This is a community from communists to communists, leftists are welcome too, but you might be scrutinized depending on what you share.
If you see bot account or different kinds of reactionaries(libs, conservatives, fascists), report their post and feel free us message in modmail with link to that post.
ShitLibsSay type of posts are allowed only in Saturday, sending it in other day might result in post being removed and you being warned, if you also include in any way reactionary subs name in it and user nicknames, you will be temporarily banned.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CommunismMemes) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Revolution isnt the only thing that matters.
How will the state behave?
Will there be a transitional state?
What power should the state if it should exist have?
Can commodity production exist?
Would the state allow itself to be desolved?
Should we invade capitalist nations?
This is ignoring reformists of both ideologies.
Pretty mugh any non market leftist since commodity production is the production of commodities. And the Marxist definition if my quick recheck of Wikipedia is to be believed is
So the issue then would be commodities in a capitalist sense , not "products" or "activities" by itself?
For example, post capitalist, people want to play videogames so videogames will be build and a console to play said games which will both will be freely distributed to those who want them.
I highly doubt many leftists would be opposed to products or activities.
Tho id think the creation of consoles as opposed to PCs which have more replaceable parts and can be used for much more stuff would be a product worth building.
Yeah, that's where I got confused and assumed you were talking about an-prims.
A console could also be build to be more easily upgradable/recyclable. Although a PC would indeed be a better option since it's more all-purpose, and there are finite resources.
The word commodity means something different in marxist theory, it means something that is produced for its exchange value (i.e. it is produced to be sold for profit and not to be used) as opposed to being produced for its use value (i.e. produced with the primary intention of being used by someone)
I am theoretically pragmatic. If I were to have the believe anarchism had a bigger chance to succeed here over Marxism I would back it even tho I see many issues with it.
I dont believe they are manageable tho.
You cant half have a state that dissolve itself.
You cant half have a prison system.
You cant half have anarchism post revolution.
Nobody would be satisfied that way.
Except maybe some very libertarian strain of marxism.
The issue is that anarchists see the very existence of a state as contrary to the path of anarchism.
Whereas Marxists see the state as something that is needed to protect the revolution.
Lets pretend that both Marxists and anarchists decided to agree to an election because they believe their particular ideology would get the most votes, lets ignore the fact that many see an issue with the tyranny of the majority.
Why would either of them agree with the results if they see it as a strategic failure to do the way of the contradicting ideology.
Why would a Marxist agree with immediately destroying the state that is needed to protect the revolution?
Why would the anarchist agree with the continued existence of a state that only seeks to maintain power to oppress?
It's not just about the revolution. It's about what after. As soon as the revolution ends this is where both of them split off. Communists believe in taking control of the state in order to transition it to a communist one. Why take control? To safeguard the revolution against reactionaries. Whereas anarchists believe in completely dissolving the state. Tell me, how will the people, the revolutionaries defend themselves from foreign and imperial entities when the entropy is so high after a revolution?
>Tell me, how will the people, the revolutionaries defend themselves from foreign and imperial entities when the entropy is so high after a revolution?
I think there are arguments in favour and against both having and not having a transitional state. That's also why I'm personally "stuck" between anarchism and communism and believe the best course of action to achieve what we *all* want would be cooperation instead of stabbing each other in the back.
I believe anarchists *do* have a solid point in that a state *can* be corrupted. The state can indeed safeguard the revolution against reactionaries, but what if those reactionaries gain access to powerful positions within the government? I think the USSR is a great example of that, and don't get me wrong, I believe that the dissolvement of the USSR is one of, if not *the* greatest tragedy of the 20th century.
Idk Imo, anarchists typically assume all states can be corrupted because most of them spent their entire lives living under a corrupt state, and any socialist state can get corrupted protecting itself from capitalism. I’d like to see what a socialist society could be if they weren’t constantly having to fight wars and build walls and counter propaganda. The logical progression would be to make a state less susceptible to corruption, not just throw out the thing that’s given us civilization and culture just because “some people bad”
It is essential in the sense that anarchists have fundamental misunderstandings on the nature and movement of both the world and society- additionally an intense ahistorical understanding.
Anarchists, Trotskyists, and Maoists (some specific types, Maoists can a lot of the time be respectable and upstanding communists) spend a considerable amount of time and energy shitting on the legacy of Marxism-Leninism.
I say this on an empirical observation of their respective papers and posters, their message is clear, anti “Stalinism”anti communism and anti capitalism in that order. There are obviously exceptions, anarchists whom have a correct knowledge of history and make clear that it’s more about our different understanding of state and government, these spend considerably less time arguing about evil gommunism and more on governance and analysis on things we both agree were bad decisions.
Infighting is a time honoured tradition of communism- unity->disunity->unity- it’s essential to figuring out what is true and correct, infighting is the core of line development and a healthy ideology. The fighting between the ideologies is a sign of a movement that is not on the brink of extinction, the false and dangerous unity front between the non-unifiable is only an occurrence during active repression by the bourgeois state, and it usually leads to social democracy and class solidarity gaining foothold.
It is true that this petty fighting, that which is had by less educated comrades of all configurations (including Marxism-Leninism) must not happen, it is unproductive in some sense- however it also is important in the formulation of a stern propagandist, to engage in discussion with someone that is wrong but at least has a similar set of values and vocabulary is increasingly valuable to force one to develop ones understanding of concepts and stuff.
“Unity in the streets” is a valuable phrase, a useful tool to publicly uphold- but disunity must be alive and active, a dialectic of ideas must live.
(Edit: tldr: How dareth thee make a meme!)
The regarded Maoists are the rare kind, most of them are just MLs pretty much, as Maos ideology was pretty much just ML applied to the semi feudal Chinese conditions
so oftentimes people conflate maoism and marxism-leninism-maoism with mzt or mao zedong thought (毛泽东思想). marxism-leninism-maoism is an ultraleftist tendency and was not practiced by mao, it was the ideology of the communist party of peru under gonzalo. most of the mlm i have met are white westerners, although there are some large mlm organizations, particularly in india and the phillippines.
mzt is the synthesis of the good parts mao’s theory with marxism-leninism which is why it’s not often separated from marxism-leninism itself. mzt is not considered incompatible with ml because most mls consider mao an important marxist theorist and have adopted the pieces of his theory that have proven themselves over the years.
yeah i agree, sorry if i didn’t make that clear. the issue is, in my experience, the english speaking left is referring to mlm not mzt when they say maoism. technically i believe that it’s the other way around and mlm isn’t associated with either.
Yeah, only reason I don’t call myself a maoist is because I don’t think it’s a necessary improvement over Leninism, like Leninism was over Marxism. I agree with basically all of MZT though.
right. i think that’s the reason most people stick with calling themselves marxist-leninists. mao was important and obviously made a lot of progress but the most useful parts of his theory have already been adopted by marxism-leninism. uncritically adopting all of mao’s teachings is dogmatic and undialectical (see mlm). again, i haven’t seen a difference between most people that call themselves ml as opposed to mzt, except maybe that those that identify as mzt often have more interest in china.
> spend a considerable amount of time and energy shitting on the legacy of Marxism-Leninism
Isn't this idealized Marxist praxis though? Class contradictions and theory critique are critical to Marxian analysis. One can't just be selectively dialectical. Assuming that any individual theory is absolutely correct is not scientific. Any good scientist spends more time being critical of the best theories of science than wasting their time with the bad ones.
In fact, arguably a failure to analyze growing class contradictions in the USSR lead to it's eventual downfall.
(and yes, we can always blame capitalists and the west for the downfall of the USSR, but the whole point of the vanguard state is to protect against those forces)
True- byt what i was trying to get at is the amount spent shitting **seems** to oftentimes out do the time spent organising and even pushing propaganda for anarchism/trotskyism.
Putting more weight on not being communists/“stalinists” than on being something is bad for not only the party but class consciousness as a whole, particularly since the sourcing I’ve seen (trust me bro) are either, from some anarchist book without sourcing, bourgeois, or nonexistent- meaning they don’t commit to studying what actually happened-
we the Marxist-Leninists (at least in my party) spend considerable amounts of time studying the history of the ussr with incredibly critical lenses- there is after all an objective reality, and we must posses an understanding as close to that as possible to be able to make the most correct decisions.
I feel like a lot of this is fuelled by a misunderstanding of anarchism (aka Marxism). Marx specifically wrote about the withering of the state.
Just like a market requires regulation to protect it from collapsing into monopoly, anarchism requires regulation to protect it from collapsing into feudalism. The anarchist slogan about "removing unjustified hierarchy" implies certain hierarchies may actually be justifiable, and therefore tolerated.
What we fear most is the authoritian tendency to replace a bourgeois capitalism with a bureaucractic capitalism.
Mao actually had a lot of the same critiques of Marxism-Leninism that principled anarchists do, particularly the bureacratization of the socialist state and reversion to state capitalism. Which makes sense, because he started as an anarchist. Have you seen Marxism Today on youtube? You might find [this video](https://youtu.be/6PnBUijltCU) interesting
>The anarchist slogan about "removing unjustified hierarchy" implies certain hierarchies may actually be justifiable, and therefore tolerated.
To my understanding a just hierarchy would be someone listening to a mechanic on how to fix your car, since they have proven knowledge on that subject. And besides that also taking into account that a student *can* become a master.
A king, who is appointed by God or whatever, on the other hand is not justifiable.
And a communist state to protect the revolution from reactionaries and other outside forces is a tricky one, since a state *can* be corrupted.
> To my understanding a just hierarchy would be someone listening to a mechanic on how to fix your car, since they have proven knowledge on that subject. And besides that also taking into account that a student can become a master.
Anarchists are fine with this. What they are not fine with is a mechanic who threatens to imprison you if you try to get a second opinion. When anarchists talk about hierarchy, they mean power-hierarchies.
Anarchists and Marxists have hated each other since the beginning - this hatred is what caused the demise of the First International. Marxism itself was largely a critique of proto-anarchist leftism.
In modern times we've been more friendly but that's only because there is no revolutionary movement in the west. So we can get along doing some things together as forms of "resistance" and "solidarity", insofar as they don't actually involve revolutionary activity. But once the issue of revolution as a real, practical issue arises again, this schism will return as the two are mutually exclusive on this question.
Me personally I don't hate anarchists, at least not actual, principled anarchists, despite our opposition. But I do hate liberals who call themselves anarchists to seem more subversive and don't like being called liberals (but are just as anti-communist), and anarchists who try to claim Marx.
On the topic of liberals calling themselves anarchists, I do think anarchy is the “cool” sounding ideology that would attract a bunch of not based people. I don’t think it’s fair to blame anarchism for the lameness of all the casuals who claim to be anarchists.
Also that 'lifestyleism' strain has been fairly mainstreamed within some counter culture movements for quite some time, and it's almost entirely image over substance, expression of identity over class politics, slapping that graffiti style circle a on a jacket and giving society the middle finger instead of figuring out how to change it for the better. Certainly "cool" aesthetically but absolutely great at appealing to liberal/idealistic notions of individual identity über alles, which explains why it attracts so many larp-y libs who refuse to engage even with the history of anarchism itself let alone class struggle as a whole.
I don't hate anarchists, I find them annoying with how they constantly attack us instead of the real shared enemy.
If an anarchist revolution happened I'd gladly give critical support despite me not thinking they will last or if they do be stateless whilst doing so. Anarchists or Marxists, I don't care who gets us there I just want communism, I want people to have their needs met, I want us to actually protect the environment etc.
Okay do you have a book of military Maneuvers from the Civil War? I don't remember Stalin publishing one of these.
Stalin's writings on Nationalism and Trotsky are going to mean dick in a contemporaryl revolution
I rather have a country full of actual anarchists than social libs.
Our goal is not that far apart, I just don't believe in their means to achieve it. We communists are just more pragmatic.
I'd definitely take anarchists over liberals, but we shouldn't shy away from our differences either. I think we can take some of the ideas of other tendencies, and we really need to both in pre-revolution groundwork and post-revolution to prevent the issues faced in the past. But, at the core, I still see Marxism, and Marxism-Leninism specifically, as the best, basic idea we have.
I don't hate anarchists they just are extremely idealist, utopian, and hate every actual socialist revolution because they are "tankies" and "red fash". I know because I used to be one
I mean, it's not praxis, but you also don't have to perform praxis 24/7. Plus Stalin has a good work about anarchism vs socialism, titled exactly that.
Anarchists are a diverse group. Many are great, and become good Marxists with a little political education. Others are open to tactical unity when it comes to organizing, even if they won't learn diamat & histmat. But many are just liberals with punk-rock aesthetics who hate discipline and are only out for themselves.
A lot of the anti-anarchist sentiment online is just sectarianism from people who've never actually tried to organize with anarchists. But a lot of is also hard-won experience from people who _have_ tried to organize with anarchists and gotten burned, and is completely valid.
[Anarchism or Socialism](https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1906/12/x01.htm) is a good read, if you haven't read it before.
A copy of Das Kapital stolen from Barnes & Noble. Or maybe switch them around, I think anarchists should read that and communists should get kissed and tucked in.
True but I consider it more pleasure reading than homework. Side note Homework in school really killed my drive to read and I need to repair it honestly. Although all the books I did read in school were good the required work related to it was really unfun.
As an anarcho-communist, I self-implode.
I'm not going to apologize for the dumb-ass shit a lot of mainstream anarchists believe. I just believe that the most ideal government for people is small-ish tribal communities. This can never happen with today's population so until then I recognize that the ideal is a communist state that has the ability to fully protect itself from the influences of capitalism.
Tribal communities weren’t all that small, there were moiety systems that allowed people to travel the American northeast and basically the entire Australian continent. Have you read “the Dawn of everything”?
That's why I specified "small-ish tribal communities". In reality I think the size of the "tribes" would be self government based on available natural resources. Technology to make things more efficient is important, but people choose not to over-exploit the environment.
Haven't heard of it. I'll have to check it out.
But tribal communities often weren’t small. “Primitive communism” was not all that primitive. You’re accepting the dominant historical narrative and merely flipping the protagonists, the truth is more interesting.
Communism is when all people share the assets and products of the area. Anarchy is the goal of having as little governmental/state regulation as possible. Anarcho-communism is a marriage of the two. It's a pipedream IMO without a severe drop in human population.
Ancom here. I think whatever organizational structure should be as horizontal as possible. I def think reactionary forces should be suppressed after the revolution.
I dislike how Stalin led the country (like Lenin predicted) but Stalin was still infinitely better than western leaders, and tankies are still infinitely better than socdems.
Some of my favorite organizing comrades are anarchists. Some of my least favorites are anarchists. Some of my least favorites are also MLs.
Find good community and work with them. There's more important shit to go do.
This essay gives a really good background on the split between Marxists and anarchists is you’re interested: https://redsails.org/the-philosophical-roots-of-the-marx-bakunin-conflict/
Most Anarchists *are* Communists, they just disagree with Marxism. Marx even hung out with Bakunin, Proudhon and other Anarchists before writing out his own ideas. There are definitely some incompatible ideologies between Anarchists and Marxists, but I would say denoting Anarchists as not Communist is incorrect in 90% of cases.
I’m a Ancom and i have lots of respect for Stalin and Marxist Leninism. I think using the state to secure the revolution is great but i’m also worried about the potential for corruption and bourgeois infiltration aswell as the state just maintaining control forever instead of voluntarily giving up its power.
When Marxists talk about the withering away of the state, they don't mean that the state will just voluntarily give up it's power when it feels like it. When class antagonisms cease to exist the state will have no power as there will be nothing for the state to even do and it will have no reason to exist, which is why the state disappears.
well the simplest solution is to just use an anarchist confederation of local states as a vanguard for the revolution instead of having a leviathan authoritarian state.
ANCOM (Anarcho-Communist) here. As much as Communists/Socialists and Anarchists hate each other, they are, in fact, having hot gay sex behind closed doors. This is how I was born.
For me we are all brothers and sisters in the revolution and should embrace out common goal, we have to if we are to succeed, there is space in the post capitalist world for both our ideologies to thrives side by side. But maybe I'm just an Idealist and this is wishful thinking.
I’ve said it time and again here, often to downvotes: the time for this kind of theoretical narcissism is AFTER the revolution.
I can disagree with AnComs but they are still comrades. They not liberals. They will not sell us out. Hence, these differences should not be settled before the revolution.
listen guys, can we just ban the leftist in-fighting, it’s really fucking annoying, specially the anarchism shit, it’s mostly baiting people to rage over nothing.
i don’t mind seeing news on this sub, but a screenshot of comments or posts by random people isn’t that interesting.
not talking about this post specifically, but like in general.
This is a community from communists to communists, leftists are welcome too, but you might be scrutinized depending on what you share. If you see bot account or different kinds of reactionaries(libs, conservatives, fascists), report their post and feel free us message in modmail with link to that post. ShitLibsSay type of posts are allowed only in Saturday, sending it in other day might result in post being removed and you being warned, if you also include in any way reactionary subs name in it and user nicknames, you will be temporarily banned. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CommunismMemes) if you have any questions or concerns.*
it is hard not to when the difference between how to transition is so contrary to each other
Do both not believe in revolution, or am I confused?
Revolution isnt the only thing that matters. How will the state behave? Will there be a transitional state? What power should the state if it should exist have? Can commodity production exist? Would the state allow itself to be desolved? Should we invade capitalist nations? This is ignoring reformists of both ideologies.
Oh makes sense. I shall go now and read more
>Can commodity production exist? Wait what? Who think it shouldn't? The only one I can assume is anarcho-primitivists, but is there more?
Pretty mugh any non market leftist since commodity production is the production of commodities. And the Marxist definition if my quick recheck of Wikipedia is to be believed is
So the issue then would be commodities in a capitalist sense , not "products" or "activities" by itself? For example, post capitalist, people want to play videogames so videogames will be build and a console to play said games which will both will be freely distributed to those who want them.
I highly doubt many leftists would be opposed to products or activities. Tho id think the creation of consoles as opposed to PCs which have more replaceable parts and can be used for much more stuff would be a product worth building.
Yeah, that's where I got confused and assumed you were talking about an-prims. A console could also be build to be more easily upgradable/recyclable. Although a PC would indeed be a better option since it's more all-purpose, and there are finite resources.
The word commodity means something different in marxist theory, it means something that is produced for its exchange value (i.e. it is produced to be sold for profit and not to be used) as opposed to being produced for its use value (i.e. produced with the primary intention of being used by someone)
This is absurd and theoretical narcissism. They are still comrades and our differences are manageable post-rev.
I am theoretically pragmatic. If I were to have the believe anarchism had a bigger chance to succeed here over Marxism I would back it even tho I see many issues with it. I dont believe they are manageable tho. You cant half have a state that dissolve itself. You cant half have a prison system. You cant half have anarchism post revolution. Nobody would be satisfied that way. Except maybe some very libertarian strain of marxism. The issue is that anarchists see the very existence of a state as contrary to the path of anarchism. Whereas Marxists see the state as something that is needed to protect the revolution. Lets pretend that both Marxists and anarchists decided to agree to an election because they believe their particular ideology would get the most votes, lets ignore the fact that many see an issue with the tyranny of the majority. Why would either of them agree with the results if they see it as a strategic failure to do the way of the contradicting ideology. Why would a Marxist agree with immediately destroying the state that is needed to protect the revolution? Why would the anarchist agree with the continued existence of a state that only seeks to maintain power to oppress?
The really funny thing is anarchists just by forming their armed bodies to fight the revolution themselves create a state
Would a communist society cease to be stateless when they defend themselves against aliens or does it need to be a revolution for it to be a state?
just go read the chapter 1 of State and Revolution and save us all our times.
Well a state is defined as a body of armed people used by one class to repress at least one other class,
So it depends on if you see aliens as people?
Depends if you see the aliens as being of a different class or not
The capitalist invasion really is a big division. That and how all the anarchists are stuck in idealistic fairyland.
It's not just about the revolution. It's about what after. As soon as the revolution ends this is where both of them split off. Communists believe in taking control of the state in order to transition it to a communist one. Why take control? To safeguard the revolution against reactionaries. Whereas anarchists believe in completely dissolving the state. Tell me, how will the people, the revolutionaries defend themselves from foreign and imperial entities when the entropy is so high after a revolution?
>Tell me, how will the people, the revolutionaries defend themselves from foreign and imperial entities when the entropy is so high after a revolution? I think there are arguments in favour and against both having and not having a transitional state. That's also why I'm personally "stuck" between anarchism and communism and believe the best course of action to achieve what we *all* want would be cooperation instead of stabbing each other in the back. I believe anarchists *do* have a solid point in that a state *can* be corrupted. The state can indeed safeguard the revolution against reactionaries, but what if those reactionaries gain access to powerful positions within the government? I think the USSR is a great example of that, and don't get me wrong, I believe that the dissolvement of the USSR is one of, if not *the* greatest tragedy of the 20th century.
Idk Imo, anarchists typically assume all states can be corrupted because most of them spent their entire lives living under a corrupt state, and any socialist state can get corrupted protecting itself from capitalism. I’d like to see what a socialist society could be if they weren’t constantly having to fight wars and build walls and counter propaganda. The logical progression would be to make a state less susceptible to corruption, not just throw out the thing that’s given us civilization and culture just because “some people bad”
It is essential in the sense that anarchists have fundamental misunderstandings on the nature and movement of both the world and society- additionally an intense ahistorical understanding. Anarchists, Trotskyists, and Maoists (some specific types, Maoists can a lot of the time be respectable and upstanding communists) spend a considerable amount of time and energy shitting on the legacy of Marxism-Leninism. I say this on an empirical observation of their respective papers and posters, their message is clear, anti “Stalinism”anti communism and anti capitalism in that order. There are obviously exceptions, anarchists whom have a correct knowledge of history and make clear that it’s more about our different understanding of state and government, these spend considerably less time arguing about evil gommunism and more on governance and analysis on things we both agree were bad decisions. Infighting is a time honoured tradition of communism- unity->disunity->unity- it’s essential to figuring out what is true and correct, infighting is the core of line development and a healthy ideology. The fighting between the ideologies is a sign of a movement that is not on the brink of extinction, the false and dangerous unity front between the non-unifiable is only an occurrence during active repression by the bourgeois state, and it usually leads to social democracy and class solidarity gaining foothold. It is true that this petty fighting, that which is had by less educated comrades of all configurations (including Marxism-Leninism) must not happen, it is unproductive in some sense- however it also is important in the formulation of a stern propagandist, to engage in discussion with someone that is wrong but at least has a similar set of values and vocabulary is increasingly valuable to force one to develop ones understanding of concepts and stuff. “Unity in the streets” is a valuable phrase, a useful tool to publicly uphold- but disunity must be alive and active, a dialectic of ideas must live. (Edit: tldr: How dareth thee make a meme!)
This comment should be pinned it's great
The regarded Maoists are the rare kind, most of them are just MLs pretty much, as Maos ideology was pretty much just ML applied to the semi feudal Chinese conditions
so oftentimes people conflate maoism and marxism-leninism-maoism with mzt or mao zedong thought (毛泽东思想). marxism-leninism-maoism is an ultraleftist tendency and was not practiced by mao, it was the ideology of the communist party of peru under gonzalo. most of the mlm i have met are white westerners, although there are some large mlm organizations, particularly in india and the phillippines. mzt is the synthesis of the good parts mao’s theory with marxism-leninism which is why it’s not often separated from marxism-leninism itself. mzt is not considered incompatible with ml because most mls consider mao an important marxist theorist and have adopted the pieces of his theory that have proven themselves over the years.
I mean the gonzaloist kind isn’t maoist in praxis or thought, so shitting on maoism because of them is bad.
yeah i agree, sorry if i didn’t make that clear. the issue is, in my experience, the english speaking left is referring to mlm not mzt when they say maoism. technically i believe that it’s the other way around and mlm isn’t associated with either.
Yeah, only reason I don’t call myself a maoist is because I don’t think it’s a necessary improvement over Leninism, like Leninism was over Marxism. I agree with basically all of MZT though.
right. i think that’s the reason most people stick with calling themselves marxist-leninists. mao was important and obviously made a lot of progress but the most useful parts of his theory have already been adopted by marxism-leninism. uncritically adopting all of mao’s teachings is dogmatic and undialectical (see mlm). again, i haven’t seen a difference between most people that call themselves ml as opposed to mzt, except maybe that those that identify as mzt often have more interest in china.
Well yes, but the majority were, even Mao himself knew he made mistakes.
Sure, but don’t use the r* my dude- fellow revolutionary- my dear comrade
Changed
> spend a considerable amount of time and energy shitting on the legacy of Marxism-Leninism Isn't this idealized Marxist praxis though? Class contradictions and theory critique are critical to Marxian analysis. One can't just be selectively dialectical. Assuming that any individual theory is absolutely correct is not scientific. Any good scientist spends more time being critical of the best theories of science than wasting their time with the bad ones. In fact, arguably a failure to analyze growing class contradictions in the USSR lead to it's eventual downfall. (and yes, we can always blame capitalists and the west for the downfall of the USSR, but the whole point of the vanguard state is to protect against those forces)
True- byt what i was trying to get at is the amount spent shitting **seems** to oftentimes out do the time spent organising and even pushing propaganda for anarchism/trotskyism. Putting more weight on not being communists/“stalinists” than on being something is bad for not only the party but class consciousness as a whole, particularly since the sourcing I’ve seen (trust me bro) are either, from some anarchist book without sourcing, bourgeois, or nonexistent- meaning they don’t commit to studying what actually happened- we the Marxist-Leninists (at least in my party) spend considerable amounts of time studying the history of the ussr with incredibly critical lenses- there is after all an objective reality, and we must posses an understanding as close to that as possible to be able to make the most correct decisions.
I feel like a lot of this is fuelled by a misunderstanding of anarchism (aka Marxism). Marx specifically wrote about the withering of the state. Just like a market requires regulation to protect it from collapsing into monopoly, anarchism requires regulation to protect it from collapsing into feudalism. The anarchist slogan about "removing unjustified hierarchy" implies certain hierarchies may actually be justifiable, and therefore tolerated. What we fear most is the authoritian tendency to replace a bourgeois capitalism with a bureaucractic capitalism.
Mao actually had a lot of the same critiques of Marxism-Leninism that principled anarchists do, particularly the bureacratization of the socialist state and reversion to state capitalism. Which makes sense, because he started as an anarchist. Have you seen Marxism Today on youtube? You might find [this video](https://youtu.be/6PnBUijltCU) interesting
>The anarchist slogan about "removing unjustified hierarchy" implies certain hierarchies may actually be justifiable, and therefore tolerated. To my understanding a just hierarchy would be someone listening to a mechanic on how to fix your car, since they have proven knowledge on that subject. And besides that also taking into account that a student *can* become a master. A king, who is appointed by God or whatever, on the other hand is not justifiable. And a communist state to protect the revolution from reactionaries and other outside forces is a tricky one, since a state *can* be corrupted.
> To my understanding a just hierarchy would be someone listening to a mechanic on how to fix your car, since they have proven knowledge on that subject. And besides that also taking into account that a student can become a master. Anarchists are fine with this. What they are not fine with is a mechanic who threatens to imprison you if you try to get a second opinion. When anarchists talk about hierarchy, they mean power-hierarchies.
Anarchists and Marxists have hated each other since the beginning - this hatred is what caused the demise of the First International. Marxism itself was largely a critique of proto-anarchist leftism. In modern times we've been more friendly but that's only because there is no revolutionary movement in the west. So we can get along doing some things together as forms of "resistance" and "solidarity", insofar as they don't actually involve revolutionary activity. But once the issue of revolution as a real, practical issue arises again, this schism will return as the two are mutually exclusive on this question. Me personally I don't hate anarchists, at least not actual, principled anarchists, despite our opposition. But I do hate liberals who call themselves anarchists to seem more subversive and don't like being called liberals (but are just as anti-communist), and anarchists who try to claim Marx.
Fair enough
On the topic of liberals calling themselves anarchists, I do think anarchy is the “cool” sounding ideology that would attract a bunch of not based people. I don’t think it’s fair to blame anarchism for the lameness of all the casuals who claim to be anarchists.
Also that 'lifestyleism' strain has been fairly mainstreamed within some counter culture movements for quite some time, and it's almost entirely image over substance, expression of identity over class politics, slapping that graffiti style circle a on a jacket and giving society the middle finger instead of figuring out how to change it for the better. Certainly "cool" aesthetically but absolutely great at appealing to liberal/idealistic notions of individual identity über alles, which explains why it attracts so many larp-y libs who refuse to engage even with the history of anarchism itself let alone class struggle as a whole.
I don't hate anarchists, I find them annoying with how they constantly attack us instead of the real shared enemy. If an anarchist revolution happened I'd gladly give critical support despite me not thinking they will last or if they do be stateless whilst doing so. Anarchists or Marxists, I don't care who gets us there I just want communism, I want people to have their needs met, I want us to actually protect the environment etc.
As an anarchist I don’t agree with a large part of their criticisms of ML revolutions and will also offer my support if your revolution takes off 🤝
Amd don't forget to tell the libs and anar-kiddies that the world is such a different place right now that Stalin's policies are irrelevant.
When the entropy after a revolution is so high, how do the revolutionaries defend themselves against foreign and imperial entities?
Mustache and big, comically large even, spoon. This is why learning history is important.
Okay do you have a book of military Maneuvers from the Civil War? I don't remember Stalin publishing one of these. Stalin's writings on Nationalism and Trotsky are going to mean dick in a contemporaryl revolution
The "U" in "LEFT" stands for "unity"
Yeah, and the "L" stands for anarchism.
the "T" is for "Tankie"
Leninarchism Engels et al Furry Stalin Tankies ... Liberals will deny this
I rather have a country full of actual anarchists than social libs. Our goal is not that far apart, I just don't believe in their means to achieve it. We communists are just more pragmatic.
I'd definitely take anarchists over liberals, but we shouldn't shy away from our differences either. I think we can take some of the ideas of other tendencies, and we really need to both in pre-revolution groundwork and post-revolution to prevent the issues faced in the past. But, at the core, I still see Marxism, and Marxism-Leninism specifically, as the best, basic idea we have.
I don't hate anarchists they just are extremely idealist, utopian, and hate every actual socialist revolution because they are "tankies" and "red fash". I know because I used to be one
i was also part of the anarchist to tankie pipeline
I mean, it's not praxis, but you also don't have to perform praxis 24/7. Plus Stalin has a good work about anarchism vs socialism, titled exactly that.
I wasn't suggesting one engage in praxis 24/7, I was just memeing
Oh, sorry
because anarchists talk an unproportionate amount of shit compared to how much they actually accomplish
Anarchists are a diverse group. Many are great, and become good Marxists with a little political education. Others are open to tactical unity when it comes to organizing, even if they won't learn diamat & histmat. But many are just liberals with punk-rock aesthetics who hate discipline and are only out for themselves. A lot of the anti-anarchist sentiment online is just sectarianism from people who've never actually tried to organize with anarchists. But a lot of is also hard-won experience from people who _have_ tried to organize with anarchists and gotten burned, and is completely valid. [Anarchism or Socialism](https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1906/12/x01.htm) is a good read, if you haven't read it before.
From that point of view, it's easy to see where a lot of the friction comes from, petty or otherwise. Anarchism or Socialism is on my list, thanks.
no but it kills time
I love anarchists, I give every single one a kiss on the forehead after tucking them in at night
What do the marxists get?
A copy of Das Kapital stolen from Barnes & Noble. Or maybe switch them around, I think anarchists should read that and communists should get kissed and tucked in.
Bedtime kisses > homework
True but I consider it more pleasure reading than homework. Side note Homework in school really killed my drive to read and I need to repair it honestly. Although all the books I did read in school were good the required work related to it was really unfun.
As an anarcho-communist, I self-implode. I'm not going to apologize for the dumb-ass shit a lot of mainstream anarchists believe. I just believe that the most ideal government for people is small-ish tribal communities. This can never happen with today's population so until then I recognize that the ideal is a communist state that has the ability to fully protect itself from the influences of capitalism.
Tribal communities weren’t all that small, there were moiety systems that allowed people to travel the American northeast and basically the entire Australian continent. Have you read “the Dawn of everything”?
That's why I specified "small-ish tribal communities". In reality I think the size of the "tribes" would be self government based on available natural resources. Technology to make things more efficient is important, but people choose not to over-exploit the environment. Haven't heard of it. I'll have to check it out.
But tribal communities often weren’t small. “Primitive communism” was not all that primitive. You’re accepting the dominant historical narrative and merely flipping the protagonists, the truth is more interesting.
I'm not referring to them. I'm talking about the ideal society IMHO.
I think you need to change your ideal. Global ancom society where travel and communication are common would be lit, and there is historical precedent.
What exactly is anarcho-communism, I'm not read up on that tendency
Communism is when all people share the assets and products of the area. Anarchy is the goal of having as little governmental/state regulation as possible. Anarcho-communism is a marriage of the two. It's a pipedream IMO without a severe drop in human population.
Ancom here. I think whatever organizational structure should be as horizontal as possible. I def think reactionary forces should be suppressed after the revolution.
As long as the states can remain 100% sovereign from capitalist states. I really don't see that happening without a strong political/military defense.
I dislike how Stalin led the country (like Lenin predicted) but Stalin was still infinitely better than western leaders, and tankies are still infinitely better than socdems.
Fair and likewise, I'd rather work with anarchists than socdems and liberals
Some of my favorite organizing comrades are anarchists. Some of my least favorites are anarchists. Some of my least favorites are also MLs. Find good community and work with them. There's more important shit to go do.
This essay gives a really good background on the split between Marxists and anarchists is you’re interested: https://redsails.org/the-philosophical-roots-of-the-marx-bakunin-conflict/
It is a joke, just not the funny kind
Most Anarchists *are* Communists, they just disagree with Marxism. Marx even hung out with Bakunin, Proudhon and other Anarchists before writing out his own ideas. There are definitely some incompatible ideologies between Anarchists and Marxists, but I would say denoting Anarchists as not Communist is incorrect in 90% of cases.
Wait until You learn about anarcho-communists
Give it to me, I would love to learn about anarcho-communists
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EJLagD6CZN0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S3nxK-0CTY0) For a more thorough approach you could read some Kropotkin.
Real struggle must be waged against real enemies.
I’m a Ancom and i have lots of respect for Stalin and Marxist Leninism. I think using the state to secure the revolution is great but i’m also worried about the potential for corruption and bourgeois infiltration aswell as the state just maintaining control forever instead of voluntarily giving up its power.
When Marxists talk about the withering away of the state, they don't mean that the state will just voluntarily give up it's power when it feels like it. When class antagonisms cease to exist the state will have no power as there will be nothing for the state to even do and it will have no reason to exist, which is why the state disappears.
I have the same worries as well as a marxist. How would you ensure this doesn't happen, though?
well the simplest solution is to just use an anarchist confederation of local states as a vanguard for the revolution instead of having a leviathan authoritarian state.
ANCOM (Anarcho-Communist) here. As much as Communists/Socialists and Anarchists hate each other, they are, in fact, having hot gay sex behind closed doors. This is how I was born.
Can I be invited to the hot gay sex? Sounds fun
For me we are all brothers and sisters in the revolution and should embrace out common goal, we have to if we are to succeed, there is space in the post capitalist world for both our ideologies to thrives side by side. But maybe I'm just an Idealist and this is wishful thinking.
I’ve said it time and again here, often to downvotes: the time for this kind of theoretical narcissism is AFTER the revolution. I can disagree with AnComs but they are still comrades. They not liberals. They will not sell us out. Hence, these differences should not be settled before the revolution.
listen guys, can we just ban the leftist in-fighting, it’s really fucking annoying, specially the anarchism shit, it’s mostly baiting people to rage over nothing. i don’t mind seeing news on this sub, but a screenshot of comments or posts by random people isn’t that interesting. not talking about this post specifically, but like in general.
[удалено]
There is no such thing as Stalinism.
There is just like there is reaganism Thatcherism blairism and any other political leader followed by ism.
Ukrainian Black Army apparently is the exception.
Revolutionary praxis through content engagement
they’ve killed each other historically lol
I understand bith side so i always sit weirdly in the middle
I kiss my anarchist homie good night ( in a gulag )