hands of rulers and build power for the masses, a historical phase of society committed to liberation.
But power is material, tangible, and objective. It always centralizes. Leninists have a strategy of Democratic Centralism, where the natural tendency of centralizing power is balanced by democratic mass participation. This takes different forms based on historical necessity, sometimes more authoritarian measures, still beholden to the democratic authority of the masses, are necessary, such as the dreaded “war communism,” but communists should always fight for more internal democracy, while preserving the centralized nature of organization. In fact what makes war communism such a blight is that it creates unwinnable dilemmas, such as the unmitigated tragedy at Kronstadt.
But without centralization, a more powerfully centralized force can easily break up our democratic movement and destroy the historic potential to liberate the masses, taking the power away from the masses to centralize in the hands of a new ruling class. This is exactly what happened with the Stalinist bureaucracy that formed after the Russian civil war, state bureaucrats filled the positions of power in the revolutionary government, and the power centralized in the hands of the state bureaucrats replacing the soviets who empowered the first popular revolution in Feb 1917. The civil war created the conditions for the basis, as it destroyed the entire productive capacity of the country, decimating the working class as a class, leaving only the peasantry, the bureaucracy, and only a few genuine revolutionaries.
But what caused the failure of the revolution wasnt ideology it was the loss of democracy that disappeared when the basis for worker power, and hence worker democracy, was smashed by the invaders and white armies, and replaced with a more centralized, more oppressive and authoritarian basis for power.
The other side of this, is that even when power is not formally centralized, such as within a state or government, it is still informally centralized, so that a group or individual can claim that power is being distributed, and maybe it is to a certain degree, but it is being distributed in a way that further centralizes that power. In this instance the tyranny takes the form of de-centralization but its substance is still centralized. In these instances a formal democratic centralized structure is much less authoritarian, because it reveals to the masses the true form of its authority, allowing itself to be properly reckoned with, shaped and improved, rather than the informal authoritarianism that claims to be decentralized but is in fact the opposite.
Please don’t read this as a sweeping dismissal of anarchism, I am very fond of anarchism and anarchists, but the discourse between our traditions is bad for reasons that are completely outside of our control. While I cringe violently watching commies quote “On Authority” at anarchists as if it means a damn thing in this day and age, I think that the democratic centralist model of organizing, while fraught and vulnerable, is much more transparent and practical than decentralization. I acknowledge that anarchists are not a singularity, as you’ve already mentioned ITT, and I’m aware of different anarchist approaches to these issues thanks to my libsoc comrades, even if I don’t fully understand them.
I think the difference is somewhere in the way that the anarchist truly concretizes and celebrates the individual, which unfortunately somehow gets disappeared in much Marxist analysis. I study Malatesta to try and compensate for this shortcoming of our tradition, but the big practical structural questions still nags me.
I think that power will always be a problem that we need to be mindful of. Even on the small scale, power imbalances can arise and lead to harm if we don’t proactively manage them. I find it useful to think of anarchism as an ongoing process rather than a goal, which means that the task will never be completed.
Regarding democracy, I’ve really enjoyed Chantal Mouffe and Ernesto Laclau’s writings. They propose a sort of radical democracy. I think it’s “Hegemony and Socialist Strategy” that I’ve read some of. It’s pretty dense, but I found it rewarding, and it reshaped how I think about democracy. In particular, I was far more pessimistic about the possibility of democracy at all before I read it.
I think the YouTube channel Think That Through was what led me to go read Mouffe and Laclau, if you’re a video enjoying person. It wasthis video on Hegemony
Thanks for this response! I’m a little familiar with Gramsci’s formulations on hegemony, so I’ll check this out!
Definitely an interesting video, I already see where I need to go back throught and take a few more notes. I thought he put forward an interesting if a bit simplistic view of coalition building.
But it has a few problematic areas. For one, this should not be considered an even glancingly accurate depiction of Marxism. And I’m not complaining about his unwillingness to engage with any historical subjects, only theoretical ones. And I won’t say that some of his criticisms might apply to certain vulgar Marxist tendencies. But as far as Marxism being out of date, he is fundamentally a pre-marxist, not a post Marxist. The fundamental insight of Marxism, that material analysis should be human-centered, conceiving of a unified subject and object rather than separate categories of analysis, is completely lost. For all his talk of “the people,” any strip of humanity is sacrificed for engagement with a method. As Marx said of Feuerbach, he can conceive of “single individuals and civil society” but can’t place the individual in society, nor society in the individual. His early idea that change starts with the individual is sort of correct, but he doesnt advance a step beyond this insight, and instead engages with theory instead of “the people.” As such, he’s an idealist, even if he is the kind to imagine a better world he won’t be able to change himself or anything else.
Other limitations that I noticed, is that he spends a lot of time talking about Gramsci’s theories of hegemony superficially, then spends a lot of time talking about language and post - structuralism. But the fundamental insight of Gramsci, the whole basis of his theory of hegemony is language. His theory of hegemony is based on the risorgiamento period in Italy, which allowed Gramsci to concretely develop his theory by paying close attention to the way that the Florentine dialect spread across Italy, replacing local dialects with The Florentine one, which is what we now know as the Italian language. Through analysis of the spread of language he was able to trace the spread of the ruling class superstructure, which included other things like politics, culture, and finally, power.
The fact that he avoided concrete analysis in order to talk about postmodern theories is pretty glaring imo. As an organizer I’m a bit at a loss for what to do with these theories, but like I said, I wanna go back and review. Its def a perspective I haven’t heard before, and maybe if Marx’s fundamental insights were included, then the method could have some practical application. But as it is described by him, I think its impractical and idealistic.
Otherwise, its a good video, very informative, but if he bothered to actually understand Marx then it could be so much better. Instead, he’ll be stuck using very advanced forms of flawed bourgeois reasoning, which leads nowhere.
Thanks for the share!
First of all, I want to say that I appreciate your viewpoint, it’s far more constructive than the other user essentially saying “Marxism bad.”
The issue I take with your descriptor is that eventually production and distribution do become necessary. States arise due to class relations, and class relations arise due to modes of production. In cooperative-based production and distribution, ie cells producing largely for themselves but also exchanging through mutual aid, eventually class distinctions do rise historically, even if people resist that. We cannot just return to hunter/gatherer lifestyles.
I agree that mutual aid is a great tool, especially in times of struggle and in systems like capitalism where the wealthiest plunder the wealth created by the working classes, but this ultimately is derived from production, which necessitates analysis of the mode of production.
Communism is less about an end goal, and more about a continuous process to create a society that meets the needs of everyone. It isn’t about sacrificing until some day a better society can be achieved, it’s about building that better society outright and being aware of the social transformations it goes through as production and distribution are collectivized and the state and class wither away.
“Communism is less about an end goal, and more about a continuous process”
This is how I think about my own anarchism.
I don’t disagree with you that class distinctions would naturally arise from the systems of production and distribution, but I don’t see that as a problem really. There are some features of human society that feel analogous to gravity, in that they exist as functionally immutable forces that we must learn to navigate around and through. Even if we somehow achieved what we would consider to be a utopia, it’s realistically not going to stay that way — there would inevitably be some event or new development that would disrupt the balance of things. Such change isn’t necessarily bad, especially if we respond to it properly. It is inevitable though, which is why I find it useful to think of it as a process. I can’t remember who I heard this from, but a phrase I like is “my goal isn’t to make anarchism, but to make more anarchists”
I don’t consider myself a communist, but I like your comment because it highlights how much we have in common. A communist society wouldn’t necessarily be non-anarchist, and vice versa.
For now though, I find myself happy to shelve most ideological disputes with communists, because we’re so far away from either an anarchist or communist society that it seems more productive to use our common ground to strive towards a world that both of us would agree is better.
One thing I want to clarify, communists do wish to work towards the full collectivization of production and distribution to suit the needs of all. Our stance is that the transition to such a society will be long, but that transitional state is also good. We want to be the droplets of rock that bore through mountains, through persistence and the carried weight of generations. I do agree that anarchists and communists should work together, especially in combatting the US Empire as the world’s hegemon.
Oh I absolutely could spend a lot of mental effort trying to explain “marxism bad” (It would actually be Vanguardism bad, marxism ancient) but I just don’t care enough. I have no interest in being antagonistic (except maybe for a couple of quips), cause it’s not going to change anything.
Production and distribution (henceforth economy) is necessary there isn’t a magical grace period where people stop needing food. For any anarchist system to work they need to have an economy. The anarchist systems that exist right now solve this by relying on donations and members having jobs. As more and more anarchist systems start popping up (although this is probably never going to happen) this would transform to a more independent/self-sustaining system. But what that system looks like doesn’t really matter, because whatever it is will be determined by the ones who make it.
This is the ultimate difference between anarchism and everything else, and the reason why I think so many people bounce off it. Anarchism requires belief in people. That whatever system they come up with will work and compliment others who will be able to build their own systems: Economic, social or political.
Anarchy is a process of creating social structures that defy oppression, control and manipulation, and believing that these structures will be able to solve the problems they face. It’s not just about economy but about the connections people form. When I look at communists I see only economic analysis: Class, Production, Ownership. Concepts which are secondary to the thing that actually matters: eliminating oppression and exploitation, not just economic, but also social and political.
You sound cool and seem to have enough patience to counter ML-propaganda. Hope you stick around :)
I’m in a mood to be social for a bit. I don’t really have any IRL outlet so this will have to do.
Also it seems hexbear took intrest in my post and for better or worse I’ve decided to engage them: https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/post/59334692
Ugh. Well, good luck if you try to engage in such a bad-faith space.
A deep comment thread without a single intentional misquote and ‘so you hate pancakes’ tactic. Love to see it.
This sounds like utopianism, and i don’t know if it’s whether you didn’t do a thorough job of explaining anarchism or that this is actually what anarchism is.
That’s not what anarchism is. It’s just what I currently think of when discussing anarchism. Anarchism is nothing more than opposition to authority. And while there are common beliefs there is no single understanding of what exactly that means or looks like.
The reason it seems utopian is because our current society rewards selfishness and greed, so it feels like a society that doesn’t seem to regulate them is missing something. Anarchism regulates them by using social pressure.
Anarchism regulates them by using social pressure.
That’s what all post-capitalist forms of socioeconomic organization aim to do anyways, so it is a necessary step
I was referring to this part of your comment:
As more and more anarchist systems start popping up (although this is probably never going to happen) this would transform to a more independent/self-sustaining system. But what that system looks like doesn’t really matter, because whatever it is will be determined by the ones who make it.
I don’t want to speak on whether anarchism as a concept is possible or not—it can be depending on material realities—I’m more speaking to your concept of “that system will be established if and when more anarchies pop up (which you’re skeptical of yourself)”. So my question is this:
What’s to be done in the interim? You’ve acknowledged that multiple anarchic communes are highly unlikely to spring up anytime soon, so how do you get there?
What exactly are you advocating for really?
anarchism, marxism, feminism, egalitarianism, anti-racism. these are all deeply interrelated utopianist movements.
Utopian here meaning unrealistic, not what’s ideal
Ignoring the bit on “vanguardism bad and Marxism ancient” for now, though I disagree vehemontly with both. One thing that you bring up is that a lot of the currently or formerly existing anarchist societies depend on outside production and donation. It simply isn’t feasible to produce, say, a smartphone horizontally. You need rare earths, highly trained individuals for circuit manufacturing, incredible amounts of previous capital and continuous organization of labor and logistics to make it all come together. The anarchists can either concede that smartphones are unnecessary (along with anything else that takes such huge production scales to create), or concede that they depend on outside production that can do so.
Marxists do focus on class, the mode of production, the base. Marxists focus on the liberation of all peoples, not just those within our immediate communities. And to be fair, most anarchists also tend to care about liberation for everyone, not just their immediate communities, but the key difference is that Marxism does not depend on everyone believing the same thing, or rely on production from the outside. Marxism focuses on the liberation of all oppressed peoples and the satisfaction of everyone’s needs, forever.
Social relations are core to Marxism. The economy is just one such social relation, but there’s also culture, hegemony, art, and class itself. You cannot have Marxism without analysis of social relations.
The anarchists can either concede that smartphones are unnecessary (along with anything else that takes such huge production scales to create), or concede that they depend on outside production that can do so.
Of course if an anarchist community desires smartphone they will depend on other anarchist communities for the resources to build it or to acquire what they build. One of his early points is that in an anarchist world there will be a lot of anarchist communities and they will be different to one another because different people, different needs but that doesn’t mean they will fight, they will co-exist, respect each other, depend on each other and share.
The exact quote was:
Anarchism is about creating social structures and improve the lives of those in these structures. There is no end goal or concrete structure to these structures. They change and adapt as the people within them change, leave or enter.
For some the concept of leaving is difficult, because in some of the systems the individual doesn’t have a choice but anarchism is also about choice.
The sheer complexity and international logistics required to produce a smartphone far surpasses what can be created in relatively small communities, and horizontalism works better at smaller scales. A commune focused entirely on mining rare earths is going to have different class interests than one focused on semiconductor production, and at the scales these are currently produced at already horizontalism begins to break down.
If we imagine a global world of decentralized, interconnected anarchist cells, we need to grapple with how the geographical division of labor and resources will impact this mutual aid, or if it will eventually give way to competition and the resurgance of capitalism. Marxism’s analysis of the continual growth in scale, complexity, and interconnectedness of production fits nicely with humanity taking a conscious role in this development and direct it towards satisfying needs rather than profits.
Anarchy is not about […] class
Uh… I don’t know about that, buddy. I’d be hard-pressed to find an anarchist IRL who doesn’t do class analysis and doesn’t have as a goal the abolition of capitalism.
What kind of 24 upvotes did you get? Are Lemmy anarchists abandoning class analysis, or is it that you’re just arguing against @Cowbee@lemmy.ml and people will upvote anything smart-sounding against comrade Cowbee?
Of course anarchists “do class analysis” and want to abolish capitalism. But that’s just because those are examples of oppression in our everyday lives. What I mean is that it is secondary to the actual goal of creating anarchic spaces which will could eventually replace both class and capitalism. Class analysis really isn’t useful for that because the only thing it offers is a vague “The bourgeoisie are the enemy”. Until someone points a gun at me or punches me I don’t have any enemies.
And like I said this is just my version of anarchism. A combination of Pluralism, Pacifism, Apolity and being sooo fucking tired of the endless discussions that lead nowhere.
To their credit, anarchism is far more diverse in tendency than Marxism is, and as a consequence there are legitimately anarchists that reject class analysis. I don’t think they are common, but they exist.
they exist and they smell weird (probably, idk, this is intentional slander)
Removed by mod
Marxist-Leninists believe in socialism in one country, but that communism must be global. This is entirely in line with Marx. The argument against socialism in one country was the idea that the peasantry would be counter-revolutionary and erode socialism from within, which ended up not being the case. This was because the peasantry were seen to have a more communal consciousness than collectivist. However, practice shows that the proletariat and peasantry can form joint alliances and successfully work to build socialism together.
Removed by mod
Can you explain how socialism in one country contradicts Marx?
Removed by mod
Ah you’re a bit account, gotcha.
And yet in every instance of AEML, the state never withers it only abuses its authority over the people.
Give me voluntary collaboration over top-down dictation any day. At the end of the day, we need a non-hierarchical stateless society that works for mutual aid, and you cannot get there with the statism trap.
Trust me bro, the state will go away any day. Just one more expansion of power. Come on bro just one more political purge and we’ll give it up before we die.
Meanwhile anarchists can’t even seem to establish anything…
We have, the bigger numbers tend to cush us. Or the AuthComs shoot up.
The state in AES exists as one that cannot help but wither, as economic compulsion towards continued collectivization of production and distribution, and thus the erasure of class and thus the state. However, in the context of a worldwide system dominated by capitalist countries like the US Empire, the state cannot really progress beyond that point to a fully withered status. What’s necessary is the achievement of global socialism, and then a gradual period of further collectivization of all production and distribution, and eventually the state will complete its withering.
The state in AES countries has brought democratization and dramatic improvements in quality of life for the working classes. The working classes, by controlling the state, wield it against fascists, capitalists, landlords, etc domestically, and protect themselves from imperialists internationally. Every single AES country has had to deal with western countries sanctioning, bombing, torturing, slaughtering, even committing genocide in some cases, but it is through the strength of the working classes and the systems they built that they last through this.
the unification of all of humanity into one system
This seems so arbitrary. Why is there a line that perfectly encircles every single human, and no other organism? There is nothing we all share, that is not also shared by other creatures. And yet, there is essentially nothing of meaning that we do all share. This group seems either too large or too small. I think you only come to such a Goldilocks conclusion when you start there and work backwards.
Unironically this is the Marxist argument for veganism. Humanity’s distinction is that it is aware of its own place within nature, nature turned self-aware, but this doesn’t set us apart from nature. We are nature, just like trees, birds, insects, etc. We do have a qualitatively different level of intelligence, but it isn’t an insurmountable difference in the grand scheme of evolutionary biology.
Humanity’s distinction is that it is aware of its own place within nature
That’s pure hubris. It’s neither evident that we DO understand our place, or that other creatures understand less well than we do. This is the sort of thing we tell ourselves for our own psychological needs, not because we have evidence that leads us to believe these things. We could quite easily “understand” a facile pretense presented to us by more fundamental layers of our own nature, crafted to bend our choices and perceptions towards those that benefit our DNA but harm individuals. Or, we could simply be wrong. There is no way to test our math.
Matter is what’s primary, not our own ideas, and as such we collectively gain more of an understanding of how the world works by interacting with it. Other animals also learn, but have quantitative differences so large in communication capacity and the ability to learn that there is a qualitative difference between humanity as a social species and the rest of animals, though not an insurmountable gap.
Well then it’s not really inherent. You’re talking about culture; we don’t just innately divine the nature of existence, we argue with each other and come to some kind of consensus. But the thing is, culture is arbitrary and almost necessarily wrong. None of us agree with each other about our place in nature. This quality you are citing does not exist in reality.
Think about how a human struggles to understand death and mortality. Ten years after a loss, our mind still seeks ways to reconnect with a person we knew, still tries to find ways to talk to that person. Our minds are kept from fundamentally accepting and understanding death. But most mammals do not behave like this. We tell ourselves it’s because we understand death and they do not, but if you examine the behaviour like an alien anthropologist, it looks like many non-human animals DO understand the nature of death, and we do not. We do not see reality, we see what our evolution wants us to see.
We can’t understand the world purely through arguing, but through actually engaging with the world and learning about it directly. You’re putting ideas before matter, rather than the inverse.
I agree with that,
But with one exception, or, counter-point, perhaps… from “do not” to “can”, if only, perhaps, fleetingly. Cant take it all back with you. Did well enough to remember that I had.
I’ll depict with a (paste of a) little story:
(referring to this experience of omniscience in a trip from abstaining from magic mushrooms for 2 years, fasting for 24 hours, then mid day, on that empty stomach, consuming uncounted tens of grams of dried, freshly fine-powdered, very strong northern psilocybe semilanceata, hot, in just lemon juice, and chugging that pint of thick mushroom super-lemony brew down as fast as i could. it started coming on FAST and STRONG. ran the 3 strides to the bathroom sink with need to purge, which didnt last long nor purge much of it… clinging to the sink as i slumped down, with the trip immensity roaring at the doors bursting in at all the seams, i tried to steady myself, i meditatively focused on a drop of water, empathising with it likewise clinging to the underside of the sink. i empathised my way instantly to know where every molecule, and every atom, of the water in there, had ever been, and it was a short jump from there to realise i could do that with everything, … and this was only in the beginning seconds of the hours long trip, the ability to see behind things, to know from every perspective, everybody, all time, all times, all dimensions all places… i cant speak to it really, only to say i remember i did experience it. cant take it all back with you. first exchange with other people after i came out of the toilet, friends had come around, one asked “how was it?”, and with it all still being fresh, the immensity of having experienced omniscience, sought to offer what i thought was the most beautiful thing of it all… i said, with all glowing reverie “i know death”. the look of horror on the poor dear’s face though. ho ho ho. but yeah, get that… we mere mortals, many, all around, can experience omniscience. and many are. say hi.)
Anarchocommunists in shambles.
“We should have One Big Revolution!”
“Noooo! We should have a bunch of itty bitty revolutions!”
“Okay, fine. Let’s do Trotskyism as a compromise.”
“Sure thing brow, just turn around real quick”
Basically, but I’m golem/smeegoling my way through it all
deleted by creator
Counterpoint
Propagandize me bitches
All I know is that I hate capitalism and capitalists.
really hilarious that to speak about your so called revolution you need to hide in the corner of the internet. So are we closer to that revolution that 10 days ago ? 10 year ago ? you r so eager to pretend you will ressort to violence that people will end up believing you
Why are you beering with the kangaroo chronicles? lmao
So are we closer to that revolution that 10 days ago ? 10 year ago ?
Some would say we’ve made progress by leaps and bounds.
nice dictator you got here that certainly isnt a bad person and isnt the head of a country that s litteraly worse in any metric compare to yours except maybe capitalism
the head of a country that s litteraly worse in any metric
Oh absolutely. Have you seen his insane tweets? The man is unhinged.
tweet ?
Gonna be honest with you. Violence has been the driving force for change for our entire human history. Non-violent change and action is a privilege afforded to us by the rights given to us by those who have laid down their lives to give us the assurance we can fight protected by our laws. But when the people are no longer served by those laws and instead the teeth turn inward… Then the people have a right to stand up for themselves and fight for that protection once more.
Also, can we talk about the fact that non-violent action is literally a threat by a large mob? Why do you think it works? It is a what-if scenario. The state wonders what will happen if this giant mob of people gets pushed further. It’s a threat.
I say it pretty often but Dr. Martin Luther King got cameras, Malcolm X got results.
both saw each other as important to furthering their own goals
is there any recent specific that make you said u must ressort to violence and have no other option ?
I didn’t say that. I just said that people have the right to protect themselves when they don’t have any other options. I can tell by the way you type that you’re either very naive and have a sheltered view of the world or you’re just trolling. Either way, I wish you good luck with your time
i totaly agree on the basis that ppl can ressort to violence to protect themself. but what im just asking is an exemple of it ?
Civil War, Battle of Blair Mountain, Battle of Athens
Just about every union strike erupted into violence from 1870-1930
The communism-anarchism conflict often resembles the divide between urban and rural society.
It isn’t insurmountable.
Yup. Sure isn’t.
Easier yet, as we can (and shall) build things differently, to what the economic imbalances of industrial capitalism drew forth. And as emancipatory technologies are availed (to each and all).
That’s one hell of a furry costume
Not a costume, that trash talking commie kangaroo bum is as real as it gets in X-burg. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Kangaroo_Chronicles_(film)
Wait the kangaroo is actually a commie in the movie…? What the hell 😂
It gets worse. The movie has a plot.
Removed by mod
What the fuck is this? What sort of genocidal maniac are you?
This isn’t anarchism, this isn’t a stance informed by theory, this is toxic misanthropy.
How is “kill a third of everyone” getting any upvotes? This is disgusting, you are disgusting. Read some books you derranged maniac.
Removed by mod
Well as long as it’s bounded mass slaughter that’s ok then.
Yup. Once again, malarchy masquerading as anarchy. Cui Bono.
Lol, lmao even. I’m about 90% procent sure you’re from the USA just from this comment alone, opinon disregarded.
What is the point of posting a comment to say you’re disregarding an opinion.
Do you always loudly announce everyone you do something no one gives a shit about?
Darling, it’s obvious why. I’m bored and you seemed like someone who’s entertaining when annoyed.
Dude, what? Are you sure you’re in the right instance? Purges? Fuck outta here
Anarchists just want to be left alone
Then what prevents those with resources to take control of you and own you like slaves? Who will protect you against that?
I shoot them in their fucking face.
Since there is no government, I have no one to explain myself to but their shithead kin, who I will also shoot in the fucking face is they have a problem.
I literally said 37%, those who want to enslave others are in they group. The concept is a cancer that must be eradicate immediately and without prejudice.
I enslave exactly as many people as I want to, zero.
The fact that you think enslavement is inevitable makes my trigger finger really fucking itching.
Not my anarchism.
Not even anarchism.
Malarchy.
Mal,
Archy.
Anarchy doesn’t mean passivist.
If someone wants to enslave me or anyone else without consent. Dead.
It’s not a discussion. It’s not like there is some gray area here. It’s a violation of everyone else’s freedom to consent.
Either we are all free or no one is free.
Taking someone freedoms is an assault on every other human and must be treated a such.
There are many other ways besides becoming them.
Sure, reasonable force.
But to jump from zero to over 9000…
Always a better way.
Explore the gray area you assert is not there.
It’s not a binary, of either consent or murder.
False dichotomy fallacy.
Self contradiction.
Are those you kill, free?
Or did you use your authority and violence to take away their freedom?
Maybe try educate them, plant some seeds, offer counter arguments, obsolete their foolish diminishment of potential, show them how they’re depriving themselves from their attempt to enslave others.
Either we are all free or no one is free.
Agreed.
I hope I’ve helped show you this.
Nicer to be free from murderous authorities imposing their way.
Sure, there are worse things than death, but that does not make that lesser evil good.
As emotive an impulse, and instinct, it is, to end the enslaver, there are more ways to end the enslaavement, than just killing the enslaver. Ways that don’t involve becoming a murderous tyrant.
Better the anarchy of
Either we are all free or no one is free.
than the malarchy of
“Do not appear as a slaver in my perception or I kill you.”
… ironic, how that can be seen in same light as the enslaver, and make you a target for those of the same philosophy.
An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth making the whole world blind and toothless again.
Well you and your neighbors and friends, and the greater community that has the same ideal. If you want to be left alone you have to fight in solidarity for it as long as there are those who act to disturb your peace. It’s a desire, a hope, not a adherence to passivism.
Removed by mod
Yeah not sure where you get your numbers from or the basis for that. I can’t imagine someone would be more of an asshole outside of capitalism. Maybe you have some shit neighbors or maybe not and you just need to talk to them.
I don’t know anarchism in depth but reading through the comments here, this is what strikes me as an obvious vulnerability of the ideology. That and the seeming lack of a mechanism against returnung to capitalist production.
The examples of societies in this thread are inefficient in terms of production. While that’s probably a good thing for quality of life, it tells me they likely wouldn’t be able to produce enough defence goods to stop a capitalist from taking over and throwing them into factories for 12 hours per day. Capitalism being great at producing weapons efficiently.
lack of a mechanism against returnung to capitalist production
Well, AnCaps are in a mechanism to return to capitalist production (and the consolidation of wealth towards corporatism, monopoly, and fascism).
So the anarchists to the left of that are doing better, even if it’s true that they have no mechanism against returning to capitalist production.
The philosophy, may be sufficient, without mechanism or overly structuralist strategies. And the more everybody’s empowered, the easier and more sure that may be.
Insurgency is an extremely effective strategy against capitalist imperialism. It’s had a near perfect record for 70yrs now. Not to comment on the majority of ideologies that have utilized it…
I have never heard an anarchist speak this way. I don’t want to be left alone, I simply don’t want a class of people who believe they hold authority over me as my superiors. Anarchists shouldn’t be using anyone. A stable anarchy can’t exist as long as people are still thinking in terms of using each other as resources for their own interests.
Murdering each other is against our nature but we’ve been doing it prolifically since the advent of agriculture so much so that war is seen as a “natural” part of life. The solution of killing all the bad guys so only good guys are left has probably been on the mind of most of those soldiers and military leader for the last 10,000 years. It turns out this approach doesn’t end authoritarianism or violence.
If somehow we killed 37% of the human population in no way would that bring us closer to a fair and equitable world. It would be exactly in line with dominator culture hegemony which has existed for the most recent few thousand years. What you described would not be revolutionary, but typical for the present buccaneer philosophy which is popular among the powerful and their thralls.
Removed by mod
What would the mechanism be to exterminate 37% of the human race with this degree of precision? Who would be in charge of it and why do we trust them not to continue using such a tool? If it’s not a military operation, what would it be?
A major, fundamental issue with your suggestion is that it assumes there are multiple species of humans which exist who are fundamentally different on a genetic level. If I was a god who could snap my fingers and instantly obliterate all conservatives, it would not be the end of conservatism. You yourself are locked in violent thinking, are you absolutely certain that your own children couldn’t possibly be attracted to violence when you yourself believe that mass violence on an unprecedented scale is the best opportunity to create a just world? Are you certain that no child born of any survivors would carry any temptation to take advantage of others as those in the past have? Are you sure no one in the surviving billions of people, generationally removed from your mass killing, would have the ability to re-invent a dipshit philosophy like fascism? I don’t think its bad genes which causes the myriad evils which result from trauma and poverty. As long as there is an incentive for people to behave in anti-social ways, people will behave in anti-social ways.
You are correct that unreasonable people can’t be reasoned with. Dogs also can’t be reasoned with but are not a threat to society. This is because we manage them. Trump has demonstrated that you can be a fool-whisperer like Cesar Milan is a dog-whisperer. The problem is that he uses his ability to influence fools for evil instead of good. These unreasonable fear-motivated dupes can be dealt with in ways that take advantage of their cowardice to neutralize themselves as a threat or depend on pro-social groups rather than use their cowardice to fuel despotism. The human race of which you and I are part will contain a vast array of people acting and being acted upon. We as a species can be influenced, but eugenic movements to root out undesirables have never worked.
Removed by mod
We’re not talking about the use of violence generally, which is a nuanced and vastly complex topic. We are talking about literally wiping out 37% of humanity, which is much less nuanced or complex. Such ideas should have been left behind during the previous century.
“Murdering each other is against our nature”
Nope. Genocide has always been with us. Where do you think all the other types of humans went?
A stable anarchy can’t exist
as long as people are still thinking in terms of using each other as resources for their own interests.FTFY. No point in pining for a social order fundamentally incompatible with human nature.
deleted by creator
So, are you volunteering to be “culled”?
You don’t need to “purge” 37% of the population under anarchy. If one trade union or labor syndicate goes fash, the others will just stop providing resources to them until they either realize being fascist isn’t sustainable or become powerless after being cut off. There’s a much more ethical way of dealing with authoritarians already accounted for in the theory, no violence required.
Unless it’s the Spanish Civil War, where the Comintern spent more effort killing anarchists/social democrats than fighting the fascists.
Been online 30 minutes ago and you still didn’t reply with any source or numeric information. Are you avoiding it on purpose?
Oh yeah? I didnt know about that. How many anarchists got killed by the Comintern during the Spanish Civil War? With a source, please?
Wait, is this the right place for the Spanish inquisition meme?
Nobody would expect it!
SEE!?
Everybody? See?
The authoritarian’s know what side they’re on.
Time to stop falling for pitchforks vs torches. Time to stop allying ourselves with our authoritarian counterparts.
Socialism threatens the elite’s wealth, fascism doesn’t
Isn’t that what happened in China during WWII as well?
I mean, it would be quicker to list the times in history when it didn’t happen.
see also the crushing of the Mahknovischna
Hryhoriv kinda poisoned the well for any vestige of the ataman system to have survived revolution.
Still waiting for a source on the numbers, could you please elaborate?
This seems like the most likely scenario in the US. America is full of idiots raging for the machine
America is full of idiots raging for the machine
Underrated comment.
Facts
Australian here: can confirm that all kangaroos are tankies.
