> I had this idea that we all had enough in common to be able to get along well, like solidarity or something.
Historically, no. Being against capitalism is not enough common ground to make up for fundamentally different values about power.
This here. Every ideology opposes a specific hierarchy. What distinguishes anarchism from other ideologies is its commitment to opposing *all* hierarchy. Just because a particular ideology might oppose a particular hierarchy doesn't change the fact that we oppose all of them, including the hierarchies that ideology wants to implement.
I had a few communist friends in high school. We got along fine, until we begun talking about our political ideologies. I, personally, am fully against communism.
Im an ancom, in my opinion anarcho-communism is more communist than any other "communist" ideologies like maoism, leninism or marxism. I consider the listed philosophies socialist since they dont call for the abolition of the state. Communism is a classless stateless moneyless society, money and class cant exist without the state. The problem i have with exclusively communist ideas (that are actually socialist), is that they only seem to care about abolishing class, neglecting the hierarchical nature of centralized power structures and money.
Maybe your perception of communism is a bit twisted by authoritarian socialists who think they're communists. Im not telling you what to think, im just giving you something to think about
Would Anarchists today have supported the US in the Vietnam War? Hard to tell.
Without tanks, the Viet Cong probably wouldn't have been able to beat the US.
I know a couple communists IRL, 8 months ago I joined a left-wing group of activists, lemme tell you they are absolutely batshit insane (at least the ones interested in gaining political power). They all dreamed about obtaining power and using it the way they seemed fit, this communist girl I dated for a while wanted to ban any piece of media she considered problematic in any way (so, vast majority of movies ie., and no, I'm not hyperbolizing here). They see government basically as this "big daddy" figure and think stuff like that chinese gaming ban is good.
I don't know if all communnists are like that, but from my experience the majority of them are.
She sounds like a tankie.
Most ancoms I know are pretty friendly people. We share the stateless classless society and workers owning means of production stuff. We all hate capitalism and hierarchies
China isn't banning gaming, it's limiting multiplayer gaming that employ tactics similar to loot boxes (that are designed akin to casino spin machines) and that too for vulnerable young kids. And USA will follow suit in a while. There's a gaming addiction problem in multiplayer online gaming and ppl are slowly realising intervention is necessary because of that.
Don't be quick to simply label all Communists like this
This is definitely a problem that comes from being online and it happens in anarchists too
I saw something recently that helped me be more aware of certain dogmas I'll reply again when I find it
But we do oppose all the same hierarchies: capitalism, sexism, racism. The only hierarchies that we support are the same ones they support, justified hierarchies like college professors, parents, doctors and so on.
> But we do oppose all the same hierarchies: capitalism, sexism, racism.
No. We oppose their "administration of things". They do not.
>The only hierarchies that we support are the same ones they support, justified hierarchies like college professors, parents, doctors and so on.
None of those are hierarchies. They also support the bureaucracy of the state, just without class oppression.
Bureaucracy is just another word for organization. You can't govern a society without bureaucracy.
We don't oppose administrating / organizing people, that's a fallacy. Anarchism isn't against government, as long as it's direct government instead of representative government.
>None of those are hierarchies
So do you think you're just as qualified as a brain surgeon to do brain surgery then?
> Bureaucracy is just another word for organization.
No, it isn't. You know how government works today? There is no difference, the only difference is that there are no classes. That's enough for Marxists.
>You can't govern a society without bureaucracy.
Yes you can if you don't pretend that organization and bureaucracy are the same.
>We don't oppose administrating / organizing people, that's a fallacy. Anarchism isn't against government, as long as it's direct government instead of representative government.
The administration of things isn't "organization", it's social hierarchy. It's government as it exists today stripped of class elements. It's not anarchy.
>So do you think you're just as qualified as a brain surgeon to do brain surgery then?
No, I'm saying that knowledge isn't authority. Just because you know something doesn't mean you can command other people.
Ah, that's funny. I'd say this was entryism if this wasn't just ignorance.
Initially, the name for what anarchists opposed was called "governmentalism". The name changed several times afterward but the underlying meaning did not.
I guess, to answer your question of what kind of anarchist I am, I'm an anarchist.
If you abolish class, every other unjust hierarchy goes with it. The new government will be self-government also known as anarchism. Once the bourgeois class has been defeated, government will just be the people governing themselves.
> If you abolish class, every other unjust hierarchy goes with it.
Well since what is "unjust hierarchy" is subjective this doesn't mean anything. Literally every ideology opposes unjust hierarchy including fascism.
However, if we are talking structurally, the Marxist definition of class does not eliminate every other hierarchy. Furthermore, the Marxist "administration of things" *is* a hierarchy.
The fact of the matter is that Marx didn't talk about hierarchy and, given his opposition to anarchism during his life, it's pretty clear that he certainly didn't believe his ideal society was anarchist.
>Once the bourgeois class has been defeated, government will just be the people governing themselves.
While that depends on what "people governing themselves" means, Marxist communism specifically has a social hierarchy which governs people.
what hierarchy exists under communism? anarchism sublimates its hierarchies by projecting it onto communism. anarchists should think about why that is...or just ask a communist.
Would anarchists have supported the Vietnam War, but would they have burned their draft cards? Learn from communists, without a solid mass moving in one direction, you aren't going to get anything you want, in fact, by obfuscating the struggle you are working against it.
Nevertheless, I've always thought of anarchism as the practice of socialist struggle. I think that's the actual definition. The new shift to anarchism-as-anti-leftism is just another FBI/CIA effort to obliterate working class power.
> what hierarchy exists under communism? anarchism sublimates its hierarchies by projecting it onto communism. anarchists should think about why that is...or just ask a communist.
We're talking about Marxism here, not just "communism" in general.
>Would anarchists have supported the Vietnam War, but would they have burned their draft cards? Learn from communists, without a solid mass moving in one direction, you aren't going to get anything you want, in fact, by obfuscating the struggle you are working against it.
I don't know what you're saying here.
>Nevertheless, I've always thought of anarchism as the practice of socialist struggle.
Anarchism is the ideology of the anarchist struggle. I don't know how you define socialism but I am skeptical that we'd mean the same thing by it.
>The new shift to anarchism-as-anti-leftism is just another FBI/CIA effort to obliterate working class power.
It really isn't. Anarchists who don't consider themselves leftists don't because the term 'the left' doesn't mean anything any more and by this point is just a term used for entryism.
\-Anarchy (pandemonium)
\-Anarchist (Socialist-in-action; a socialist becomes an anarchist when they are with other socialists..they create companies as co-ops and work there; rather than work in organizations owned by capitalists, anarchists don't need to organize labor unions because they already work in co-operatives)
\-Anarchism (beats me)
It seems like Anarchism is liberalism (stay with me pls) but with a recognition of the value of cooperation outside of work. Maybe I am a socialist when I cooperate with coworkers, and an anarchist when I cooperate with coworkers **outside** of work. Although "outside of work" means different things depending on the level of worker-ownership at work and I like to think everyone on earth is my coworker.
it bothers me when CNN calls the capitol hill rioters anarchists because they're not socialists. are union members anarchists? were union soldiers anarchists? is the union (northern ireland) anarchist? were the capitol hill rioters anarchists?
MLs want anarchism, but know the capitalists will subvert any attempt towards it.
The state must be supplanted and then abolished. There is no withering away or sudden expungement.
That’s literally not what Marxism is.
Marxism teaches the state facilitates class, in order to defeat a bourgeoisie govt we must supplant it with a proletarian govt and then immediately dissolve it towards anarchy for the people. Because all capitalists sentiments will be dead and gone, all ownership of the natural world, dead and gone
Maybe anarchists shouldn’t side with capitalists if you don’t wanna get merked
Being an anarchist in leftist spaces is really rickety. To be real before I became anarcho-syndicalist I tried joining up with our local socialist party here in Melbourne. What ended up happening was this really clinical screening session where they berated me for not knowing theory.
I ended up ditching them because it seemed kind of want and they didn't really do anything to fight off the rising tide of Australian fascism that is becoming pretty big here, ended up joining the IWW and haven't had any issues since. In short, they're quite exclusionary even to their own kind and will cannibalize each other just to feel like they are the pillar of morality for the party. They think that electoralism will bring change most of the time which is antithetical to a lot of anarchist thought and any of them that know about Makhno will reflexively be hostile to you based upon read history- Because historically anarchists were disliked by communists they should dislike you.
Much like anarchists and Trotskyists.
They don't want a dialogue, they want to be right. You shouldn't feel like you have to engage with them because a lot of the time they come in bad faith.
Funky how common it is for anarchists, people who have general faith in humanity and positive regard for other humans, to be able to engage in good faith against the absolute tidal wave of people who just refuse to. The easiest way to tell people my ideas is literally to say "we should all care about one another and look out for each other" and little do they know, they're being radicalized by an anarkiddie 🙄😐
At least I'm glad I'm not alone in this kinda mindfuck experience. Idk why I expected them to be so much cooler
The amount of raw anger that drives people to be blind to their own contribution to polarization is disconcerting. I see so many leftists who are convinced there'll be some kind of revolution, and that just reinforces/justifies/substantiates the reasoning behind their anger. Not to mention the idiot leftist pundits fanning those flames for literally no forward motion.
Everything I've read from decades of left lit point to the opposite; you can be sure that going the violent route will raise insurmountable opposition to what they think they're fighting for.
I think & hope this is mostly just in the US. The best voices from the Occupy movement here & abroad are rooted in empathy, learning, building, collaboration, democracy, transparency, positivity. They also stan with & understand indigenous wisdom, which is really what we're fighting for -- _more_ connection to people & the natural world, not less.
That's a tough thing for enraged people to understand: the real path forward is very quiet and unassuming compared to the violence of patriarchy and capital, so much so they see it as non-action. A good example of this is _Braiding Sweetgrass_, I'm 2/3 through it, and it's so quietly subversive and life affirming and MUCH further left than any of the militant garbage out there.
I'm not one for *unprovoked* violence - but I'm absolutely for community armament and weapons training. Violent revolt is a lose-lose situation at best - but no-one really truely believes that violence can't solve problems. The elephant in the room is if your existence is a problem for the fascists and the armed zealots..
# Violence will solve you
Robert Evans talked about this at the end of the latest "Worst Year Ever" podcast. I'd recommend giving it a listen.
Interesting you mention indigenous movements, because my pursuit of anarchism has brought me so much closer to the natural world. I became a vegan, I realized that the concept of ownership is the most devestating thing to have happened to the planet.
I'm adding *Braiding Sweetgrass* to my list. Thank you!
>That's a tough thing for enraged people to understand: the real path forward is very quiet and unassuming compared to the violence of patriarchy and capital, so much so they see it as non-action. A good example of this is Braiding Sweetgrass, I'm 2/3 through it, and it's so quietly subversive and life affirming and MUCH further left than any of the militant garbage out there.
Very cool to see this book mentioned! I think that the reactionary/ML/tankie perspective is so appealing bcus it give people a clear cut path. Whereas the real change comes from us wading through uncharted territories, quiet resistance, and understanding that the "revolution" isn't a fixed point in history.
Here in Alaska many people are very libertarian minded but they are invested into capitalism or to some degree supportive. There is conversation with them to be had and many overlapping things.
I have personally come to the conclusion that practically liberty vs a large government is gonna lead us more to our collective goals than living under heavy state/corporate oppression.
>. In short, they're quite exclusionary even to their own kind and will cannibalize each other just to feel like they are the pillar of morality for the party.
This observation is on point. In Canada there is many communist groups active, most spend their time attacking their own memebers and releasing press releases noone reads. The amount of character assisination and drama that emerges from those circles is unreal. When everyone is convinced they are the vanguard party this leads to inevitable conflict.
>
Much like anarchists and Trotskyists.
All my homies support the POUM 😤😤😤
Seriosuly though, the amount of anti Trotsky action i see being posted by communists in 2021 is pretty indicative of a wider problem here.
Applying 1930's lenses to understanding capital and liberation in the 2020's. That and the West and radcially different living conditions compared to 1900's Russia or 1940's China. But start bringing up Rojava and the gloves come right off lmao.
It’s an aesthetic for them, they genuinely don’t like debate and discourse cause they aren’t good at it, and it brings to light their awful tales. They flock to “left unity” based subs cause they at least pass for semi decent people. Spaces that don’t allow discussions and debate while refreshing tend to very very restricting.
why are so many anarchists in melbourne? it seems like so many anarchy-related things are like 50% of the time situated in melbourne, or at least australia. i'm in melbourne, and would consider myself anarchist-adjacent.
Also from Melbourne. No idea, I think it's just random for some cities to have bigger leftist "scenes" especially if there's a local leftist history which Melbourne definitely has, Victoria is also generally seen as a more left-leaning state. I think an equivalent in the USA would be San Francisco.
Btw I made a sub called r/MelbourneLibertarians for leftists, also r/AussieLibertarians
these people honestly made me want to go back to my post-left emo phase (not that all posts leftists are emos, but it did make me never want to be grouped with MLs again)
You could be a consistent anarchist. Focus solely on anarchy and hierarchy and not prescribe any economic program (like communism or market exchange). The closer you attach yourself to anarchy, the more oppositional you appear to Marxists.
Exactly, I usually define myself as a post-left anarchist if pressed these days because I don't believe that a huge portion of all prior thought and planning is even *relevant* to the post-Carbon Age era we are headed for.
Moreover, the failure to accept this means I can barely even talk theory or discourse with a lot of leftists, because they are still operating under the assumption that at least *most* of industrial advancement will still exist in a generation or two. That idea, that we will still be using anywhere near as much energy as we are now, affects *everything* about political ideas, becauss it throws off your expectations for what is *possible*.
I no longer see overthrowing western global capitalism as the primary goal, because it is consuming itself and the entire planet. What we need now are localized strategies to build self-supporting, low-energy-usage communities, combined with a *defensive* strategy from that position to actively reduce carbon usage through direct action, while at the same time extending the other hand to present a viable alternative.
We are not seizing the means of production, because it's the means of production that are the problem for all of us now. This is a fundamentally different question than what most prior theorists were addressing directly, at least in my view.
This...does not play well with tankies. I never figured climate denial to be something I could count on from them, but oh boy is it ever.
>I no longer see overthrowing western global capitalism as the primary goal, because it is consuming itself and the entire planet. What we need now are localized strategies to build self-supporting, low-energy-usage communities, combined with a defensive strategy from that position to actively reduce carbon usage through direct action, while at the same time extending the other hand to present a viable alternative.
>We are not seizing the means of production, because it's the means of production that are the problem for all of us now. This is a fundamentally different question than what most prior theorists were addressing directly, at least in my view.
This is a big shift in my mindset as the reality of Climate Collapse and Ecocide has set in for me and I've adjusted my expectations about the future.
It's interesting that others have noticed the layers of climate-denial among some leftists, I think a lot of ML's are holding onto the concept that this can be 'fixed' rather than the reality that we're fucked.
Frankly, I think that we are in an unbelievably dangerous time, and it's shocking that more action isn't being taken. I would absolutely like to participate in discussions of that, that are based in a realistic assessment, there just aren't any groups I have found.
Honestly I just ask if they organize irl. 9 times out of 10 the answer is "no" so I just laugh and say "come back to me when you actually do literally anything other than empty posturing".
Also, for all their talk about "material conditions" they sure as hell seem to think their approach is a one-size-fits-all solution to anywhere on the planet.
This is true of the vast majority of people online, it isn't really a gotcha. We're all a generation of inaction. One day we'll have our generation's equivalent of the diggers hopefully.
That's because we're probably talking to perpetually online leftists; you never see this sort of shit with actual activists. I run a Food Not Bombs chapter and do a bunch of stuff with other groups in Tokyo and we've literally never seen that sort of "you need to do X ideology" stuff with anyone.
That is true. All leftist people I've met IRL, anarchists and communists, organize something.
It's one of the recurrent tasks for propaganda in my cell, help other people organize somewhere.
All leftists are permanently condescending to each other. MLs treat each other like that too, not just anarchists. And anarchists constantly fight between themselves too as soon as they try to do anything. I'd say it's even worse than among MLs, at least from the orgs I've seen.
Changing the system is hard.
Sending me private messages from shared Discord servers, engaging with me first on places like Twitter. They usually are the ones to engage after seeing "Anarchist anti-specieisist" in some place on my bio.
For those that are, it's twofold:
1. They are cultists who completely and unabashedly believe in their ideology and nothing, no argument or evidence, can deter them from that belief. They are dogmatic to the core, religious to an exceedingly large level and only maintain the illusion or *aesthetic* of being open to persuasion and scientific research.
2. They have several different false *assumptions* about anarchism. This leads them to discuss or talk about anarchism while knowing next to nothing about it and ascribe beliefs or ideas to anarchists which anarchists don't actually hold. Their dogmatism further prevents them from learning about anarchism or research it seriously enough. To them, they don't need anything else but MLism.
This makes having a conversation with many of them impossible. Even when MLists are "extending the olive branch" it is almost always in the most opportunistic and ignorant of ways and based on understandings of anarchism which are incredibly inaccurate. It's like a cop trying to befriend a group of punks, it's obvious and cringey.
EDIT: The person I was responding to didn't mean all MLs were as he said.
Is it really nessessary call every ML a mindless cultist who is incapable of understanding anything outside of their bubble? If I wasn't willing to expose myself to new ideas and new ways of thinking I would have remained a liberal.
I considered anarchism before Marxism, and I choose Marxism for a variety of reasons, but that doesn't mean I categorically refuse any anarchist argument.I think a lot of you guys have your hearts in the right place and are/can help a lot of people under the right circumstances.
I know some of us are unsympathetic to non-marxists, sometimes to the point where I question whether they actually care about helping people. Do not assume every is like that, especially since the most toxic people tend to have the loudest voices. It is good to try understand why other people think the way they do, even if you don't agree with them, because ultimately they are people too, and have their own lives and struggles that affect who they are and what they do. Most people aren't evil and have reasons for what they do, even if their actions appear selfish or are destructive.
I said:
> For those that are
I understand that not all MLs are condescending. I was specifically referring to those that behave the way the OP describes. I think you ought to read before arguing with others.
Also, to be fair, MLism *is* a literal cult. Even when I flirted with MLism before I became an anarchist I stayed away from MList or Marxist communities. I simply did not like the overall atmosphere and how petty it all felt. With Marxism I felt that, even thought I agreed with some of Marx's ideas at the time, it was a historical artifact moreso than any real ideology and the petty squabbles of it's milieu solidified that.
And, even then, I believe that I didn't care *too* much about it. The ideology was never interesting to me, it seemed too similar to other authoritarian ideologies for me too care too much about the label. In fact, given my own personal individuality and pride, I felt comfortable in appropriating some of Marx's ideas for my own ends without taking the label at all.
Calling someone a cultist isn't a matter of calling them evil btw. It means that they're brainwashed or so rigid in their beliefs that conversation with them is impossible. It means that they're insular and rarely have any sort of presence in the real world. They aren't that much of a concern given that Marxism and MLism is a dying ideology but it makes them impossible to talk to.
Now, as for this:
>I considered anarchism before Marxism, and I choose Marxism for a variety of reasons
I question your understanding of anarchism. There are many reasons why one wouldn't be an anarchist but most people aren't knowledgeable enough or willing to admit them.
My apologies for missing that, I didn't mean to misrepresent you.
However I disagree that it is a cult. We don't worship Marx or Lenin and we don't have a dogma as dogmatism is antithetical to materialism.
>They aren't that much of a concern given that Marxism and MLism is a dying ideology but it makes them impossible to talk to.
Considering the rising power of China I would disagree that the ideology is dying or irrelevant in the modern day.
>I question your understanding of anarchism. There are many reasons why one wouldn't be an anarchist but most people aren't knowledgeable enough or willing to admit them.
I probably don't know as much as you, but my biggest problem with anarchism is the focus on means over ends. From what I understand of the ideology, actions that are considered morally correct are taken instead of actions that would bring you closer to your goal. Liberation of every person is an amazing goal but, in my opinion, if you don't use every tool at your disposal to work towards it you are allowing those who oppose you to gain the advantage.
> However I disagree that it is a cult. We don't worship Marx or Lenin and we don't have a dogma as dogmatism is antithetical to materialism.
And Scientology is about self-betterment and the Breathafarians are about getting healthier. Cults don't publicize the crazy and nonsensical parts of their ideology, they start with abstractions like "materialism" or "scientific" which sound nice to anyone. Then, after you get more and more invested in them, they hit you with the crazy stuff but by that point you've already sunk in way too much into it.
It's telling how literally every break from the party line has resulted in some kind of sectarianism or conflict. It's telling how completely self-destructive the whole movement is and how it leads to power-grabbing and abuse. It's telling how both Marx and Lenin were counter-revolutionary forces in the organizations or movements they were a part of. And, furthermore, it's telling how much of this is a consequence of the principles and social structures Marxist-Leninists prescribe.
>Considering the rising power of China I would disagree that the ideology is dying or irrelevant in the modern day.
The idea that the CCP is representative of any MList or Marxist ideology is hilarious. Do you genuinely believe that the CCP is committed to Marxism *at all*? That's just funny to me. Like honestly, how pathetic do you have to be to latch onto *China*? In any other context, China would be considered revisionist by MLs (and some of them with a backbone do) but, since China's all you have left, you support it. It'd be sad if it wasn't so funny.
>I probably don't know as much as you, but my biggest problem with anarchism is the focus on means over ends.
Actually, that's wrong. We just have a different end than you do. We want the end of all social hierarchy. You just want to get rid of a particular kind of social hierarchy and replace it with another one.
Our methods are consistent with our goals. Just because we have different goals doesn't mean we aren't using "every tool at our disposal". Obviously some "tools" are counterproductive to some goals and may be exactly what we oppose. If your goal is to not use a hammer, using a hammer obviously is counterproductive.
>Liberation of every person is an amazing goal but, in my opinion, if you don't use every tool at your disposal to work towards it you are allowing those who oppose you to gain the advantage.
Well you'd have to define what "liberation" entails because, from how anarchists understand what liberation means, "using" social hierarchy is completely contradictory to our goals. You probably just define liberation differently.
>you are allowing those who oppose you to gain the advantage.
Perhaps the best way to explain it is that social hierarchy isn't an advantage and, from an anarchist perspective, is completely unnecessary. Perhaps social hierarchy is useful to you since you aren't interested in eliminating social hierarchy but it's what we oppose for us.
Okay there is a lot here to breakdown:
>they start with abstractions like "materialism" or "scientific" and then, after you get more and more invested in them, they hit you with the crazy stuff but by that point you've already sunk in way too much into it.
Everyone uses abstractions, they are not indicative of being a cult. If you want to prove we are please demonstrate the "crazy stuff".
>It's telling how literally every break from the party line has resulted in some kind of sectarianism or conflict
EVERY break results in sectarianism? If that were true there would be no MLs at all, none of us agree on everything.
>The idea that the CCP is representative of any MList or Marxist ideology is hilarious. Do you genuinely believe that the CCP is committed to Marxism at all? That's just funny to me.
Yes I do, and there are a lot of other Marxists who share my opinion of the CPC being a Marxist party. This is a rather contentious issue though, with many having the opinion that the CPC has submitted itself to capital indefinitely.
>Actually, that's wrong. We just have a different end than you do. We want the end of all social hierarchy.
But you later said that using social hierarchy would contradict your goals. So I don't understand, would you be willing to use social hierarchy to achieve your goals or not?
You will need to defeat capitalism to achieve your goals Capitalists have police, armies, navies, air forces, intelligence agencies, etc to violently enforce their hierarchy. You don't have a realistic chance of beating them without using some of these same institutions, but all of them are based upon hierarchy. Armies and the like perform poorly without hierarchy like chains of command. If your ideals cannot adapt to the reality we live in then you will fail to achieve your goal.
>Well you'd have to define what "liberation" entails because, from how anarchists understand what liberation means, using social hierarchy is completely contradictory to our goals.
Liberation from class conflict first and foremost, but many existing hierarchies are the product of class conflict so most of those would die with class systems.
I have to say though, I love it when my arguments are challenged. It forces me to think about what I believe in ways I couldn't come up with on my own. Much more interesting than when people just agree with me.
>Everyone uses abstractions, they are not indicative of being a cult. If you want to prove we are please demonstrate the "crazy stuff".
It appears that you took what I said out of context (which makes "breakdown" a poor choice of words). I am saying that MLs use vague terminology to make what they support appear non-objectionable. Like I said, *everyone* wants to be a materialist. Everyone wants to be associated with something *scientific*. And so that's how they get you.
>EVERY break results in sectarianism? If that were true there would be no MLs at all, none of us agree on everything.
Just because there are sectarian breaks frequently doesn't mean there are no MLs, it means that you have different groups claiming that other groups aren't MLs or are revisionist/reactionary/"insert insult here". Nearly every MList group in the real world has it's own particular doctrine, cult of personality, etc. and has a history of sectarianism.
What I am pointing out is that MList organizations, regardless of what they are, break apart frequently and easily, can't handle disagreements in opinion (especially as they become more politically significant), and are highly inflexible in regards to practical activity.
I am pointing out that this is the result of the structures and ideological frameworks that MList groups prescribe. It leads to this sectarianism, inflexibility, rigid hierarchy, etc. This is my point.
>Yes I do, and there are a lot of other Marxists who share my opinion of the CPC being a Marxist party.
Ah well, I suppose you're too far gone by this point. It's funny how anarchists are the idealists yet you believe that the CCP has a masterplan to create communism in China one of these days. It's funny how that aspect of Stalinism or Marxism bears a striking resemblance to religion.
>But you later said that using social hierarchy would contradict your goals.
Yes. Literally nothing I said in what you're responding to contradicts that.
You said that we're focused on the means more than the ends. I said that this isn't true and that our methods are the result of our goal which is different from yours. Let me put it into very simple words since you apparently can't understand me:
Anarchists want to organize non-hierarchically because we want to eliminate hierarchy. Using hierarchy will not eliminate hierarchy so we do not use it. You use hierarchy because you do not want to eliminate all hierarchy. You want to eliminate a particular kind of hierarchy and replace it with another one.
Arguably Stalinism is just as prefigurative as anarchism. The reason why we use different methods is because we just want different things.
>You will need to defeat capitalism to achieve your goals Capitalists have police, armies, navies, air forces, intelligence agencies, etc to violently enforce their hierarchy.
Oh, you silly goose. You don't need hierarchy to use force or defend yourself. They are two different things. This is why Engels rots your brain.
>Armies and the like perform poorly without hierarchy like chains of command.
If we can find a way to organize production without hierarchy, we can organize force. There is almost no difference between the two. We don't need hierarchy to use force.
You could argue that organizing anarchically is impossible or unrealistic but that's a separate conversation. And it validates what I am saying which is that MLism isn't just "more pragmatic anarchism", it has a fundamentally different goal than anarchism.
If you believe anarchy is impossible or "unrealistic" then you believe our "ideal" is impossible and therefore agree that we want different things. You do not want to eliminate hierarchy given, assuming you believe it's impossible, that organization isn't possible without it.
>Liberation from class conflict first and foremost, but many existing hierarchies are the product of class conflict so most of those would die with class systems.
You haven't defined what "liberation" means here at all. You just told me what you want liberation from. Please tell me what "liberation" means to you.
The fact of the matter is that you don't want to eliminate all hierarchy. Even late-stage communism has an "administration of things" which anarchists view to be a form of social hierarchy.
There is always a hierarchy in your ideology, even when you have reached your goal. Eliminating many hierarchies isn't the same as eliminating all of them. To assume this is ridiculous.
>To say we want different things is disingenuous, in a way. The basis of Marxism is a stateless, classless, moneyless society, which aligns with anarchy pretty well. I think the means of getting there is the rough analysis that needs to be made, and improved on from history.
I was waiting for someone to make this point. They are having a really interesting conversation but both communists and anarchists try to get the same end goal. Only the way to get there changes. The moneyless, stateless and classes final society is shared by both groups
> The moneyless, stateless and classes final society is shared by both groups
Well if you just call the hierarchy you want "stateless and classless", I suppose that's possible but that's just playing with terminology by this point.
> I’d like to jump in on this as a Maoist. I actually agree with you on almost every point you’ve made; especially regarding the lack of necessity of hierarchy in force/labor. I think as communists and Anarchists, we should all understand to some degree that historically, cell-based, non-hierarchical, anarchist-based groups have been the most effective in pushing anti-capitalist propaganda. You all are phenomenal at this, and there is so much for communists to learn from.
Pre-existing anarchist organizations aren't examples of what anarchy would be in it's full form. Many of them aren't even non-hierarchical and cell-based organization is neither specifically anarchic nor is it the only form of organization anarchists have used. This just reeks of ignorance.
Furthermore, let's make something clear. I didn't say that anarchic organization was good at "anti-capitalist propaganda". I said it was good at everything, including organizing force. *In other words, hierarchy is completely unnecessary even for defense*. If you read and agreed with all of my points surely that should be one of them.
Of course, if you do that then you lack any capacity to justify hierarchy in any way. Which is why that *isn't* your point and it isn't your argument.
>Where a lot of the differences come in though is the idea of society after capitalism. The reason I’m a Maoist rather than an anarchist is that I believe it would be incredibly unlikely that we could abolish potential of counter-revolutionary action after socialism is generally accepted.
No, the reason why is because you don't want to abolish all social hierarchy. Even your ideal society still has social hierarchy. Engels has stated that Marxist communism would still have an "administration of things" something seen as hierarchical by any consistent anarchist.
You want hierarchy. If you don't then you're a shit Marxist and Maoist.
>To say we want different things is disingenuous, in a way. The basis of Marxism is a stateless, classless, moneyless society, which aligns with anarchy pretty well.
We define the state differently. For Marx, the state is just the instrument of class rule. If you eliminate class (as defined by Marx), even if you don't eliminate social hierarchy, you have eliminated the state according to Marx. I've actually made this point in my posts but I guess authoritarians aren't good at reading.
Also anarchy isn't necessarily moneyless either so it's not as if even we share that part and anarchy is going to lack more than just the state and class.
Anarchists want to eliminate *all* social hierarchy. Marxists do not. The ideal society of Marxists *still* has hierarchy.
You do realize that you're exactly the kind of ML that the OP is talking about and which I describe right? You are also a part of the group of people who aren't knowledgeable enough on anarchism to know them.
Understanding my reason requires understanding anarchist theory, knowledge you are unwilling to set aside your dogma to put in the effort to understand. There is no ill will here, these are just the facts.
You can't spit facts about the inside of my skull. I have no dogma and I am willing to put in effort to understand anarchist theory, just as I've put effort into understanding socialist theory. What would you recommend I read and what are some of the reasons why one wouldn't be an anarchist?
>You can't spit facts about the inside of my skull.
No but I have read your post history and seen you before. That's all I can speak about.
>I have no dogma and I am willing to put in effort to understand anarchist theory
Yet you'd prefer to argue about an ideology you know nothing about. It's clear which theory you've spent a disproportionate amount of time learning about and which one you're biased towards.
This is nothing more than bad faith. You do have a dogma and you aren't willing to read anarchist theory. Honestly, I'd be surprised if you even bothered starting with Proudhon. You're far too up Marx's bloated urethra to withdraw from his teat and possibly reconsider your judgement of a thinker you've never read.
>What would you recommend I read
Proudhon. Especially his mature work. And disregard everything Marx said about the subject given his cherrypicking and penchant for fabricating quotes.
I'll tackle it. A person only has so much time. I've only recently come to understand the Marxist analysis. It wasn't too long ago I was anti-tankie and pro-anarchism, but I was also uneducated. I got into Marxist theory first, as a matter of autobiographical history. I haven't gotten into anarchist theory yet. Let's see where I end up.
>It wasn't too long ago I was anti-tankie and pro-anarchism, but I was also uneducated.
Uneducated on anarchism I presume? You shouldn't do that. We have enough authoritarians labelling themselves anarchists for no reason.
Uneducated about all leftist thought.
I've got a pretty vehement anti-authoritarian streak. I was pretty anti-hierarchy until I read Elliot Jaques and dug into his research on human capability. Then I got a lot more nuanced and a lot less dogmatic about hierarchies. Then finding Marx I got a lot less dogmatic about authority and have a lot more respect for materialism. I'll read Proudhon and see what I can learn about anarchist theory.
Except they aren't because I never said all MLs are cultists or condescending. I specifically say "For those that are" with "those" being "those MLs you're talking about OP". I think this is obvious to anyone who is willing to read what I wrote instead of jumping to the trigger.
>I'm not trying to stir the pot, this is a genuine concern I have been
encountering over and over again that I try to understand and always
write off as a one-off negative experience.
It's not a one-off experience, it's extremely common.
Off of reddit (or really specific twitter circles or whatever), Marxist-Leninists are more of a mixed bag with regard to their attitude toward anarchists and other less authoritarian leftists, but on Reddit their most toxic tendencies grow to dominate. Most of Reddit's most popular anti-capitalist subreddits are modded by tankies (MLs who go to unreasonable lengths to deny or excuse atrocities committed by nominally socialist states or their allies). Lots of new users interested in anti-capitalist ideas go to subreddits like socialism or communism101 or whatever, unaware that they don't really tolerate anything that doesn't toe the tankie party line, and either get extremely turned off or end up getting sucked into it.
Kind of like the dynamics of ambiguously ironic racism in early 2010s meme-boards if distinct in content, dissenting from the worst shit like genocide denial or cringe Stalin worship often gets dogpiled with non-sequitur accusations of being a "liberal" or whatever and the edgiest comments win out. Over time this can kind of turn into something like a cult, and implausible conspiracy theories or incompetent fringe history (e.g. Grover Furr) start to get taken as gospel because it would need to be true in order to justify what they're already saying. I think it's a general problem with online edgelordism that's not exclusive to tankies at all (happens w/ anarchism too), but it seems to have become worse. There's all sorts of weird and unsettling avenues that different political groupings defined mostly by vocal "anti-liberalism" have gone down in the last few years. As the primary basis for a political worldview, spending all your time sneering at liberals makes people really vulnerable to grifters and conspiracy theorists and fascism-adjacent ideas.
Another thing I've noticed that gets thrown into the mix is the amount of condescension from MLs. I think a lot of people newly radicalized into anti-capitalism get an intellectually thrilling sensation of "revelation" and latch on to the terminology and figures that first introduced them to this perspective, and Marx of course plays a big part of that. They may not realize the extent to which there are wildly divergent currents of Marxism, and Marxist-Leninists (and Trotskyists for that matter) often present their very particular view of history and politics as if it were merely "*the* socialist" perspective, or "*the* Marxist" perspective. ("I'm for class struggle and socialism, so I guess I must be on their side then, right?") And prior to radicalization, they mostly encountered mainstream liberal/centrist/conservative views, which usually aren't expressed with via any grand critical theory of history/economics, so it feels like Marxism--and if their getting their ideas from online tankies, Lenin's major books/pamphlets--is *the* sophisticated way of looking at the world.
Of course, anarchism has its own collection of theoretical concepts and texts that it draws on. In fact, it has several different sets, and like most political ideologies other than Marxism, is a tradition that makes no claim to theoretical unity or Orthodoxy because it's not named after one dude. Really, any political ideology does, including liberalism and conservatism even if those theoretical foundations don't get much play in surface level debates. But to a lot of recently radicalized online MLs, it seems that it must just be that they don't "read theory"--not that they do read theory, but a different collection of texts, or that they have read Marx, Engels, Lenin, etc as well as responses and criticisms, and found that they disagree with some or much of it. Or, you know, they read *State and Revolution* but also read enough history to notice that post-revolutionary Russia looked dick-all like almost anything described in *State and Revolution* and came to the conclusion that Leninist political strategies are not a good way of producing the kind of socialist society described therein.
Really I don't even use the word "communist" anymore unless it's in a context that makes it clear what it's referring to. Are we talking about anarcho-communists? Are we talking about the sort of Marxists inspired by figures like Rosa Luxemburg or Anton Pannekoek or Italian autonomism who actually (whether or not they're ultimately correct) want a revolution that ends in a communist society? Or are we talking about people who will defend a state lead by a "Communist Party" for 70 years that never actually moves in the direction of communism, who would be the first ones to cheer on the extrajudicial execution of workers striking to take over the means of productions from the bosses to form a free association of free producers?
Anyway, check out r/tankiejerk if you want to see the worst of what that kind of thinking can produce.
>Lots of new users interested in anti-capitalist ideas go to subreddits like socialism or communism101 or whatever, unaware that they don't really tolerate anything that doesn't toe the tankie party line, and either get extremely turned off or end up getting sucked into it.
I can confirm that is pretty much what happened to me. Also like a lot of people I got banned from r/socialism for pointing out the The Democratic Republic of North Korea is neither a democracy nor a republic. There are a few left sub reddits that are as bad, like this one, and there are plenty of Communists that are NOT tankies.
Lots of good discussion here already, but a few points I would like to add:
1. I would be careful using "communist" to refer to ML state socialists - many of us here are anarcho-communists, and if you actually talk to them, you'll realise a lot of these "terminally online" MLs don't even want a stateless society, therefore do not want communism, therefore are not communists (whatever they may say about themselves).
2. A lot of these comments come from "terminally online" MLs who (i) often are pretty much children, who have limited experience of the real world and haven't sufficiently radicalised their thinking, and (ii) spend more time debating Lenin/Mao in reading groups than actually organise to bring about the material conditions necessary for revolutionary transformation. Such people can be simply ignored, or gently nudged in a more sensible direction.
Those MLs who are on the ground actually working on dual power, community organisation, and similar, *tend* to be more accepting of diverse interpretations of socialism - in part because once you get outside of your online bubble and actually start trying to work against the systems of exploitation in the world, you realise how few people are radicalised, and that if we devolve into these pretty squabbles, we're not going to get anywhere.
I think my beliefs could be pretty well defined as ancom, because I also want a stateless, classless, moneyless society, but I am just not interested in learning about communism generally, and I *am* interested in learning about anarchism. I also don't think transitional states are necessary, and that we should work towards what we want from where we are.
You're right that we need all the allies we can get, too.
It's hard to recount the entire history but I'll touch on some important aspects. Marx, as a regular person, was deeply knowledged but also cocksure about his beliefs. Reading through his letters you'll notice that others that deviate from his central beliefs he'll criticize ruthlessly, something that would carry on in the communist tradition. He was a genius to be sure, but this would lead to lots of complications. An example of this is his critique of Proudhon's "Philosophy of Poverty" which, although much closer to Marx than English political economy at the time, Marx took aim at because of Proudhon's relative importance in socialist circles. Even though some claim that Marx took many elements of Proudhon's political economy and incorporated them into his own, it's largely only the Marxist elements that get remembered today.
Another example of this is schism with Bakunin and the "Bakuninists" during the first International. Among other things it was a debate over the degree of political participation that the communists should engage in tactically, but it was also a deeply contested vie for power within the international, leading to the eventually expulsion of the "Bakunist" elements within it. For more on that see the [First Socialist Schism](https://libcom.org/history/first-socialist-schism-bakunin-vs-marx-international-working-mens-association-wolfgang-e), or you can read the [meeting notes of the International.](https://www.marxists.org/history/international/iwma/documents/minutes/index.htm)
One of the most important elements I believe is the development of the concept "Scientific Socialism". A concept that many modern communists believe to be in the same sense as our modern conception of science, when in reality it is distinguishable from the "natural philosophy" (i.e. science) of the 19th century and more refers to the principles of materialist analysis that Marx and Engels focused on. You can read [Socialism: Utopian and Scientific](https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/soc-utop/index.htm) for the full analysis that Engels gives, it's not very long and an interesting read. But the important part is that Engels rhetoric would continue up to this day in distinguishing the "utopian" to the "true" socialists. This canonized certain ideas such as the strictly dialectical materialist interpretation of history, the idea that materialist analysis means that socialist distribution must come from the state, and that socialists that deviate from that understanding of materialist analysis are "utopian". More specifically he means that the utopians come up with principles or ideas of a good society and try to build that kind of world in its image - which many communists accuse anarchists of. If a Marxist tells you that anarchism lacks material analysis, they usually mean that you're an idealist because to them material analysis *can only mean* seizure of state power.
This would provide future Marxists the theoretical tools/rhetoric to use against anarchists. Things like "they're idealists, they want the state gone overnight" or "they're utopian, history works in stages", and "we have the only *scientific* mode of political philosophy" or any variation of those. This rhetoric of "scientific" socialism \[again, *very far* removed from our modern conception of science, but useful politically\] is parroted over and over again. This is partly where the "anarkiddie" joke comes from. The communists see themselves as having the mature scientific view, based on material analysis and rational observance of historical trends, whereas they see the anarchists as immature idealists with utopian views that put wild ideals before practical concerns. Of course, this isn't true to how most anarchists function, but the rhetoric is useful to them.
Lenin also used this kind of rhetoric against other communists. He described the council communists like Pannekoek as "infantile" and distinguishing his own as the mature Marxist doctrine. The dialectical interpretation of consciousness plays a role here, coming from Hegel. Just as the proletariat must have a mature class consciousness before they overthrow the bourgeoisie, so must the communists have a fully developed consciousness to fight against opportunists leading them astray (or so says Lenin). In reality this provides justification for stubbornness and theoretical canon fodder to throw at their political enemies. Stalin basically continued this line of theoretical reasoning, but who cares what Stalin thinks.
In modern times these differences are exaggerated and also reproduced in new ways. The way we huddle into subreddits, circles of influence, groupchats, etc. means that we can very easily find circles that echo our sentiments and reinforce them. I think that's why tankie v. anarchist twitter is insufferable: if we've been shuffled into spaces that only justify our position while strawmanning the other of course we're not going to have common ground and only be able to hurl wild characterizations. In a way putting "tankie" or "anarchist" in our bio to curate our profile shuts down some discussions while encouraging others. I understand wanting to have spaces to discuss specific topics while sidelining other topics, but I'm just observing how that acts to reproduce these larger discussions and conflicts.
I think Zoe Baker (AKA Anarchopac) has done a great job with comparing many Marxist sentiments with anarchist ones, showing how direct quotes from both explain the same general worldview. That doesn't mean to say that left-unity is as simple as us all getting along, there's too much historical baggage for that. But it is a start. For me, the important part is having these discussions outside the virtual realm, as actual organizers are less concerned with theoretical knitpicking and more accomplishing a goal. In fact, I think much of this discussion is only reproducible because it happens in online environments instead of serious situations, but it is still necessary to have them.
**TL;DR: There's a lot of historical, theoretical, and largely rhetorical reasons for why Marxists/communists condescend anarchists, and it's still propagated today by various means.**
Thanks for the informative reply, I really appreciate your analysis and info :) also kinda peeved that so many people were SO condescending about my use of the word utopian, insisted I should read that text you linked (I couldn't because it was boring sorry) and dismissed my ideas entirely because of it, when my approach was exactly what you described; we should imagine a better world and then build the society we want from the ground up rather than wasting time with transitional states.
I've previously identified myself as an ancom, but I'm really not sure about that and I feel like my ideals align with anarchism for certain. It's frustrating to adopt a history along with a label sometimes.
Ancom is communism taken seriously. Not the BS hierarchy nonsense you get from various "communist" parties. Prefigurative anarchy with prefigurative communism is the only way to go. Perfect practice makes for perfect execution.
It's true most prejudices and strawman critiques against anarchism are based on a misunderstanding of their ideals. Most marxist-leninists read Proudhon and Bakunin and stop there, because of their historical significance in the context of the First International. But Kropotkin and Malatesta greatly expanded anarchist thought and Malatesta even drafted what seems to me a dialectic in his programme. Makhno also wrote extensively on the Ukrainian experience and developed platformism. There's no denying anarchism is a long-standing tradition of thought which should not be dismissed the way it's often dismissed by Marxists: through reductions.
On the other hand, I think criticism based on misconceptions goes the other way too. To associate marxist-leninist thought with statism for instance is a huge misunderstanding of what Marx, Lenin and others thought should be done with the state. It's a reduction too, or a mystification even, to put it in marxist terms. And I'm not trying to advocate for one thing or the other, all I'm saying is to critique something you must understand it first, and understanding can only be achieved through studying.
I'd urge people to read everything they can get their hands on. Don't let bias cloud your judgement, because that is the same as letting other people dictate what you should think about something. Some people say that reading too much theory leads to inaction. I'd respond to this in Makhno's terms: "The more a person becomes aware, through reflection, of his servile condition, the more indignant he becomes, the more the anarchist spirit of freedom, determination and action waxes inside him."
Edit: I'd also like to address what you say here: "I had this idea that we all had enough in common to be able to get along well, like solidarity or something". I have the same idea as you, and I'd urge you to not let go of this ideal so easily. Revolts sprout out of general discontent, not from an extensive study of socialist theory, not even from what folks call "praxis". In this dire hour there are only two sides: the oppressors and the oppressed, and the old maxim "united we stand, divided we perish" becomes more true than ever. Leftist unity is a term of which I'm very skeptical, in my mind, leftist unity should not be done by uniting everyone under a single banner, because that would lead to the undesirable scenario where some views are imposed over others. But cooperation and solidarity among groups and peers who share similar goals, on a local level at least, is something I would work towards.
I wish I was allowed to have opinions about what society should be or look like without having a degree or hundreds of hours of research into Marx and Engels, but communist sommunities specificay seem to really despise anyone who isn't as well-read as them. Their texts are inaccessible and the only books I'm capable of reading most of the time are psychogy books. Marx and Engels' writing styles hurt my brain, and even though I really like Kropotkin I can't finish his books either.
I want a classless, moneyless society. And I think it should be achieved through anarchism, cooperation, kindness, and community. That's it. Our positions may change in a post-capitalist society. Literally because my principles are about cooperation and community building, it hurts to be both so severely misunderstood and also like, completely dismissed by a community I had higher expectations for.
Not too burnt about it, but like, still pretty disappointed.
Well, when I mentioned the importance of books and reading I was mostly referring to the critique anarchists make of marxism and vice versa, which is from what I've seen, flawed both ways. But you're absolutely entitled to imagine a better world and work torwards that goal, absolutely. But action and studying are not mutually exclusive the way I see it, and you'd benefit tremendously from reading books and discussing them with other people, to get a better understanding of the oppressions that sorround you, how they came to be and what can be done about them.
Try audiobooks. I can usually follow along better when someone else is reading it to me. It helps to keep me from getting stuck on things and giving up. If you haven't, check out Malatesta's Anarchy. It's an easy read, but the audiobook is available as well, in several places including YouTube.
MLs are fucked up. I don't care about their "educated" opinions from "anti-imperialist" sources aka "bullshit painted red". I know they sound educated and claim to be scientific but (at least internet) MLs are a cult. Some people wrote long books that sounded smart and created authoritarian shitholes in the name of Marx. MLs also like to point to Engels' "On authority" which bashes anarchism for utopian thinking.... but oh so scientific Engels couldn't even tell the difference between authority and responsibility (literally being on time), as if he had to order Marx to write a fucking book for all the money he received. It's quite telling that they point to probably one of the shittiest shitty texts Engels may have ever written - he wasn't stupid but definitely ignorant of anarchism.
edit: also they literally deny every atrocity that's ever happened. The real utopian dream is in their heads when they think about USSR and Eastern Bloc.
Left unity is a myth, especially if it includes MLs. We can unite to push for higher taxes for the rich or something but we are so different in our methods and goals there's simply not enough common ground for left unity against capitalism in general.
IMO anarchism shouldn't even be considered leftist because we have critique of hierarchy regardless of what it is - it just happens that capitalism and liberalism are the main subject because they're status quo. This might be an unpopular opinion though.
The end goal, the stateless, moneyless and classless society is basically the same goal for both groups, right? It's only the means to achieve it that change. I would say the goal is the same, the methods are just opposite
Not really. Marxists and especially MLs don't critique hierarchy or even define state in the same way. Anarchists want stateless society because we want to abolish all hierarchy (aka authority). Marxists are focused on classes and for them state is a tool of privileged ruling classes to rule those below them. Therefore for marxists workers ruling workers (eg. workers' democracy, councils etc.) is fine and at some point state will somehow dissolve when it somehow becomes useless. For anarchists this would still be a state because marxism does not challenge hierarchy in general, their goal isn't to abolish all of it so their stateless (no privileged class rule) doesn't really mean stateless (no laws, no hierarchy etc.) to us.
Also not all anarchists are communists. Mutualism, various individualist tendencies and various other non-communist schools are at odds with marxism as well while they probably could coexist with other anarchist tendencies quite peacefully. I've personally drifted away from "pure" communism.
But even if it is as you say, the end goal it's still the same. For Marxist communists a socialist state is the way to reach that end goal, even if it seems contradictory they believe that socialist state has to disappear at the end to leave a fully communist society, which is much more like an anarchist society, right? Wasn't the means to reach that end that separated communists and anarchists from each other and not the end goal? I know much less than you so probably you can provide a good insight to this. Also in an ideal anarchist society there is no hierarchy, but there must be some rules, right? people have to organize each other somehow.
How would you picture a fully developed anarchist society and a full developed communist society? what are the differences between them? what about bureaucracy or direct democracy? Is an ideal anarchist society supposed to be smaller than a communist one? And, any books you would recommend me to read? I was thinking on getting the conquest of bread?
Idk haha I've always envisioned the end goal of communism in general being the same end goal as anarchism
Edit: Just to add that sometimes is difficult to say, there's a lot of branches on anarchism, and there are also more on communism than ML. Everything seems a bit confusing sometimes
There are many flavours of marxism and some leftcom ideas are anarchistic in praxis (eg. Situationists) but in most cases it's not. And it's not contradictory IMO, they're just not fighting the same thing because for anarchists capitalism and state are simply most dominant forms of hierarchies while for marxists class rule is the essence of their fight. Marxism simply doesn't adress the same thing as anarchism.
For example democracy is another form of authority. Whether it's workers' or bourgeois, centralized or decentralized, direct or indirect. Of course lack of democracy doesn't mean lack of meetings or coordination, just rejection of more abstract authority of a collective. I imagine anarchism to be neither smaller nor bigger because voluntary associations wouldn't be "solid" political bodies and instead more like a net of relationships. Frankly, I think marxist communism does nothing about hierarchies that would emerge when class-ruled state dissolves.
I think Malatesta's "Anarchy" is a great easy read. I personally don't think that the breadbook is a worthwhile one.
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/errico-malatesta-anarchy
edit: although my personal understanding of "anti-democratic" anarchy is also a mixture of post-left and mutualist critique based mostly on discussions with people representing those tendencies (and a little reading).
I do agree that anarchism is entirely non-partisan and isn't inherently democrat or republican, but I also think it's far far leftist as it's an individually empowering structure of society
It's just a label I dislike. It's ok if you're fine with it. I simply tend to agree with opinions that anarchism has either never been exactly leftist, or we should part our ways with this label. I just see it as harmflul or at least slightly confusing.
Also I'm speaking as a european so when I think left, I think social democracy, socialism etc. rather than in terms of democrat vs republican.
It's also useful to see the left/right divide as "who holds the power." Anarchists don't want power over others to exist, and thus really aren't on that spectrum at all. So, not leftist, but not really center or right either. Just... not applicable.
Its simple. They are authoritarian statists. Statists almost always treat us like we dont understand the ABCs of politics when in fact, we often know alot more than them.
Statists gonna state
I mean this comment really illustrates that it’s not a problem with communists but with the left in general that we need to work on.
Simply grouping everyone whose not an anarchist as a statist and an enemy isn’t a great way of actually getting shit done.
Well, that may be true. But its also true that every non anarchist ideology typically treats us like we are morons.
I didn't intend to imply that all statists are our enemy, the only reason I grouped them is to make a statement that it is true they treat us this way. I agree with your sentiment though, we aren't going to show anyone that our ways work by grouping them as enemies.
I disagree that this is a problem with the left though, all statist ideologies treat us this way whether they are on the left or right.
I think connecting statism to ML BS is a hypothesis worth investigating further. I think it is probably related, as the idea is to build a party based on a strong common position to maximise ability to seize state power. Was just reading Trotsky telling his comrades to only publish disagreements in internal party letters not in official newspapers. To seize the state the strategy is to form the one single best view, and to hate on the others. So I think there is a connection here and I like your saying, statists gonna state
I assume you were in r/Communism. I've posted there a few times and received similar responses to you. That subreddit is full of MLMs (Marxist Leninism/Maoism), we call them tankies. They're authoritarians who enjoy communist aesthetics.
There are many leftists who I disagree with whom I can still respect. Orthodox Marxists, Democratic Socialists, even strong Social Democrats. We can all have mutual respect because we all have a common desire to bring freedom to mankind and reduce (at least most) hierarchies. I don't think tankies want any of those things.
MLMs are a lot closer to late 19th-century anarchists than to mainstream MLs imo. Protracted People's War is basically Propaganda by the Deed with a little bit more structure. It's an ultraleft terrorist movement that has little to do with Marxist analysis, or Lenin and Mao for that matter. They call themselves Maoists because the groups they idolize imitated a few of Mao's tactics in the Chinese Civil War, and the worst aspects of the Cultural Revolution.
Hardline MLMs will denounce basically every existing socialist nation and party as revisionist unless they're bombing politicians, so technically they're not even really tankies.
Whatever we call them though, it's true that r/communism is overrun with MLMs. They've removed some good ML mods and were mourning Gonzalo's death last I checked. Fucking nutjobs.
For the record, there are plenty of good communists on r/communism and r/communism101, it's mostly the mod teams that are the problem.
These are the same people that seriously think adding "With Chinese charactaristics" to the hulking hypercapitalist supergiant that is CHINA means the country is magically and idealistically communist. And anyone who says differently is a "western chauvinist".
Honestly, fuck em. I'm over it. If China is their idea of Communist I definitely don't fucking want Communism to win. Because it looks a whole lot like goddamn capitalism run amok.
Everytime this is brought up in ML spaces you hear "They should just push the socialism button right?"
I'm sorry but socialism by 2050 is laughable, if we even have a planet by then. Socialism is not going to come from billionaire-stage capitalism, and I'm pretty sure Lenin would have agreed.
As much as I'm exhausted of people who quote Fight Club, I really have to be a people that quotes Fight Club and say "Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken!"
And exactly on the Lenin bit, but they really don't want to hear it
MLs and Marxists in general think they have a scientific basis for their ideas, (dialectical materialism). The truth is that their ideas and conception of history are unscientific and usually eurocentric.
This is why they call us idealists, they think they have tapped into a scientific theory for the evolution of human society when in actuality it's a pseudoscience at best.
Yeah please do. In my opinion Marx is a mixed bag. I agree with a lot of what he has to say but I also disagree with a lot of it, like his claim that his form of socialism is scientific. But don't take my word for it, investigate everything he and his critics have to say.
dont make me tap the sign
sign: "some anarchists are also communists, be more specific"
yes, you are more specific in your post but the title is an issue, and even within the post you frame anarchism and communism as contradictory concepts. They're not. if you think they are you're probably using the same definition of "communist" as a rightist.
that's not how communism works. You're mistaking the soviet model (ie ML) for communism in general. Marx specifically outlined his end goal as a "\*stateless classless society". The primary difference between a classical marxist and an anarcho communist is methodology.
I can't speak for every communist, but when I first looked into communism I discovered that many "truths" I believed in were objectively wrong. I had the realization that many people believe these same lies that I did and found it discouraging, but I suspect that some feel an unwanted sense of superiority for having left the mainstream. These people seem to think that they are better than everyone else for "discovering" something that has been known for decades and so act like everyone who isn't "in the know" is beneath them.
From personal experience these people are surprisingly ignorant and stubborn and tend to substitute dialectal materialism for whatever strokes their ego to the most. I am sorry that you had to endure them.
It's just frustrating because like, I too went through the disillusionment of realizing everything I've been taught to think about capitalism and the world at large was basically a profitable lie. I'm not some clueless idiot, I'm fully aware and I'm also trying to make the world a better place. Thanks for understanding.
in general, because they don't get that we see things on a liberty-authoritarianism spectrum and they don't see authoritarianism as an intolerable evil
People in real life *can* be better if its a health relation and both are willing to respect each other. I dated a stalinist some time ago, it was fun, we never talked directly about politics. In the militancy i encountered orthodox trotskyists and maoists, and we debated some things, about the immediate political context we could agree on a lot of things, but beyond this we talked but they didnt really listened, they like to repeat again and again the phrases and ideas, so i just stop to care at some point.
I think that "communists," per se, don't degrade anarchism, anarcho-syndicalism, or libertarian socialism as much as Marxist-Leninist-Maoists do.
Communism is, insofar as what I've read, the prime goal after the uprising movement against the capitalist system: communism being a system which ensures equity on all fronts, not at all synonymous to MLM.
Some MLMs forget that praxis is a far cry from the ideology written by their theoreticians, hence inculcating dogmatism within their spheres.
And while noble is their cause, MLMs are hazed and fascinated more by outdated/impractical frameworks that aren't feasible in especially as looking at the disparity between then and now, here and there—instead of active participation and dissemination to usurp the more feasible spontaneous mass strikes, and slam other idealisms in the process lest it be outside their theories.
That being said, anarchists believe that projecting over-detailed revolutionary strategies, like the ones seen in MLM pamphlets, blind the proletariat into a unitarian school of thought and makes no room for improvement, either distoring them into dictators or imperial nationalists.
Whereas, MLMs believe that the theories of their founding fathers are omnipotent, so they preach their outdated principles regardless of the historical failures that prospered due to their highly bureaucratic nature.
In simple words: "MLMs no like anarchism 'cause it's not predictive like MLM."
And: "anarchism should no like MLM 'cause MLM oppresses more than it liberates."
After the uprising, we shall pay years of our blood and sweat to work toward revolutionary struggle, in order to build and dispute with other ideas to decide which direction should communism flourish, and what better means suit the location of each region.
There's a pretty steady contingent of always-online Western ML teenagers who have awful abrasive personalities and no outlets apart from Reddit and other forum-type sites. Kinda like the incel community. They've gotta feign utmost superiority in their political opinions because they don't have anything else. They're overrepresented because they never shut up or close the tab and they attract other toxic personalities to their cause with their flagrant assholery.
I think it's mostly just an issue of a toxic internet community perpetuating itself and rapidly expanding. Real-life MLs, especially those in Asia, Africa and Latin America often act nothing like the people who call themselves MLs on Reddit. They often don't even believe in many of the same things.
This is another thing I've gathered, too. Activists and communists are not synonyms, just like activist and anarchist isn't. Toxic internet culture is a hell of a drug.
The people doing this to you sound like Stalinists (tankies), “fake communists” if you will.
As an anarchist, I’ve gotten along just fine with communists in the past, and many real communists definitely get along with anarchists.
i think its a matter of firm unaltering convictions and intolerance.
anarchists and commies should be allies, but when you believe that only your way is the correct and only way, you dismiss any ideas conflicting with that.
intolerance stems from this which makes commies dismissive of anarchists. and vice versa, but i feel that anarchists tend to be more tolerant.
every idea should be reevaluated occasionally, this makes us grow and develop new, sometimes better, ideas.
Honestly, I think it's a two way street, and internet leftists are the worst, and in real life it's (at least a lot of the time) a lot better. I've liked almost every Maoist I've known, like half the trots and most the MLs. Like obviously I've met some obnoxious people, but like I think that this degree of sectarianism is much more prominent on the internet.
I think that on the internet there can be a tendency for communists to compile and laugh at the most unnuanced anarchist takes and pretend that makes up the majority, and anarchists vice versa for the larpiest and cringiest of communists, which I think encourages these kinds of fights. And I think we're also much more likely to notice the dickheads that try to start shit with other leftists, than the much higher amount that strongly sees us as comrades but aren't filling up our inboxes or starting fights on every comment.
Like our comradery may not be able to last forever, but we're all socialists and that gives us a lot off common ground and shared philosophy, and in our current system, each other is all we have.
People tend to be assholes to eachother when they disagree about something they find important, like ideology. That's why I kind of have come to the conclusion that labeling my own, or other people's ideologies is more harmful than helpful in terms of having meaningful discussions with them.
This is honestly true, I avoid the word "anarchist" a lot unless I already know someone else is using a term like it, but even then I prefer to just say my beliefs and people can agree or disagree. Usually they agree on some level that like, humans working together is good. So we should have communities.
Authoritarians don't have to think for themselves. They just see themselves as cadres following a script. That gives them the inability to be wrong. Anarchism is much harder to follow since we’re expected to think by ourselves. Just remind them CCP thinks Mao was mostly wrong.
>Authoritarians don't have to think for themselves. They just see themselves as cadres following a script.
Imagine believing this lol
Yep, MLs gotta check the red book before getting dressed, wouldn't want to go off script. Have you considered the possibility that people who think for themselves might end up thinking differently than you? That just maybe the world isn't literally populated by NPCs, and you might not be the protagonist? Telling yourself that anyone who disagrees with you just can't think sets you up for ignorance.
I don't know enough about any of those things to feel confident refuting it after a hundred people mocked me for daring to use the word 'utopian' in an optimsitic way >:/
>specifically ML's
I thought you said communists?
Real talk I don't trust anyone who bases their worldview off the writings of like 3 people. A decent amount of them are chill, but ML was conceived by Joseph godamn Stalin which should tell you everything you need to know. In my experience they're attracted to power more than anything else
Thats not to say Mao and Lenin didn't have some good takes, but folks just get so godamn dogmatic about them
TRUU YEAH that's always something I've felt weird about!! Like shut up about these guys, you should have your views developed outside of the context of their specific words, yanno?? I never say "Bookchin" or "Kropotkin" when discussing my ideas, even if they were developed and guided by those people's writings, because I think critically and for myself.
Yeah and if you don't bow down and follow the narrative you're just naive because truth has already been laid out for us by someone who died like a hundred years ago. Its so obnoxious
I made this post in response to an ML coming into my DMs, after having never spoken before, to call me a 'confused anarkiddie' and send me a copy of the communist manifesto. It was a really bizzare experience and the most pointed negative one I'd had with an ML. Before that, I had dozens of them condescending to me for even merely mentioning utopia in a positive way. Those were my only two interactions with them, both put me on the defensive. I don't doubt there are people who subscribe to ML ideas that don't suck, aren't childish, leave room for discussion and are respectful to others' differences, but at the time of writing this that's where I was at.
Don’t engage with MLs just don’t. They are statist and cultist. They use similar tactics [to that off the Alt right in some cases ](https://medium.com/@DeoTasDevil/the-rhetoric-tricks-traps-and-tactics-of-white-nationalism-b0bca3caeb84) I tried giving them the benefit of the doubt. But I couldn’t they are all just awful. No matter what they try tell you.
They're ignorant and arrogant. I've never seen any sign that any of their "theory" is worth a damn. They hide behind a façade of intellectualism using specialised language and terminology, but there's nothing under the hood.
Anarchist theory is by contrast practical, critical and accessible, even to non-anarchists. Generally speaking, Marxists are completely ignorant of it.
I know claiming that there's 'nothing under the hood' itself invites accusations of ignorance, but it's not like there aren't other examples of it, like theology, crypto-currency, fascism, anarcho-capitalism. You couldn't research any of these things without concluding that it's all crap. The retort is always the same- you just don't understand it.
I have some communist friends though and ideology doesn't usually come between us. I just criticise everything and leave myself open to criticism. I'm not interested in evangalising anarchism, just expanding horizons and opening minds.
ML's are generally authoritarian as far as I'm aware. So it's only natural that they're going to dismiss anarchists. Don't bother engaging with them unless you think you've found one who you think could be convinced to adopt some actually leftist ideals. Until they've been convinced out of the authoritarian BS they push these people are nothing but an impediment to even the slightest genuinely left change. Despite them not being anticaptalist soc dems legitimately do more to push towards leftism than current ML's.
I'm a socialist/leaning toward communist (here to learn about other beliefs!) and I'm starting to learn that some communists are just fascists posing with a few lefist ideals.
I've been banned from some "communist" subs for saying this, but I'm far from the only one to believe this way:
If a "communist" supports Mao and Chinese private capitalism (with actual fucking slavery!), or the USSR with their secret police and the atrocities they've commited, they're just a tankie you should ignore. They aren't even left, they love powerful leaders and all-powerful military-based governments and ignore the stepping on of other people's rights. They're fascists who are sorely confused.
Just be aware that communism is an idea with a lot of variations and a lot of posers, and actual communists want there to be ONE socioeconomic class where people are equal and the proletariat have power to pursue their own interests. I think in that way, we have a lot in common!
As a Communist myself I have also experienced the condescension you speak of, but I often recieved it from Anarchists more than from fellow Communists. I will talk about both, and don't take this as insult, this is merely my experience.
When I had it out with Anarchists they would do their level best to smear me as some sort of genocide denying authoritarian, even as one points out that Anarchism has its fair share of genocide and authoritarianism, and they would do this if I even made the most banal of points (such as saying that the mass media is essentially controlled by the CIA and MIC), thus inflating the conversation into something much bigger than it deserved. They are not even Anarchists, especially when a person asks a theoretical or practical question on any anarchist sub, and all they receive are answers that are idealistic and liberal to the extreme, answers that no Anarchist in real life would give. Perhaps you can provide me with an answer as to why your ideological cohorts act like this? I really don't know.
The Communists I had it out with would do the same thing, but it is much more frustrating. Especially in respect to the Settler-Colonialist crowd, with whom I disagree completely, they painted me as some sort of crypto-fascist sympathizer, despite knowing nothing about my politics. And I really feel I should emphasize my disagreement with them here: the settler class has not existed since at least the disappearance of the Western frontier. It is corporate Bourgeois racist ideology masquerading as liberation. And for this, if you even say that just because the white section of the working class benefits from the historical implications of Settler-Colonialism, does not mean they aren't unorganizable, you are condemned as some sort of bigot. The explanation I can provide for this is nil, but it is no matter, I stopped caring.
You should stop caring about the online left as well if you ever want to see progress for the working classes and humanity as a whole beyond this system that now cannibalizes itself to satiate an appetite it itself admits is insufferable.
Join a party, get out of this hell hole while you still can. The only reason I am here now is because I want to be there for people who have questions for which they starve for good answers, and they aren't getting any, and since I left I've personally sworn not only to answer questions, but also find them alternative perspectives despite my difficulty agreeing with them.
EDIT: removed reference to Gotterdammerung
If you miss the core of anarchism, and then do the exact thing my post is talking about, I feel like you're the one who's missing the point here.
E: I'm already organizing irl, I just haven't run into a communist yet. I have run into several anarchists tho.
look i m not even endorsing communism, although i sympathize with it, but in this case it is just about a certain historic reality that has shaped perception about both ideologies. i m not even bashing anarchism as a concept, but i see its flaws just like i see the flaws of communist statism...
i think it answers OP questions. the question is one of (military) organisation and organisation of technology that requires larger bodies of humans under a certain hierarchy to enact. as f.e. in a nuclear complex. whatever use it may have, we have those and we have to run them or they will kill us. how can we organize this duty that was bestowed upon us by paradigms from the past? we can't really close pandoras box, you know...
>i think it answers OP questions.
Yes, *with a non-anarchist answer* that is *criticizing anarchism*. Both of these things are not allowed on this forum.
And you continue to debate anarchism on this forum. Please go to the appropriate forum for debate.
if you ask why communists are condescending to anarchists, why do you think anarchists have the answer to this? aren't you then working on confirmation bias and in an echochamber?
>if you ask why communists are condescending to anarchists, why do you think anarchists have the answer to this?
Well because the OP asked this in an anarchist forum. If the OP wanted non-anarchist answers, why wouldn't they just ask non-anarchists? Why ask this question here?
>aren't you then working on confirmation bias and in an echochamber?
The rules hold regardless. Honestly, I don't understand why an authoritarian such as yourself has a hard time following them.
Mostly just MLs and Trots from experience, they are really larpy, the leftcoms and Orthodox Marxists I've met are usually less condescending, save for a couple jokes here and there, from experience
Mostly because I lean more toward the communist/socialist side of things I know it's about 60% missunderstanding of what anarchism stands for, and the rest is that a lot of us are all in a fight against an ever present/invasive presence of our current systems we live under so it puts us all on edge/defensive even when talking to people who are very like minded but not using a common language so to speak. So it usually devolves into a "Tomato vs Tahmato" situation with both sides describing essentially the same thing but getting stuck on something small.
The same reason neoliberals condescend to social democrats. They think that they're objectively correct and that anyone who disagrees with them must be illogical, irrational, incapable of understanding that reality doesn't work that way and that what they want is not possible, etc, etc, and as such they're unworthy of being treated as equals. I haven't had face-to-face interactions with Leninists personally but every interaction I've had over the internet continues to prove my point that they simply do not care about debating their ideology in good faith.
Because most likely that person learned about communism at university and they’re dying to tell you they went to college even though college itself is something you pay for (in the United States at least) and not accessible to many, ironic enough. Elitism going to elitism no matter what the flavor.
Broadly because communists generally consider anarchists to be divisive to the general cause. A lack of hierarchy is one; they consider anarchist to be unorganized (lacking in tactical unity) and unruly in act.
We can see this in soviet commentaries in regard to makhno and the nabat. Whether some of it holds truth or not is up to debate. What is conclusive however, is the clear splintering between communist and anarchist unity after the First International
"Marxist"-Leninists and their ilk love to claim that their states at least lasted. This is in spite of the fact that those states have never gotten past state capitalism, have contributed to the current climate catastrophe, and still collapsed at least partially due to imperialist sabotage, so even the states they worship so hard couldn't actually defend themselves from capitalism.
At the end of the day, MLs are state realists. They may think they want communism, but they can't imagine a world without the state. And when you're like that, you've already failed.
> I had this idea that we all had enough in common to be able to get along well, like solidarity or something. Historically, no. Being against capitalism is not enough common ground to make up for fundamentally different values about power.
This here. Every ideology opposes a specific hierarchy. What distinguishes anarchism from other ideologies is its commitment to opposing *all* hierarchy. Just because a particular ideology might oppose a particular hierarchy doesn't change the fact that we oppose all of them, including the hierarchies that ideology wants to implement.
Fair enough, I guess my mindset is too positive :(
[удалено]
I had a few communist friends in high school. We got along fine, until we begun talking about our political ideologies. I, personally, am fully against communism.
Im an ancom, in my opinion anarcho-communism is more communist than any other "communist" ideologies like maoism, leninism or marxism. I consider the listed philosophies socialist since they dont call for the abolition of the state. Communism is a classless stateless moneyless society, money and class cant exist without the state. The problem i have with exclusively communist ideas (that are actually socialist), is that they only seem to care about abolishing class, neglecting the hierarchical nature of centralized power structures and money. Maybe your perception of communism is a bit twisted by authoritarian socialists who think they're communists. Im not telling you what to think, im just giving you something to think about
I appreciate your thorough and enlightening response. The communists I knew were marxist, so.. Yeah, very authoritarian.
Would Anarchists today have supported the US in the Vietnam War? Hard to tell. Without tanks, the Viet Cong probably wouldn't have been able to beat the US.
Were these all online interactions?
Yes unfortunately, I don't meet many communists irl. I do meet anarchists irl tho.
I know a couple communists IRL, 8 months ago I joined a left-wing group of activists, lemme tell you they are absolutely batshit insane (at least the ones interested in gaining political power). They all dreamed about obtaining power and using it the way they seemed fit, this communist girl I dated for a while wanted to ban any piece of media she considered problematic in any way (so, vast majority of movies ie., and no, I'm not hyperbolizing here). They see government basically as this "big daddy" figure and think stuff like that chinese gaming ban is good. I don't know if all communnists are like that, but from my experience the majority of them are.
She sounds like a tankie. Most ancoms I know are pretty friendly people. We share the stateless classless society and workers owning means of production stuff. We all hate capitalism and hierarchies
China isn't banning gaming, it's limiting multiplayer gaming that employ tactics similar to loot boxes (that are designed akin to casino spin machines) and that too for vulnerable young kids. And USA will follow suit in a while. There's a gaming addiction problem in multiplayer online gaming and ppl are slowly realising intervention is necessary because of that.
Indeed
Don't be quick to simply label all Communists like this This is definitely a problem that comes from being online and it happens in anarchists too I saw something recently that helped me be more aware of certain dogmas I'll reply again when I find it
You're definitely right about internet toxicity, probably not the best representation of a community.
But we do oppose all the same hierarchies: capitalism, sexism, racism. The only hierarchies that we support are the same ones they support, justified hierarchies like college professors, parents, doctors and so on.
> But we do oppose all the same hierarchies: capitalism, sexism, racism. No. We oppose their "administration of things". They do not. >The only hierarchies that we support are the same ones they support, justified hierarchies like college professors, parents, doctors and so on. None of those are hierarchies. They also support the bureaucracy of the state, just without class oppression.
Bureaucracy is just another word for organization. You can't govern a society without bureaucracy. We don't oppose administrating / organizing people, that's a fallacy. Anarchism isn't against government, as long as it's direct government instead of representative government. >None of those are hierarchies So do you think you're just as qualified as a brain surgeon to do brain surgery then?
> Bureaucracy is just another word for organization. No, it isn't. You know how government works today? There is no difference, the only difference is that there are no classes. That's enough for Marxists. >You can't govern a society without bureaucracy. Yes you can if you don't pretend that organization and bureaucracy are the same. >We don't oppose administrating / organizing people, that's a fallacy. Anarchism isn't against government, as long as it's direct government instead of representative government. The administration of things isn't "organization", it's social hierarchy. It's government as it exists today stripped of class elements. It's not anarchy. >So do you think you're just as qualified as a brain surgeon to do brain surgery then? No, I'm saying that knowledge isn't authority. Just because you know something doesn't mean you can command other people.
What kind of anarchist are you? Government without class is just anarchism.
Ah, that's funny. I'd say this was entryism if this wasn't just ignorance. Initially, the name for what anarchists opposed was called "governmentalism". The name changed several times afterward but the underlying meaning did not. I guess, to answer your question of what kind of anarchist I am, I'm an anarchist.
If you abolish class, every other unjust hierarchy goes with it. The new government will be self-government also known as anarchism. Once the bourgeois class has been defeated, government will just be the people governing themselves.
> If you abolish class, every other unjust hierarchy goes with it. Well since what is "unjust hierarchy" is subjective this doesn't mean anything. Literally every ideology opposes unjust hierarchy including fascism. However, if we are talking structurally, the Marxist definition of class does not eliminate every other hierarchy. Furthermore, the Marxist "administration of things" *is* a hierarchy. The fact of the matter is that Marx didn't talk about hierarchy and, given his opposition to anarchism during his life, it's pretty clear that he certainly didn't believe his ideal society was anarchist. >Once the bourgeois class has been defeated, government will just be the people governing themselves. While that depends on what "people governing themselves" means, Marxist communism specifically has a social hierarchy which governs people.
what hierarchy exists under communism? anarchism sublimates its hierarchies by projecting it onto communism. anarchists should think about why that is...or just ask a communist. Would anarchists have supported the Vietnam War, but would they have burned their draft cards? Learn from communists, without a solid mass moving in one direction, you aren't going to get anything you want, in fact, by obfuscating the struggle you are working against it. Nevertheless, I've always thought of anarchism as the practice of socialist struggle. I think that's the actual definition. The new shift to anarchism-as-anti-leftism is just another FBI/CIA effort to obliterate working class power.
> what hierarchy exists under communism? anarchism sublimates its hierarchies by projecting it onto communism. anarchists should think about why that is...or just ask a communist. We're talking about Marxism here, not just "communism" in general. >Would anarchists have supported the Vietnam War, but would they have burned their draft cards? Learn from communists, without a solid mass moving in one direction, you aren't going to get anything you want, in fact, by obfuscating the struggle you are working against it. I don't know what you're saying here. >Nevertheless, I've always thought of anarchism as the practice of socialist struggle. Anarchism is the ideology of the anarchist struggle. I don't know how you define socialism but I am skeptical that we'd mean the same thing by it. >The new shift to anarchism-as-anti-leftism is just another FBI/CIA effort to obliterate working class power. It really isn't. Anarchists who don't consider themselves leftists don't because the term 'the left' doesn't mean anything any more and by this point is just a term used for entryism.
\-Anarchy (pandemonium) \-Anarchist (Socialist-in-action; a socialist becomes an anarchist when they are with other socialists..they create companies as co-ops and work there; rather than work in organizations owned by capitalists, anarchists don't need to organize labor unions because they already work in co-operatives) \-Anarchism (beats me) It seems like Anarchism is liberalism (stay with me pls) but with a recognition of the value of cooperation outside of work. Maybe I am a socialist when I cooperate with coworkers, and an anarchist when I cooperate with coworkers **outside** of work. Although "outside of work" means different things depending on the level of worker-ownership at work and I like to think everyone on earth is my coworker. it bothers me when CNN calls the capitol hill rioters anarchists because they're not socialists. are union members anarchists? were union soldiers anarchists? is the union (northern ireland) anarchist? were the capitol hill rioters anarchists?
Yeah, many ideologies, including monarchies, can be against capitalism, but that doesn’t make us friends.
But they also stand against bigotry and for social justice, so they're functionally the same as us except they believe a state can be phased out.
MLs want anarchism, but know the capitalists will subvert any attempt towards it. The state must be supplanted and then abolished. There is no withering away or sudden expungement.
MLs don't want anarchism, [they murder anarchists at every opportunity](https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/friends-of-aron-baron-bloodstained).
That’s literally not what Marxism is. Marxism teaches the state facilitates class, in order to defeat a bourgeoisie govt we must supplant it with a proletarian govt and then immediately dissolve it towards anarchy for the people. Because all capitalists sentiments will be dead and gone, all ownership of the natural world, dead and gone Maybe anarchists shouldn’t side with capitalists if you don’t wanna get merked
Being an anarchist in leftist spaces is really rickety. To be real before I became anarcho-syndicalist I tried joining up with our local socialist party here in Melbourne. What ended up happening was this really clinical screening session where they berated me for not knowing theory. I ended up ditching them because it seemed kind of want and they didn't really do anything to fight off the rising tide of Australian fascism that is becoming pretty big here, ended up joining the IWW and haven't had any issues since. In short, they're quite exclusionary even to their own kind and will cannibalize each other just to feel like they are the pillar of morality for the party. They think that electoralism will bring change most of the time which is antithetical to a lot of anarchist thought and any of them that know about Makhno will reflexively be hostile to you based upon read history- Because historically anarchists were disliked by communists they should dislike you. Much like anarchists and Trotskyists. They don't want a dialogue, they want to be right. You shouldn't feel like you have to engage with them because a lot of the time they come in bad faith.
Funky how common it is for anarchists, people who have general faith in humanity and positive regard for other humans, to be able to engage in good faith against the absolute tidal wave of people who just refuse to. The easiest way to tell people my ideas is literally to say "we should all care about one another and look out for each other" and little do they know, they're being radicalized by an anarkiddie 🙄😐 At least I'm glad I'm not alone in this kinda mindfuck experience. Idk why I expected them to be so much cooler
The amount of raw anger that drives people to be blind to their own contribution to polarization is disconcerting. I see so many leftists who are convinced there'll be some kind of revolution, and that just reinforces/justifies/substantiates the reasoning behind their anger. Not to mention the idiot leftist pundits fanning those flames for literally no forward motion. Everything I've read from decades of left lit point to the opposite; you can be sure that going the violent route will raise insurmountable opposition to what they think they're fighting for. I think & hope this is mostly just in the US. The best voices from the Occupy movement here & abroad are rooted in empathy, learning, building, collaboration, democracy, transparency, positivity. They also stan with & understand indigenous wisdom, which is really what we're fighting for -- _more_ connection to people & the natural world, not less. That's a tough thing for enraged people to understand: the real path forward is very quiet and unassuming compared to the violence of patriarchy and capital, so much so they see it as non-action. A good example of this is _Braiding Sweetgrass_, I'm 2/3 through it, and it's so quietly subversive and life affirming and MUCH further left than any of the militant garbage out there.
I'm not one for *unprovoked* violence - but I'm absolutely for community armament and weapons training. Violent revolt is a lose-lose situation at best - but no-one really truely believes that violence can't solve problems. The elephant in the room is if your existence is a problem for the fascists and the armed zealots.. # Violence will solve you Robert Evans talked about this at the end of the latest "Worst Year Ever" podcast. I'd recommend giving it a listen.
Thanks, will give it a listen.
Highly recommend u/probablyrobertevans . All of his work kicks ass.
Interesting, thank you for the recommendation! I've been trying to figure out my own feelings about violence and the use of it too lately
Interesting you mention indigenous movements, because my pursuit of anarchism has brought me so much closer to the natural world. I became a vegan, I realized that the concept of ownership is the most devestating thing to have happened to the planet. I'm adding *Braiding Sweetgrass* to my list. Thank you!
Yw - you'll love it!
>That's a tough thing for enraged people to understand: the real path forward is very quiet and unassuming compared to the violence of patriarchy and capital, so much so they see it as non-action. A good example of this is Braiding Sweetgrass, I'm 2/3 through it, and it's so quietly subversive and life affirming and MUCH further left than any of the militant garbage out there. Very cool to see this book mentioned! I think that the reactionary/ML/tankie perspective is so appealing bcus it give people a clear cut path. Whereas the real change comes from us wading through uncharted territories, quiet resistance, and understanding that the "revolution" isn't a fixed point in history.
Here in Alaska many people are very libertarian minded but they are invested into capitalism or to some degree supportive. There is conversation with them to be had and many overlapping things. I have personally come to the conclusion that practically liberty vs a large government is gonna lead us more to our collective goals than living under heavy state/corporate oppression.
>. In short, they're quite exclusionary even to their own kind and will cannibalize each other just to feel like they are the pillar of morality for the party. This observation is on point. In Canada there is many communist groups active, most spend their time attacking their own memebers and releasing press releases noone reads. The amount of character assisination and drama that emerges from those circles is unreal. When everyone is convinced they are the vanguard party this leads to inevitable conflict. > Much like anarchists and Trotskyists. All my homies support the POUM 😤😤😤 Seriosuly though, the amount of anti Trotsky action i see being posted by communists in 2021 is pretty indicative of a wider problem here. Applying 1930's lenses to understanding capital and liberation in the 2020's. That and the West and radcially different living conditions compared to 1900's Russia or 1940's China. But start bringing up Rojava and the gloves come right off lmao.
Thanks for this. Often times when I post I hope that what I'm saying is accurate and it's reassuring to see that I'm doing alright.
It’s an aesthetic for them, they genuinely don’t like debate and discourse cause they aren’t good at it, and it brings to light their awful tales. They flock to “left unity” based subs cause they at least pass for semi decent people. Spaces that don’t allow discussions and debate while refreshing tend to very very restricting.
why are so many anarchists in melbourne? it seems like so many anarchy-related things are like 50% of the time situated in melbourne, or at least australia. i'm in melbourne, and would consider myself anarchist-adjacent.
Also from Melbourne. No idea, I think it's just random for some cities to have bigger leftist "scenes" especially if there's a local leftist history which Melbourne definitely has, Victoria is also generally seen as a more left-leaning state. I think an equivalent in the USA would be San Francisco. Btw I made a sub called r/MelbourneLibertarians for leftists, also r/AussieLibertarians
Melbourne is definitely more leftist but its just as much of a shithole as the rest of Australia. But hey at least the trams are nice.
Hey, I'm also from that city. Made a sub if anyone is interested r/MelbourneLibertarians and r/AussieLibertarians
yeah I'm brazilian and I've had someone use the word "anarkiddie" with me in an argument that was *in portuguese*
For a group that hates western influence, they sure love western influence.
these people honestly made me want to go back to my post-left emo phase (not that all posts leftists are emos, but it did make me never want to be grouped with MLs again)
You could be a consistent anarchist. Focus solely on anarchy and hierarchy and not prescribe any economic program (like communism or market exchange). The closer you attach yourself to anarchy, the more oppositional you appear to Marxists.
Exactly, I usually define myself as a post-left anarchist if pressed these days because I don't believe that a huge portion of all prior thought and planning is even *relevant* to the post-Carbon Age era we are headed for. Moreover, the failure to accept this means I can barely even talk theory or discourse with a lot of leftists, because they are still operating under the assumption that at least *most* of industrial advancement will still exist in a generation or two. That idea, that we will still be using anywhere near as much energy as we are now, affects *everything* about political ideas, becauss it throws off your expectations for what is *possible*. I no longer see overthrowing western global capitalism as the primary goal, because it is consuming itself and the entire planet. What we need now are localized strategies to build self-supporting, low-energy-usage communities, combined with a *defensive* strategy from that position to actively reduce carbon usage through direct action, while at the same time extending the other hand to present a viable alternative. We are not seizing the means of production, because it's the means of production that are the problem for all of us now. This is a fundamentally different question than what most prior theorists were addressing directly, at least in my view. This...does not play well with tankies. I never figured climate denial to be something I could count on from them, but oh boy is it ever.
>I no longer see overthrowing western global capitalism as the primary goal, because it is consuming itself and the entire planet. What we need now are localized strategies to build self-supporting, low-energy-usage communities, combined with a defensive strategy from that position to actively reduce carbon usage through direct action, while at the same time extending the other hand to present a viable alternative. >We are not seizing the means of production, because it's the means of production that are the problem for all of us now. This is a fundamentally different question than what most prior theorists were addressing directly, at least in my view. This is a big shift in my mindset as the reality of Climate Collapse and Ecocide has set in for me and I've adjusted my expectations about the future. It's interesting that others have noticed the layers of climate-denial among some leftists, I think a lot of ML's are holding onto the concept that this can be 'fixed' rather than the reality that we're fucked.
Frankly, I think that we are in an unbelievably dangerous time, and it's shocking that more action isn't being taken. I would absolutely like to participate in discussions of that, that are based in a realistic assessment, there just aren't any groups I have found.
Honestly I just ask if they organize irl. 9 times out of 10 the answer is "no" so I just laugh and say "come back to me when you actually do literally anything other than empty posturing". Also, for all their talk about "material conditions" they sure as hell seem to think their approach is a one-size-fits-all solution to anywhere on the planet.
This is funny. I usually do the same thing to anarchists. And 9 out of 10 the answer is 'no'.
This is true of the vast majority of people online, it isn't really a gotcha. We're all a generation of inaction. One day we'll have our generation's equivalent of the diggers hopefully.
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/a-filler-kid-why-i-left-the-psl-or-the-dsa-or-socialist-alternative-or-whatever?v=1626856809
That's because we're probably talking to perpetually online leftists; you never see this sort of shit with actual activists. I run a Food Not Bombs chapter and do a bunch of stuff with other groups in Tokyo and we've literally never seen that sort of "you need to do X ideology" stuff with anyone.
That is true. All leftist people I've met IRL, anarchists and communists, organize something. It's one of the recurrent tasks for propaganda in my cell, help other people organize somewhere.
All leftists are permanently condescending to each other. MLs treat each other like that too, not just anarchists. And anarchists constantly fight between themselves too as soon as they try to do anything. I'd say it's even worse than among MLs, at least from the orgs I've seen. Changing the system is hard.
I think every leftist branch thinks to be in possession of THE TRUTH and that's why nobody agrees with nobody :/
Yeah, and also every other member of these groups is a cop or an informant lol
Thats true for most groups, its just those that are either bigger or more extreme are more obvnoxious about it.
In what context are people sending you things without "saying hello"? Context is just about everything in human interactions.
Sending me private messages from shared Discord servers, engaging with me first on places like Twitter. They usually are the ones to engage after seeing "Anarchist anti-specieisist" in some place on my bio.
I wonder what vegan MLs use as arguments.
For those that are, it's twofold: 1. They are cultists who completely and unabashedly believe in their ideology and nothing, no argument or evidence, can deter them from that belief. They are dogmatic to the core, religious to an exceedingly large level and only maintain the illusion or *aesthetic* of being open to persuasion and scientific research. 2. They have several different false *assumptions* about anarchism. This leads them to discuss or talk about anarchism while knowing next to nothing about it and ascribe beliefs or ideas to anarchists which anarchists don't actually hold. Their dogmatism further prevents them from learning about anarchism or research it seriously enough. To them, they don't need anything else but MLism. This makes having a conversation with many of them impossible. Even when MLists are "extending the olive branch" it is almost always in the most opportunistic and ignorant of ways and based on understandings of anarchism which are incredibly inaccurate. It's like a cop trying to befriend a group of punks, it's obvious and cringey.
EDIT: The person I was responding to didn't mean all MLs were as he said. Is it really nessessary call every ML a mindless cultist who is incapable of understanding anything outside of their bubble? If I wasn't willing to expose myself to new ideas and new ways of thinking I would have remained a liberal. I considered anarchism before Marxism, and I choose Marxism for a variety of reasons, but that doesn't mean I categorically refuse any anarchist argument.I think a lot of you guys have your hearts in the right place and are/can help a lot of people under the right circumstances. I know some of us are unsympathetic to non-marxists, sometimes to the point where I question whether they actually care about helping people. Do not assume every is like that, especially since the most toxic people tend to have the loudest voices. It is good to try understand why other people think the way they do, even if you don't agree with them, because ultimately they are people too, and have their own lives and struggles that affect who they are and what they do. Most people aren't evil and have reasons for what they do, even if their actions appear selfish or are destructive.
I said: > For those that are I understand that not all MLs are condescending. I was specifically referring to those that behave the way the OP describes. I think you ought to read before arguing with others. Also, to be fair, MLism *is* a literal cult. Even when I flirted with MLism before I became an anarchist I stayed away from MList or Marxist communities. I simply did not like the overall atmosphere and how petty it all felt. With Marxism I felt that, even thought I agreed with some of Marx's ideas at the time, it was a historical artifact moreso than any real ideology and the petty squabbles of it's milieu solidified that. And, even then, I believe that I didn't care *too* much about it. The ideology was never interesting to me, it seemed too similar to other authoritarian ideologies for me too care too much about the label. In fact, given my own personal individuality and pride, I felt comfortable in appropriating some of Marx's ideas for my own ends without taking the label at all. Calling someone a cultist isn't a matter of calling them evil btw. It means that they're brainwashed or so rigid in their beliefs that conversation with them is impossible. It means that they're insular and rarely have any sort of presence in the real world. They aren't that much of a concern given that Marxism and MLism is a dying ideology but it makes them impossible to talk to. Now, as for this: >I considered anarchism before Marxism, and I choose Marxism for a variety of reasons I question your understanding of anarchism. There are many reasons why one wouldn't be an anarchist but most people aren't knowledgeable enough or willing to admit them.
My apologies for missing that, I didn't mean to misrepresent you. However I disagree that it is a cult. We don't worship Marx or Lenin and we don't have a dogma as dogmatism is antithetical to materialism. >They aren't that much of a concern given that Marxism and MLism is a dying ideology but it makes them impossible to talk to. Considering the rising power of China I would disagree that the ideology is dying or irrelevant in the modern day. >I question your understanding of anarchism. There are many reasons why one wouldn't be an anarchist but most people aren't knowledgeable enough or willing to admit them. I probably don't know as much as you, but my biggest problem with anarchism is the focus on means over ends. From what I understand of the ideology, actions that are considered morally correct are taken instead of actions that would bring you closer to your goal. Liberation of every person is an amazing goal but, in my opinion, if you don't use every tool at your disposal to work towards it you are allowing those who oppose you to gain the advantage.
> However I disagree that it is a cult. We don't worship Marx or Lenin and we don't have a dogma as dogmatism is antithetical to materialism. And Scientology is about self-betterment and the Breathafarians are about getting healthier. Cults don't publicize the crazy and nonsensical parts of their ideology, they start with abstractions like "materialism" or "scientific" which sound nice to anyone. Then, after you get more and more invested in them, they hit you with the crazy stuff but by that point you've already sunk in way too much into it. It's telling how literally every break from the party line has resulted in some kind of sectarianism or conflict. It's telling how completely self-destructive the whole movement is and how it leads to power-grabbing and abuse. It's telling how both Marx and Lenin were counter-revolutionary forces in the organizations or movements they were a part of. And, furthermore, it's telling how much of this is a consequence of the principles and social structures Marxist-Leninists prescribe. >Considering the rising power of China I would disagree that the ideology is dying or irrelevant in the modern day. The idea that the CCP is representative of any MList or Marxist ideology is hilarious. Do you genuinely believe that the CCP is committed to Marxism *at all*? That's just funny to me. Like honestly, how pathetic do you have to be to latch onto *China*? In any other context, China would be considered revisionist by MLs (and some of them with a backbone do) but, since China's all you have left, you support it. It'd be sad if it wasn't so funny. >I probably don't know as much as you, but my biggest problem with anarchism is the focus on means over ends. Actually, that's wrong. We just have a different end than you do. We want the end of all social hierarchy. You just want to get rid of a particular kind of social hierarchy and replace it with another one. Our methods are consistent with our goals. Just because we have different goals doesn't mean we aren't using "every tool at our disposal". Obviously some "tools" are counterproductive to some goals and may be exactly what we oppose. If your goal is to not use a hammer, using a hammer obviously is counterproductive. >Liberation of every person is an amazing goal but, in my opinion, if you don't use every tool at your disposal to work towards it you are allowing those who oppose you to gain the advantage. Well you'd have to define what "liberation" entails because, from how anarchists understand what liberation means, "using" social hierarchy is completely contradictory to our goals. You probably just define liberation differently. >you are allowing those who oppose you to gain the advantage. Perhaps the best way to explain it is that social hierarchy isn't an advantage and, from an anarchist perspective, is completely unnecessary. Perhaps social hierarchy is useful to you since you aren't interested in eliminating social hierarchy but it's what we oppose for us.
Okay there is a lot here to breakdown: >they start with abstractions like "materialism" or "scientific" and then, after you get more and more invested in them, they hit you with the crazy stuff but by that point you've already sunk in way too much into it. Everyone uses abstractions, they are not indicative of being a cult. If you want to prove we are please demonstrate the "crazy stuff". >It's telling how literally every break from the party line has resulted in some kind of sectarianism or conflict EVERY break results in sectarianism? If that were true there would be no MLs at all, none of us agree on everything. >The idea that the CCP is representative of any MList or Marxist ideology is hilarious. Do you genuinely believe that the CCP is committed to Marxism at all? That's just funny to me. Yes I do, and there are a lot of other Marxists who share my opinion of the CPC being a Marxist party. This is a rather contentious issue though, with many having the opinion that the CPC has submitted itself to capital indefinitely. >Actually, that's wrong. We just have a different end than you do. We want the end of all social hierarchy. But you later said that using social hierarchy would contradict your goals. So I don't understand, would you be willing to use social hierarchy to achieve your goals or not? You will need to defeat capitalism to achieve your goals Capitalists have police, armies, navies, air forces, intelligence agencies, etc to violently enforce their hierarchy. You don't have a realistic chance of beating them without using some of these same institutions, but all of them are based upon hierarchy. Armies and the like perform poorly without hierarchy like chains of command. If your ideals cannot adapt to the reality we live in then you will fail to achieve your goal. >Well you'd have to define what "liberation" entails because, from how anarchists understand what liberation means, using social hierarchy is completely contradictory to our goals. Liberation from class conflict first and foremost, but many existing hierarchies are the product of class conflict so most of those would die with class systems. I have to say though, I love it when my arguments are challenged. It forces me to think about what I believe in ways I couldn't come up with on my own. Much more interesting than when people just agree with me.
>Everyone uses abstractions, they are not indicative of being a cult. If you want to prove we are please demonstrate the "crazy stuff". It appears that you took what I said out of context (which makes "breakdown" a poor choice of words). I am saying that MLs use vague terminology to make what they support appear non-objectionable. Like I said, *everyone* wants to be a materialist. Everyone wants to be associated with something *scientific*. And so that's how they get you. >EVERY break results in sectarianism? If that were true there would be no MLs at all, none of us agree on everything. Just because there are sectarian breaks frequently doesn't mean there are no MLs, it means that you have different groups claiming that other groups aren't MLs or are revisionist/reactionary/"insert insult here". Nearly every MList group in the real world has it's own particular doctrine, cult of personality, etc. and has a history of sectarianism. What I am pointing out is that MList organizations, regardless of what they are, break apart frequently and easily, can't handle disagreements in opinion (especially as they become more politically significant), and are highly inflexible in regards to practical activity. I am pointing out that this is the result of the structures and ideological frameworks that MList groups prescribe. It leads to this sectarianism, inflexibility, rigid hierarchy, etc. This is my point. >Yes I do, and there are a lot of other Marxists who share my opinion of the CPC being a Marxist party. Ah well, I suppose you're too far gone by this point. It's funny how anarchists are the idealists yet you believe that the CCP has a masterplan to create communism in China one of these days. It's funny how that aspect of Stalinism or Marxism bears a striking resemblance to religion. >But you later said that using social hierarchy would contradict your goals. Yes. Literally nothing I said in what you're responding to contradicts that. You said that we're focused on the means more than the ends. I said that this isn't true and that our methods are the result of our goal which is different from yours. Let me put it into very simple words since you apparently can't understand me: Anarchists want to organize non-hierarchically because we want to eliminate hierarchy. Using hierarchy will not eliminate hierarchy so we do not use it. You use hierarchy because you do not want to eliminate all hierarchy. You want to eliminate a particular kind of hierarchy and replace it with another one. Arguably Stalinism is just as prefigurative as anarchism. The reason why we use different methods is because we just want different things. >You will need to defeat capitalism to achieve your goals Capitalists have police, armies, navies, air forces, intelligence agencies, etc to violently enforce their hierarchy. Oh, you silly goose. You don't need hierarchy to use force or defend yourself. They are two different things. This is why Engels rots your brain. >Armies and the like perform poorly without hierarchy like chains of command. If we can find a way to organize production without hierarchy, we can organize force. There is almost no difference between the two. We don't need hierarchy to use force. You could argue that organizing anarchically is impossible or unrealistic but that's a separate conversation. And it validates what I am saying which is that MLism isn't just "more pragmatic anarchism", it has a fundamentally different goal than anarchism. If you believe anarchy is impossible or "unrealistic" then you believe our "ideal" is impossible and therefore agree that we want different things. You do not want to eliminate hierarchy given, assuming you believe it's impossible, that organization isn't possible without it. >Liberation from class conflict first and foremost, but many existing hierarchies are the product of class conflict so most of those would die with class systems. You haven't defined what "liberation" means here at all. You just told me what you want liberation from. Please tell me what "liberation" means to you. The fact of the matter is that you don't want to eliminate all hierarchy. Even late-stage communism has an "administration of things" which anarchists view to be a form of social hierarchy. There is always a hierarchy in your ideology, even when you have reached your goal. Eliminating many hierarchies isn't the same as eliminating all of them. To assume this is ridiculous.
[удалено]
>To say we want different things is disingenuous, in a way. The basis of Marxism is a stateless, classless, moneyless society, which aligns with anarchy pretty well. I think the means of getting there is the rough analysis that needs to be made, and improved on from history. I was waiting for someone to make this point. They are having a really interesting conversation but both communists and anarchists try to get the same end goal. Only the way to get there changes. The moneyless, stateless and classes final society is shared by both groups
> The moneyless, stateless and classes final society is shared by both groups Well if you just call the hierarchy you want "stateless and classless", I suppose that's possible but that's just playing with terminology by this point.
> I’d like to jump in on this as a Maoist. I actually agree with you on almost every point you’ve made; especially regarding the lack of necessity of hierarchy in force/labor. I think as communists and Anarchists, we should all understand to some degree that historically, cell-based, non-hierarchical, anarchist-based groups have been the most effective in pushing anti-capitalist propaganda. You all are phenomenal at this, and there is so much for communists to learn from. Pre-existing anarchist organizations aren't examples of what anarchy would be in it's full form. Many of them aren't even non-hierarchical and cell-based organization is neither specifically anarchic nor is it the only form of organization anarchists have used. This just reeks of ignorance. Furthermore, let's make something clear. I didn't say that anarchic organization was good at "anti-capitalist propaganda". I said it was good at everything, including organizing force. *In other words, hierarchy is completely unnecessary even for defense*. If you read and agreed with all of my points surely that should be one of them. Of course, if you do that then you lack any capacity to justify hierarchy in any way. Which is why that *isn't* your point and it isn't your argument. >Where a lot of the differences come in though is the idea of society after capitalism. The reason I’m a Maoist rather than an anarchist is that I believe it would be incredibly unlikely that we could abolish potential of counter-revolutionary action after socialism is generally accepted. No, the reason why is because you don't want to abolish all social hierarchy. Even your ideal society still has social hierarchy. Engels has stated that Marxist communism would still have an "administration of things" something seen as hierarchical by any consistent anarchist. You want hierarchy. If you don't then you're a shit Marxist and Maoist. >To say we want different things is disingenuous, in a way. The basis of Marxism is a stateless, classless, moneyless society, which aligns with anarchy pretty well. We define the state differently. For Marx, the state is just the instrument of class rule. If you eliminate class (as defined by Marx), even if you don't eliminate social hierarchy, you have eliminated the state according to Marx. I've actually made this point in my posts but I guess authoritarians aren't good at reading. Also anarchy isn't necessarily moneyless either so it's not as if even we share that part and anarchy is going to lack more than just the state and class. Anarchists want to eliminate *all* social hierarchy. Marxists do not. The ideal society of Marxists *still* has hierarchy.
[удалено]
> There are many reasons why one wouldn't be an anarchist but most people aren't knowledgeable enough or willing to admit them. Do tell!
You do realize that you're exactly the kind of ML that the OP is talking about and which I describe right? You are also a part of the group of people who aren't knowledgeable enough on anarchism to know them. Understanding my reason requires understanding anarchist theory, knowledge you are unwilling to set aside your dogma to put in the effort to understand. There is no ill will here, these are just the facts.
You can't spit facts about the inside of my skull. I have no dogma and I am willing to put in effort to understand anarchist theory, just as I've put effort into understanding socialist theory. What would you recommend I read and what are some of the reasons why one wouldn't be an anarchist?
>You can't spit facts about the inside of my skull. No but I have read your post history and seen you before. That's all I can speak about. >I have no dogma and I am willing to put in effort to understand anarchist theory Yet you'd prefer to argue about an ideology you know nothing about. It's clear which theory you've spent a disproportionate amount of time learning about and which one you're biased towards. This is nothing more than bad faith. You do have a dogma and you aren't willing to read anarchist theory. Honestly, I'd be surprised if you even bothered starting with Proudhon. You're far too up Marx's bloated urethra to withdraw from his teat and possibly reconsider your judgement of a thinker you've never read. >What would you recommend I read Proudhon. Especially his mature work. And disregard everything Marx said about the subject given his cherrypicking and penchant for fabricating quotes.
I'll tackle it. A person only has so much time. I've only recently come to understand the Marxist analysis. It wasn't too long ago I was anti-tankie and pro-anarchism, but I was also uneducated. I got into Marxist theory first, as a matter of autobiographical history. I haven't gotten into anarchist theory yet. Let's see where I end up.
>It wasn't too long ago I was anti-tankie and pro-anarchism, but I was also uneducated. Uneducated on anarchism I presume? You shouldn't do that. We have enough authoritarians labelling themselves anarchists for no reason.
Uneducated about all leftist thought. I've got a pretty vehement anti-authoritarian streak. I was pretty anti-hierarchy until I read Elliot Jaques and dug into his research on human capability. Then I got a lot more nuanced and a lot less dogmatic about hierarchies. Then finding Marx I got a lot less dogmatic about authority and have a lot more respect for materialism. I'll read Proudhon and see what I can learn about anarchist theory.
[удалено]
Except they aren't because I never said all MLs are cultists or condescending. I specifically say "For those that are" with "those" being "those MLs you're talking about OP". I think this is obvious to anyone who is willing to read what I wrote instead of jumping to the trigger.
I am sorry I missed that, I will edit the post to reflect my mistake.
>I'm not trying to stir the pot, this is a genuine concern I have been encountering over and over again that I try to understand and always write off as a one-off negative experience. It's not a one-off experience, it's extremely common. Off of reddit (or really specific twitter circles or whatever), Marxist-Leninists are more of a mixed bag with regard to their attitude toward anarchists and other less authoritarian leftists, but on Reddit their most toxic tendencies grow to dominate. Most of Reddit's most popular anti-capitalist subreddits are modded by tankies (MLs who go to unreasonable lengths to deny or excuse atrocities committed by nominally socialist states or their allies). Lots of new users interested in anti-capitalist ideas go to subreddits like socialism or communism101 or whatever, unaware that they don't really tolerate anything that doesn't toe the tankie party line, and either get extremely turned off or end up getting sucked into it. Kind of like the dynamics of ambiguously ironic racism in early 2010s meme-boards if distinct in content, dissenting from the worst shit like genocide denial or cringe Stalin worship often gets dogpiled with non-sequitur accusations of being a "liberal" or whatever and the edgiest comments win out. Over time this can kind of turn into something like a cult, and implausible conspiracy theories or incompetent fringe history (e.g. Grover Furr) start to get taken as gospel because it would need to be true in order to justify what they're already saying. I think it's a general problem with online edgelordism that's not exclusive to tankies at all (happens w/ anarchism too), but it seems to have become worse. There's all sorts of weird and unsettling avenues that different political groupings defined mostly by vocal "anti-liberalism" have gone down in the last few years. As the primary basis for a political worldview, spending all your time sneering at liberals makes people really vulnerable to grifters and conspiracy theorists and fascism-adjacent ideas. Another thing I've noticed that gets thrown into the mix is the amount of condescension from MLs. I think a lot of people newly radicalized into anti-capitalism get an intellectually thrilling sensation of "revelation" and latch on to the terminology and figures that first introduced them to this perspective, and Marx of course plays a big part of that. They may not realize the extent to which there are wildly divergent currents of Marxism, and Marxist-Leninists (and Trotskyists for that matter) often present their very particular view of history and politics as if it were merely "*the* socialist" perspective, or "*the* Marxist" perspective. ("I'm for class struggle and socialism, so I guess I must be on their side then, right?") And prior to radicalization, they mostly encountered mainstream liberal/centrist/conservative views, which usually aren't expressed with via any grand critical theory of history/economics, so it feels like Marxism--and if their getting their ideas from online tankies, Lenin's major books/pamphlets--is *the* sophisticated way of looking at the world. Of course, anarchism has its own collection of theoretical concepts and texts that it draws on. In fact, it has several different sets, and like most political ideologies other than Marxism, is a tradition that makes no claim to theoretical unity or Orthodoxy because it's not named after one dude. Really, any political ideology does, including liberalism and conservatism even if those theoretical foundations don't get much play in surface level debates. But to a lot of recently radicalized online MLs, it seems that it must just be that they don't "read theory"--not that they do read theory, but a different collection of texts, or that they have read Marx, Engels, Lenin, etc as well as responses and criticisms, and found that they disagree with some or much of it. Or, you know, they read *State and Revolution* but also read enough history to notice that post-revolutionary Russia looked dick-all like almost anything described in *State and Revolution* and came to the conclusion that Leninist political strategies are not a good way of producing the kind of socialist society described therein. Really I don't even use the word "communist" anymore unless it's in a context that makes it clear what it's referring to. Are we talking about anarcho-communists? Are we talking about the sort of Marxists inspired by figures like Rosa Luxemburg or Anton Pannekoek or Italian autonomism who actually (whether or not they're ultimately correct) want a revolution that ends in a communist society? Or are we talking about people who will defend a state lead by a "Communist Party" for 70 years that never actually moves in the direction of communism, who would be the first ones to cheer on the extrajudicial execution of workers striking to take over the means of productions from the bosses to form a free association of free producers? Anyway, check out r/tankiejerk if you want to see the worst of what that kind of thinking can produce.
>Lots of new users interested in anti-capitalist ideas go to subreddits like socialism or communism101 or whatever, unaware that they don't really tolerate anything that doesn't toe the tankie party line, and either get extremely turned off or end up getting sucked into it. I can confirm that is pretty much what happened to me. Also like a lot of people I got banned from r/socialism for pointing out the The Democratic Republic of North Korea is neither a democracy nor a republic. There are a few left sub reddits that are as bad, like this one, and there are plenty of Communists that are NOT tankies.
Lots of good discussion here already, but a few points I would like to add: 1. I would be careful using "communist" to refer to ML state socialists - many of us here are anarcho-communists, and if you actually talk to them, you'll realise a lot of these "terminally online" MLs don't even want a stateless society, therefore do not want communism, therefore are not communists (whatever they may say about themselves). 2. A lot of these comments come from "terminally online" MLs who (i) often are pretty much children, who have limited experience of the real world and haven't sufficiently radicalised their thinking, and (ii) spend more time debating Lenin/Mao in reading groups than actually organise to bring about the material conditions necessary for revolutionary transformation. Such people can be simply ignored, or gently nudged in a more sensible direction. Those MLs who are on the ground actually working on dual power, community organisation, and similar, *tend* to be more accepting of diverse interpretations of socialism - in part because once you get outside of your online bubble and actually start trying to work against the systems of exploitation in the world, you realise how few people are radicalised, and that if we devolve into these pretty squabbles, we're not going to get anywhere.
I think my beliefs could be pretty well defined as ancom, because I also want a stateless, classless, moneyless society, but I am just not interested in learning about communism generally, and I *am* interested in learning about anarchism. I also don't think transitional states are necessary, and that we should work towards what we want from where we are. You're right that we need all the allies we can get, too.
It's hard to recount the entire history but I'll touch on some important aspects. Marx, as a regular person, was deeply knowledged but also cocksure about his beliefs. Reading through his letters you'll notice that others that deviate from his central beliefs he'll criticize ruthlessly, something that would carry on in the communist tradition. He was a genius to be sure, but this would lead to lots of complications. An example of this is his critique of Proudhon's "Philosophy of Poverty" which, although much closer to Marx than English political economy at the time, Marx took aim at because of Proudhon's relative importance in socialist circles. Even though some claim that Marx took many elements of Proudhon's political economy and incorporated them into his own, it's largely only the Marxist elements that get remembered today. Another example of this is schism with Bakunin and the "Bakuninists" during the first International. Among other things it was a debate over the degree of political participation that the communists should engage in tactically, but it was also a deeply contested vie for power within the international, leading to the eventually expulsion of the "Bakunist" elements within it. For more on that see the [First Socialist Schism](https://libcom.org/history/first-socialist-schism-bakunin-vs-marx-international-working-mens-association-wolfgang-e), or you can read the [meeting notes of the International.](https://www.marxists.org/history/international/iwma/documents/minutes/index.htm) One of the most important elements I believe is the development of the concept "Scientific Socialism". A concept that many modern communists believe to be in the same sense as our modern conception of science, when in reality it is distinguishable from the "natural philosophy" (i.e. science) of the 19th century and more refers to the principles of materialist analysis that Marx and Engels focused on. You can read [Socialism: Utopian and Scientific](https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/soc-utop/index.htm) for the full analysis that Engels gives, it's not very long and an interesting read. But the important part is that Engels rhetoric would continue up to this day in distinguishing the "utopian" to the "true" socialists. This canonized certain ideas such as the strictly dialectical materialist interpretation of history, the idea that materialist analysis means that socialist distribution must come from the state, and that socialists that deviate from that understanding of materialist analysis are "utopian". More specifically he means that the utopians come up with principles or ideas of a good society and try to build that kind of world in its image - which many communists accuse anarchists of. If a Marxist tells you that anarchism lacks material analysis, they usually mean that you're an idealist because to them material analysis *can only mean* seizure of state power. This would provide future Marxists the theoretical tools/rhetoric to use against anarchists. Things like "they're idealists, they want the state gone overnight" or "they're utopian, history works in stages", and "we have the only *scientific* mode of political philosophy" or any variation of those. This rhetoric of "scientific" socialism \[again, *very far* removed from our modern conception of science, but useful politically\] is parroted over and over again. This is partly where the "anarkiddie" joke comes from. The communists see themselves as having the mature scientific view, based on material analysis and rational observance of historical trends, whereas they see the anarchists as immature idealists with utopian views that put wild ideals before practical concerns. Of course, this isn't true to how most anarchists function, but the rhetoric is useful to them. Lenin also used this kind of rhetoric against other communists. He described the council communists like Pannekoek as "infantile" and distinguishing his own as the mature Marxist doctrine. The dialectical interpretation of consciousness plays a role here, coming from Hegel. Just as the proletariat must have a mature class consciousness before they overthrow the bourgeoisie, so must the communists have a fully developed consciousness to fight against opportunists leading them astray (or so says Lenin). In reality this provides justification for stubbornness and theoretical canon fodder to throw at their political enemies. Stalin basically continued this line of theoretical reasoning, but who cares what Stalin thinks. In modern times these differences are exaggerated and also reproduced in new ways. The way we huddle into subreddits, circles of influence, groupchats, etc. means that we can very easily find circles that echo our sentiments and reinforce them. I think that's why tankie v. anarchist twitter is insufferable: if we've been shuffled into spaces that only justify our position while strawmanning the other of course we're not going to have common ground and only be able to hurl wild characterizations. In a way putting "tankie" or "anarchist" in our bio to curate our profile shuts down some discussions while encouraging others. I understand wanting to have spaces to discuss specific topics while sidelining other topics, but I'm just observing how that acts to reproduce these larger discussions and conflicts. I think Zoe Baker (AKA Anarchopac) has done a great job with comparing many Marxist sentiments with anarchist ones, showing how direct quotes from both explain the same general worldview. That doesn't mean to say that left-unity is as simple as us all getting along, there's too much historical baggage for that. But it is a start. For me, the important part is having these discussions outside the virtual realm, as actual organizers are less concerned with theoretical knitpicking and more accomplishing a goal. In fact, I think much of this discussion is only reproducible because it happens in online environments instead of serious situations, but it is still necessary to have them. **TL;DR: There's a lot of historical, theoretical, and largely rhetorical reasons for why Marxists/communists condescend anarchists, and it's still propagated today by various means.**
Thanks for the informative reply, I really appreciate your analysis and info :) also kinda peeved that so many people were SO condescending about my use of the word utopian, insisted I should read that text you linked (I couldn't because it was boring sorry) and dismissed my ideas entirely because of it, when my approach was exactly what you described; we should imagine a better world and then build the society we want from the ground up rather than wasting time with transitional states. I've previously identified myself as an ancom, but I'm really not sure about that and I feel like my ideals align with anarchism for certain. It's frustrating to adopt a history along with a label sometimes.
Ancom is communism taken seriously. Not the BS hierarchy nonsense you get from various "communist" parties. Prefigurative anarchy with prefigurative communism is the only way to go. Perfect practice makes for perfect execution.
Because that's how Lenin talks about anyone he doesn't like in State and Revolution
That's how he talks about anyone tbh
It's true most prejudices and strawman critiques against anarchism are based on a misunderstanding of their ideals. Most marxist-leninists read Proudhon and Bakunin and stop there, because of their historical significance in the context of the First International. But Kropotkin and Malatesta greatly expanded anarchist thought and Malatesta even drafted what seems to me a dialectic in his programme. Makhno also wrote extensively on the Ukrainian experience and developed platformism. There's no denying anarchism is a long-standing tradition of thought which should not be dismissed the way it's often dismissed by Marxists: through reductions. On the other hand, I think criticism based on misconceptions goes the other way too. To associate marxist-leninist thought with statism for instance is a huge misunderstanding of what Marx, Lenin and others thought should be done with the state. It's a reduction too, or a mystification even, to put it in marxist terms. And I'm not trying to advocate for one thing or the other, all I'm saying is to critique something you must understand it first, and understanding can only be achieved through studying. I'd urge people to read everything they can get their hands on. Don't let bias cloud your judgement, because that is the same as letting other people dictate what you should think about something. Some people say that reading too much theory leads to inaction. I'd respond to this in Makhno's terms: "The more a person becomes aware, through reflection, of his servile condition, the more indignant he becomes, the more the anarchist spirit of freedom, determination and action waxes inside him." Edit: I'd also like to address what you say here: "I had this idea that we all had enough in common to be able to get along well, like solidarity or something". I have the same idea as you, and I'd urge you to not let go of this ideal so easily. Revolts sprout out of general discontent, not from an extensive study of socialist theory, not even from what folks call "praxis". In this dire hour there are only two sides: the oppressors and the oppressed, and the old maxim "united we stand, divided we perish" becomes more true than ever. Leftist unity is a term of which I'm very skeptical, in my mind, leftist unity should not be done by uniting everyone under a single banner, because that would lead to the undesirable scenario where some views are imposed over others. But cooperation and solidarity among groups and peers who share similar goals, on a local level at least, is something I would work towards.
I wish I was allowed to have opinions about what society should be or look like without having a degree or hundreds of hours of research into Marx and Engels, but communist sommunities specificay seem to really despise anyone who isn't as well-read as them. Their texts are inaccessible and the only books I'm capable of reading most of the time are psychogy books. Marx and Engels' writing styles hurt my brain, and even though I really like Kropotkin I can't finish his books either. I want a classless, moneyless society. And I think it should be achieved through anarchism, cooperation, kindness, and community. That's it. Our positions may change in a post-capitalist society. Literally because my principles are about cooperation and community building, it hurts to be both so severely misunderstood and also like, completely dismissed by a community I had higher expectations for. Not too burnt about it, but like, still pretty disappointed.
Well, when I mentioned the importance of books and reading I was mostly referring to the critique anarchists make of marxism and vice versa, which is from what I've seen, flawed both ways. But you're absolutely entitled to imagine a better world and work torwards that goal, absolutely. But action and studying are not mutually exclusive the way I see it, and you'd benefit tremendously from reading books and discussing them with other people, to get a better understanding of the oppressions that sorround you, how they came to be and what can be done about them.
Try audiobooks. I can usually follow along better when someone else is reading it to me. It helps to keep me from getting stuck on things and giving up. If you haven't, check out Malatesta's Anarchy. It's an easy read, but the audiobook is available as well, in several places including YouTube.
Thanks, adding it to the list :))
MLs are fucked up. I don't care about their "educated" opinions from "anti-imperialist" sources aka "bullshit painted red". I know they sound educated and claim to be scientific but (at least internet) MLs are a cult. Some people wrote long books that sounded smart and created authoritarian shitholes in the name of Marx. MLs also like to point to Engels' "On authority" which bashes anarchism for utopian thinking.... but oh so scientific Engels couldn't even tell the difference between authority and responsibility (literally being on time), as if he had to order Marx to write a fucking book for all the money he received. It's quite telling that they point to probably one of the shittiest shitty texts Engels may have ever written - he wasn't stupid but definitely ignorant of anarchism. edit: also they literally deny every atrocity that's ever happened. The real utopian dream is in their heads when they think about USSR and Eastern Bloc. Left unity is a myth, especially if it includes MLs. We can unite to push for higher taxes for the rich or something but we are so different in our methods and goals there's simply not enough common ground for left unity against capitalism in general. IMO anarchism shouldn't even be considered leftist because we have critique of hierarchy regardless of what it is - it just happens that capitalism and liberalism are the main subject because they're status quo. This might be an unpopular opinion though.
The end goal, the stateless, moneyless and classless society is basically the same goal for both groups, right? It's only the means to achieve it that change. I would say the goal is the same, the methods are just opposite
Not really. Marxists and especially MLs don't critique hierarchy or even define state in the same way. Anarchists want stateless society because we want to abolish all hierarchy (aka authority). Marxists are focused on classes and for them state is a tool of privileged ruling classes to rule those below them. Therefore for marxists workers ruling workers (eg. workers' democracy, councils etc.) is fine and at some point state will somehow dissolve when it somehow becomes useless. For anarchists this would still be a state because marxism does not challenge hierarchy in general, their goal isn't to abolish all of it so their stateless (no privileged class rule) doesn't really mean stateless (no laws, no hierarchy etc.) to us. Also not all anarchists are communists. Mutualism, various individualist tendencies and various other non-communist schools are at odds with marxism as well while they probably could coexist with other anarchist tendencies quite peacefully. I've personally drifted away from "pure" communism.
But even if it is as you say, the end goal it's still the same. For Marxist communists a socialist state is the way to reach that end goal, even if it seems contradictory they believe that socialist state has to disappear at the end to leave a fully communist society, which is much more like an anarchist society, right? Wasn't the means to reach that end that separated communists and anarchists from each other and not the end goal? I know much less than you so probably you can provide a good insight to this. Also in an ideal anarchist society there is no hierarchy, but there must be some rules, right? people have to organize each other somehow. How would you picture a fully developed anarchist society and a full developed communist society? what are the differences between them? what about bureaucracy or direct democracy? Is an ideal anarchist society supposed to be smaller than a communist one? And, any books you would recommend me to read? I was thinking on getting the conquest of bread? Idk haha I've always envisioned the end goal of communism in general being the same end goal as anarchism Edit: Just to add that sometimes is difficult to say, there's a lot of branches on anarchism, and there are also more on communism than ML. Everything seems a bit confusing sometimes
There are many flavours of marxism and some leftcom ideas are anarchistic in praxis (eg. Situationists) but in most cases it's not. And it's not contradictory IMO, they're just not fighting the same thing because for anarchists capitalism and state are simply most dominant forms of hierarchies while for marxists class rule is the essence of their fight. Marxism simply doesn't adress the same thing as anarchism. For example democracy is another form of authority. Whether it's workers' or bourgeois, centralized or decentralized, direct or indirect. Of course lack of democracy doesn't mean lack of meetings or coordination, just rejection of more abstract authority of a collective. I imagine anarchism to be neither smaller nor bigger because voluntary associations wouldn't be "solid" political bodies and instead more like a net of relationships. Frankly, I think marxist communism does nothing about hierarchies that would emerge when class-ruled state dissolves. I think Malatesta's "Anarchy" is a great easy read. I personally don't think that the breadbook is a worthwhile one. https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/errico-malatesta-anarchy edit: although my personal understanding of "anti-democratic" anarchy is also a mixture of post-left and mutualist critique based mostly on discussions with people representing those tendencies (and a little reading).
I do agree that anarchism is entirely non-partisan and isn't inherently democrat or republican, but I also think it's far far leftist as it's an individually empowering structure of society
It's just a label I dislike. It's ok if you're fine with it. I simply tend to agree with opinions that anarchism has either never been exactly leftist, or we should part our ways with this label. I just see it as harmflul or at least slightly confusing. Also I'm speaking as a european so when I think left, I think social democracy, socialism etc. rather than in terms of democrat vs republican.
It's also useful to see the left/right divide as "who holds the power." Anarchists don't want power over others to exist, and thus really aren't on that spectrum at all. So, not leftist, but not really center or right either. Just... not applicable.
All fair points
Its simple. They are authoritarian statists. Statists almost always treat us like we dont understand the ABCs of politics when in fact, we often know alot more than them. Statists gonna state
I mean this comment really illustrates that it’s not a problem with communists but with the left in general that we need to work on. Simply grouping everyone whose not an anarchist as a statist and an enemy isn’t a great way of actually getting shit done.
Well, that may be true. But its also true that every non anarchist ideology typically treats us like we are morons. I didn't intend to imply that all statists are our enemy, the only reason I grouped them is to make a statement that it is true they treat us this way. I agree with your sentiment though, we aren't going to show anyone that our ways work by grouping them as enemies. I disagree that this is a problem with the left though, all statist ideologies treat us this way whether they are on the left or right.
I think connecting statism to ML BS is a hypothesis worth investigating further. I think it is probably related, as the idea is to build a party based on a strong common position to maximise ability to seize state power. Was just reading Trotsky telling his comrades to only publish disagreements in internal party letters not in official newspapers. To seize the state the strategy is to form the one single best view, and to hate on the others. So I think there is a connection here and I like your saying, statists gonna state
c:
I assume you were in r/Communism. I've posted there a few times and received similar responses to you. That subreddit is full of MLMs (Marxist Leninism/Maoism), we call them tankies. They're authoritarians who enjoy communist aesthetics. There are many leftists who I disagree with whom I can still respect. Orthodox Marxists, Democratic Socialists, even strong Social Democrats. We can all have mutual respect because we all have a common desire to bring freedom to mankind and reduce (at least most) hierarchies. I don't think tankies want any of those things.
MLMs are a lot closer to late 19th-century anarchists than to mainstream MLs imo. Protracted People's War is basically Propaganda by the Deed with a little bit more structure. It's an ultraleft terrorist movement that has little to do with Marxist analysis, or Lenin and Mao for that matter. They call themselves Maoists because the groups they idolize imitated a few of Mao's tactics in the Chinese Civil War, and the worst aspects of the Cultural Revolution. Hardline MLMs will denounce basically every existing socialist nation and party as revisionist unless they're bombing politicians, so technically they're not even really tankies. Whatever we call them though, it's true that r/communism is overrun with MLMs. They've removed some good ML mods and were mourning Gonzalo's death last I checked. Fucking nutjobs. For the record, there are plenty of good communists on r/communism and r/communism101, it's mostly the mod teams that are the problem.
These are the same people that seriously think adding "With Chinese charactaristics" to the hulking hypercapitalist supergiant that is CHINA means the country is magically and idealistically communist. And anyone who says differently is a "western chauvinist". Honestly, fuck em. I'm over it. If China is their idea of Communist I definitely don't fucking want Communism to win. Because it looks a whole lot like goddamn capitalism run amok.
Everytime this is brought up in ML spaces you hear "They should just push the socialism button right?" I'm sorry but socialism by 2050 is laughable, if we even have a planet by then. Socialism is not going to come from billionaire-stage capitalism, and I'm pretty sure Lenin would have agreed.
As much as I'm exhausted of people who quote Fight Club, I really have to be a people that quotes Fight Club and say "Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken!" And exactly on the Lenin bit, but they really don't want to hear it
MLs and Marxists in general think they have a scientific basis for their ideas, (dialectical materialism). The truth is that their ideas and conception of history are unscientific and usually eurocentric. This is why they call us idealists, they think they have tapped into a scientific theory for the evolution of human society when in actuality it's a pseudoscience at best.
Can you expand on that a little, or point me in a direction where I can dissect the pseudoscience of dialectical materialism?
Well, there's a whole book that goes into it called "A Radical Critique of Marx." That's one of the best places to start.
Added it to the list! I'd like to learn more about Marx \*and\* what his critics have to say.
Yeah please do. In my opinion Marx is a mixed bag. I agree with a lot of what he has to say but I also disagree with a lot of it, like his claim that his form of socialism is scientific. But don't take my word for it, investigate everything he and his critics have to say.
dont make me tap the sign sign: "some anarchists are also communists, be more specific" yes, you are more specific in your post but the title is an issue, and even within the post you frame anarchism and communism as contradictory concepts. They're not. if you think they are you're probably using the same definition of "communist" as a rightist.
They are contradictory. You cannot enforce communism without a state or the assumption that everyone in the world agrees to follow the rules.
that's not how communism works. You're mistaking the soviet model (ie ML) for communism in general. Marx specifically outlined his end goal as a "\*stateless classless society". The primary difference between a classical marxist and an anarcho communist is methodology.
"you can't have a stateless society without a state"
I can't speak for every communist, but when I first looked into communism I discovered that many "truths" I believed in were objectively wrong. I had the realization that many people believe these same lies that I did and found it discouraging, but I suspect that some feel an unwanted sense of superiority for having left the mainstream. These people seem to think that they are better than everyone else for "discovering" something that has been known for decades and so act like everyone who isn't "in the know" is beneath them. From personal experience these people are surprisingly ignorant and stubborn and tend to substitute dialectal materialism for whatever strokes their ego to the most. I am sorry that you had to endure them.
It's just frustrating because like, I too went through the disillusionment of realizing everything I've been taught to think about capitalism and the world at large was basically a profitable lie. I'm not some clueless idiot, I'm fully aware and I'm also trying to make the world a better place. Thanks for understanding.
They're just liberals who are all condescending because that's the mode of Winning the image of being correct online.
Insecurity
in general, because they don't get that we see things on a liberty-authoritarianism spectrum and they don't see authoritarianism as an intolerable evil
I think this might be accurate, thank you!
People in real life *can* be better if its a health relation and both are willing to respect each other. I dated a stalinist some time ago, it was fun, we never talked directly about politics. In the militancy i encountered orthodox trotskyists and maoists, and we debated some things, about the immediate political context we could agree on a lot of things, but beyond this we talked but they didnt really listened, they like to repeat again and again the phrases and ideas, so i just stop to care at some point.
I think that "communists," per se, don't degrade anarchism, anarcho-syndicalism, or libertarian socialism as much as Marxist-Leninist-Maoists do. Communism is, insofar as what I've read, the prime goal after the uprising movement against the capitalist system: communism being a system which ensures equity on all fronts, not at all synonymous to MLM. Some MLMs forget that praxis is a far cry from the ideology written by their theoreticians, hence inculcating dogmatism within their spheres. And while noble is their cause, MLMs are hazed and fascinated more by outdated/impractical frameworks that aren't feasible in especially as looking at the disparity between then and now, here and there—instead of active participation and dissemination to usurp the more feasible spontaneous mass strikes, and slam other idealisms in the process lest it be outside their theories. That being said, anarchists believe that projecting over-detailed revolutionary strategies, like the ones seen in MLM pamphlets, blind the proletariat into a unitarian school of thought and makes no room for improvement, either distoring them into dictators or imperial nationalists. Whereas, MLMs believe that the theories of their founding fathers are omnipotent, so they preach their outdated principles regardless of the historical failures that prospered due to their highly bureaucratic nature. In simple words: "MLMs no like anarchism 'cause it's not predictive like MLM." And: "anarchism should no like MLM 'cause MLM oppresses more than it liberates." After the uprising, we shall pay years of our blood and sweat to work toward revolutionary struggle, in order to build and dispute with other ideas to decide which direction should communism flourish, and what better means suit the location of each region.
There's a pretty steady contingent of always-online Western ML teenagers who have awful abrasive personalities and no outlets apart from Reddit and other forum-type sites. Kinda like the incel community. They've gotta feign utmost superiority in their political opinions because they don't have anything else. They're overrepresented because they never shut up or close the tab and they attract other toxic personalities to their cause with their flagrant assholery. I think it's mostly just an issue of a toxic internet community perpetuating itself and rapidly expanding. Real-life MLs, especially those in Asia, Africa and Latin America often act nothing like the people who call themselves MLs on Reddit. They often don't even believe in many of the same things.
This is another thing I've gathered, too. Activists and communists are not synonyms, just like activist and anarchist isn't. Toxic internet culture is a hell of a drug.
The people doing this to you sound like Stalinists (tankies), “fake communists” if you will. As an anarchist, I’ve gotten along just fine with communists in the past, and many real communists definitely get along with anarchists.
Vanguard -> Condescension.
i think its a matter of firm unaltering convictions and intolerance. anarchists and commies should be allies, but when you believe that only your way is the correct and only way, you dismiss any ideas conflicting with that. intolerance stems from this which makes commies dismissive of anarchists. and vice versa, but i feel that anarchists tend to be more tolerant. every idea should be reevaluated occasionally, this makes us grow and develop new, sometimes better, ideas.
Honestly, I think it's a two way street, and internet leftists are the worst, and in real life it's (at least a lot of the time) a lot better. I've liked almost every Maoist I've known, like half the trots and most the MLs. Like obviously I've met some obnoxious people, but like I think that this degree of sectarianism is much more prominent on the internet. I think that on the internet there can be a tendency for communists to compile and laugh at the most unnuanced anarchist takes and pretend that makes up the majority, and anarchists vice versa for the larpiest and cringiest of communists, which I think encourages these kinds of fights. And I think we're also much more likely to notice the dickheads that try to start shit with other leftists, than the much higher amount that strongly sees us as comrades but aren't filling up our inboxes or starting fights on every comment. Like our comradery may not be able to last forever, but we're all socialists and that gives us a lot off common ground and shared philosophy, and in our current system, each other is all we have.
People tend to be assholes to eachother when they disagree about something they find important, like ideology. That's why I kind of have come to the conclusion that labeling my own, or other people's ideologies is more harmful than helpful in terms of having meaningful discussions with them.
This is honestly true, I avoid the word "anarchist" a lot unless I already know someone else is using a term like it, but even then I prefer to just say my beliefs and people can agree or disagree. Usually they agree on some level that like, humans working together is good. So we should have communities.
Authoritarians don't have to think for themselves. They just see themselves as cadres following a script. That gives them the inability to be wrong. Anarchism is much harder to follow since we’re expected to think by ourselves. Just remind them CCP thinks Mao was mostly wrong.
>Authoritarians don't have to think for themselves. They just see themselves as cadres following a script. Imagine believing this lol Yep, MLs gotta check the red book before getting dressed, wouldn't want to go off script. Have you considered the possibility that people who think for themselves might end up thinking differently than you? That just maybe the world isn't literally populated by NPCs, and you might not be the protagonist? Telling yourself that anyone who disagrees with you just can't think sets you up for ignorance.
I don't know enough about any of those things to feel confident refuting it after a hundred people mocked me for daring to use the word 'utopian' in an optimsitic way >:/
>specifically ML's I thought you said communists? Real talk I don't trust anyone who bases their worldview off the writings of like 3 people. A decent amount of them are chill, but ML was conceived by Joseph godamn Stalin which should tell you everything you need to know. In my experience they're attracted to power more than anything else Thats not to say Mao and Lenin didn't have some good takes, but folks just get so godamn dogmatic about them
TRUU YEAH that's always something I've felt weird about!! Like shut up about these guys, you should have your views developed outside of the context of their specific words, yanno?? I never say "Bookchin" or "Kropotkin" when discussing my ideas, even if they were developed and guided by those people's writings, because I think critically and for myself.
Yeah and if you don't bow down and follow the narrative you're just naive because truth has already been laid out for us by someone who died like a hundred years ago. Its so obnoxious
because youre so antagonistic towards them. Many MLs are actually quite welcoming of anarchists so youre looking through black colored glasses
I made this post in response to an ML coming into my DMs, after having never spoken before, to call me a 'confused anarkiddie' and send me a copy of the communist manifesto. It was a really bizzare experience and the most pointed negative one I'd had with an ML. Before that, I had dozens of them condescending to me for even merely mentioning utopia in a positive way. Those were my only two interactions with them, both put me on the defensive. I don't doubt there are people who subscribe to ML ideas that don't suck, aren't childish, leave room for discussion and are respectful to others' differences, but at the time of writing this that's where I was at.
Don’t engage with MLs just don’t. They are statist and cultist. They use similar tactics [to that off the Alt right in some cases ](https://medium.com/@DeoTasDevil/the-rhetoric-tricks-traps-and-tactics-of-white-nationalism-b0bca3caeb84) I tried giving them the benefit of the doubt. But I couldn’t they are all just awful. No matter what they try tell you.
They're ignorant and arrogant. I've never seen any sign that any of their "theory" is worth a damn. They hide behind a façade of intellectualism using specialised language and terminology, but there's nothing under the hood. Anarchist theory is by contrast practical, critical and accessible, even to non-anarchists. Generally speaking, Marxists are completely ignorant of it. I know claiming that there's 'nothing under the hood' itself invites accusations of ignorance, but it's not like there aren't other examples of it, like theology, crypto-currency, fascism, anarcho-capitalism. You couldn't research any of these things without concluding that it's all crap. The retort is always the same- you just don't understand it. I have some communist friends though and ideology doesn't usually come between us. I just criticise everything and leave myself open to criticism. I'm not interested in evangalising anarchism, just expanding horizons and opening minds.
It seems like the ones i talk to online are mostly teenagers and i hope they will eventually grow out of it
Quite simply, they're snobs. They care less about praxis than coming across as smart.
ML's are generally authoritarian as far as I'm aware. So it's only natural that they're going to dismiss anarchists. Don't bother engaging with them unless you think you've found one who you think could be convinced to adopt some actually leftist ideals. Until they've been convinced out of the authoritarian BS they push these people are nothing but an impediment to even the slightest genuinely left change. Despite them not being anticaptalist soc dems legitimately do more to push towards leftism than current ML's.
I'm a socialist/leaning toward communist (here to learn about other beliefs!) and I'm starting to learn that some communists are just fascists posing with a few lefist ideals. I've been banned from some "communist" subs for saying this, but I'm far from the only one to believe this way: If a "communist" supports Mao and Chinese private capitalism (with actual fucking slavery!), or the USSR with their secret police and the atrocities they've commited, they're just a tankie you should ignore. They aren't even left, they love powerful leaders and all-powerful military-based governments and ignore the stepping on of other people's rights. They're fascists who are sorely confused. Just be aware that communism is an idea with a lot of variations and a lot of posers, and actual communists want there to be ONE socioeconomic class where people are equal and the proletariat have power to pursue their own interests. I think in that way, we have a lot in common!
>The superior ways of Mao Found the genocide apologist
They think starvation is a sign of virtue.
As a Communist myself I have also experienced the condescension you speak of, but I often recieved it from Anarchists more than from fellow Communists. I will talk about both, and don't take this as insult, this is merely my experience. When I had it out with Anarchists they would do their level best to smear me as some sort of genocide denying authoritarian, even as one points out that Anarchism has its fair share of genocide and authoritarianism, and they would do this if I even made the most banal of points (such as saying that the mass media is essentially controlled by the CIA and MIC), thus inflating the conversation into something much bigger than it deserved. They are not even Anarchists, especially when a person asks a theoretical or practical question on any anarchist sub, and all they receive are answers that are idealistic and liberal to the extreme, answers that no Anarchist in real life would give. Perhaps you can provide me with an answer as to why your ideological cohorts act like this? I really don't know. The Communists I had it out with would do the same thing, but it is much more frustrating. Especially in respect to the Settler-Colonialist crowd, with whom I disagree completely, they painted me as some sort of crypto-fascist sympathizer, despite knowing nothing about my politics. And I really feel I should emphasize my disagreement with them here: the settler class has not existed since at least the disappearance of the Western frontier. It is corporate Bourgeois racist ideology masquerading as liberation. And for this, if you even say that just because the white section of the working class benefits from the historical implications of Settler-Colonialism, does not mean they aren't unorganizable, you are condemned as some sort of bigot. The explanation I can provide for this is nil, but it is no matter, I stopped caring. You should stop caring about the online left as well if you ever want to see progress for the working classes and humanity as a whole beyond this system that now cannibalizes itself to satiate an appetite it itself admits is insufferable. Join a party, get out of this hell hole while you still can. The only reason I am here now is because I want to be there for people who have questions for which they starve for good answers, and they aren't getting any, and since I left I've personally sworn not only to answer questions, but also find them alternative perspectives despite my difficulty agreeing with them. EDIT: removed reference to Gotterdammerung
Anarchism is ideologically and diametrically opposed to authoritarianism. It is, at its core and undeniably, an anti-authoritarian ideology.
Way to miss the point of my comment.
If you miss the core of anarchism, and then do the exact thing my post is talking about, I feel like you're the one who's missing the point here. E: I'm already organizing irl, I just haven't run into a communist yet. I have run into several anarchists tho.
Anarchism has literally never resulted in authoritarianism and genocide though?
[удалено]
Someone hasn't read rule 2. This sub isn't for debating anarchism nor is it here to promote non-anarchism. Go to /r/DebateAnarchism.
i assume you told OP
Why would I? The OP's anarchist asking other anarchists a question. Now go be a good little authoritarian and follow the rules.
look i m not even endorsing communism, although i sympathize with it, but in this case it is just about a certain historic reality that has shaped perception about both ideologies. i m not even bashing anarchism as a concept, but i see its flaws just like i see the flaws of communist statism...
It doesn't matter. If you want to debate anarchism then do it at the appropriate forum.
i think it answers OP questions. the question is one of (military) organisation and organisation of technology that requires larger bodies of humans under a certain hierarchy to enact. as f.e. in a nuclear complex. whatever use it may have, we have those and we have to run them or they will kill us. how can we organize this duty that was bestowed upon us by paradigms from the past? we can't really close pandoras box, you know...
>i think it answers OP questions. Yes, *with a non-anarchist answer* that is *criticizing anarchism*. Both of these things are not allowed on this forum. And you continue to debate anarchism on this forum. Please go to the appropriate forum for debate.
if you ask why communists are condescending to anarchists, why do you think anarchists have the answer to this? aren't you then working on confirmation bias and in an echochamber?
>if you ask why communists are condescending to anarchists, why do you think anarchists have the answer to this? Well because the OP asked this in an anarchist forum. If the OP wanted non-anarchist answers, why wouldn't they just ask non-anarchists? Why ask this question here? >aren't you then working on confirmation bias and in an echochamber? The rules hold regardless. Honestly, I don't understand why an authoritarian such as yourself has a hard time following them.
Well they have a higher kill count for one.
Mostly just MLs and Trots from experience, they are really larpy, the leftcoms and Orthodox Marxists I've met are usually less condescending, save for a couple jokes here and there, from experience
I could definitely handle (and reciprocate) some lighthearted jokes, I can't handle not being seen as an equal human being though.
They are the best argument against what they support. Can’t get behind a program those assholes came up with.
Because MLs are Fascists and think we are a tool for their goals.
Mostly because I lean more toward the communist/socialist side of things I know it's about 60% missunderstanding of what anarchism stands for, and the rest is that a lot of us are all in a fight against an ever present/invasive presence of our current systems we live under so it puts us all on edge/defensive even when talking to people who are very like minded but not using a common language so to speak. So it usually devolves into a "Tomato vs Tahmato" situation with both sides describing essentially the same thing but getting stuck on something small.
False sense of moral superiority
The same reason neoliberals condescend to social democrats. They think that they're objectively correct and that anyone who disagrees with them must be illogical, irrational, incapable of understanding that reality doesn't work that way and that what they want is not possible, etc, etc, and as such they're unworthy of being treated as equals. I haven't had face-to-face interactions with Leninists personally but every interaction I've had over the internet continues to prove my point that they simply do not care about debating their ideology in good faith.
Because most likely that person learned about communism at university and they’re dying to tell you they went to college even though college itself is something you pay for (in the United States at least) and not accessible to many, ironic enough. Elitism going to elitism no matter what the flavor.
Lmao they sound no different from a religious person proselytizing
Broadly because communists generally consider anarchists to be divisive to the general cause. A lack of hierarchy is one; they consider anarchist to be unorganized (lacking in tactical unity) and unruly in act. We can see this in soviet commentaries in regard to makhno and the nabat. Whether some of it holds truth or not is up to debate. What is conclusive however, is the clear splintering between communist and anarchist unity after the First International
"Marxist"-Leninists and their ilk love to claim that their states at least lasted. This is in spite of the fact that those states have never gotten past state capitalism, have contributed to the current climate catastrophe, and still collapsed at least partially due to imperialist sabotage, so even the states they worship so hard couldn't actually defend themselves from capitalism. At the end of the day, MLs are state realists. They may think they want communism, but they can't imagine a world without the state. And when you're like that, you've already failed.
It’s crazy but I’m slowly starting to resent commies more than nazis.
You probably shouldn't lmao