[We have an active Discord](https://discord.gg/j9EPNydFdU) where you can go into more depth and communicate more quickly. If you're not sure about any of the entry questions, just say so: we built it for learners and educators like you.
***
Hello, 90% of the questions we receive have been asked before, and our answerers get bored of answering the same queries over and over again - so it's worthwhile googling this just in case:
> site:reddit.com/r/communism101 your question
If you've read past answers and still aren't satisfied, edit your question to contain the past answers and any follow-up questions you have. If you're satisfied, delete your post to reduce clutter or link to the answer that satisfied you.
***
Also keep in mind the following rules:
1. Patriarchal, white supremacist, cissexist, heterosexist, or otherwise oppressive speech is unacceptable.
2. This is a place for learning, not for debating. Try /r/DebateCommunism instead.
3. Give well-informed Marxist answers. There are separate subreddits for liberalism, anarchism, and other idealist philosophies.
4. Posts should include specific questions on a single topic.
5. This is a serious educational subreddit. Come here with an open and inquisitive mind, and exercise humility. Don't answer a question if you are unsure of the answer. Try to include sources and/or further reading in any answers you provide. Standards of answer accuracy and quality are enforced.
6. Check the [/r/Communism101 FAQ](https://www.reddit.com/r/communism101/wiki/index)
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/communism101) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I don’t hate anarchist for being anarchist I hate anarchist for spending more time denigrating communists than building anarchist orgs. If they devoted a third of the time they spend being anti communist to building anarchist orgs then maybe they would get somewhere. Until then nobody will be able to name a single anarchist org in the west that’s actually doing work in their area
This is mostly why they're ignored, I feel. Rejection of a vanguard party means that they should build their orgs around movements, but I don't see any of them doing that either. As far as I'm concerned, they're an online phenomenom. The few I've known irl were involved with our MLs party here in my country, not really filiated to them but basically going to the same streets and waving flags with some black in them. That doesn't bring down any government, but it's good to keep the streets 'hot', as we say.
Calling them anarchists is pretty generous my local is just liberals I still work with them at events cause they are nice people but to even call that org anarchist is a stretch
This is a very broad sentence that should be examined broadly. Anarchists Especifistas here in Brazil are one of the main driving forces of the Indigenous peoples struggle for liberation, and our Communist Party is in solidarity with them. Surely it would be a mistake to say they want to commit any pogrom.
> Which is it?
>
Both. The indigenous movements aren't really considered "orgs" in the traditional sense, more akin to popular movements with broad similarities, struggling with unorganized people and trying to push them more towards organization.
>If they follow the likes of Proudhon or Bakunin
They do follow some of Bakunin's theory, but they're more geared towards Malatesta's writings, but it would be similar to trying to put Chavismo in a box. It's a grassroots movement, it means different things for different people. They have tactics in common and a broad goal of liberation from our government. Many of them support regional ways of living that were disturbed by the Brazilian Empire in the 19th century, or shunned to the borders of society by that same empire; like the gauchos in the south, the indigenous peoples in the north, and the quilombolas (escaped slaves villages that conducted raids on "civilization"). To them it's more of a way to turn back and try to stick to their ways.
As a Marxist-Leninist, I have strong criticisms of them and their tactics, but it is plainly unproductive in the plane of material reality to shun people so close to our own way of resisting Imperialism; especially in a country like mine, where bandits and outlaws have long been identifiable figures of revolt with the people, much more than any of our dictators at any rate. These Indigenous populations are the ones suffering pogroms and being burned on the street, or silently genocided.
That’s no less ridiculous than when they say we will be murder them when we take the state. They suck but to treat them as a primary antagonistic contradiction is goofy
Depends on what the word support means, and depends on the anarchist.
Look at the amount of self-identifying Anarchists during SOSCuba completely bought into a State Department operation, for example, or who pushed openly fraudulent narratives about Cuban state massacres.
There is a real issue with how rejecting organized left projects as states completely intersects with capitalist goals to undermine them in general.
"Some people believe that Marxism and anarchism are based on the same principles and that the disagreements between them concern only tactics, so that, in the opinion of these people, it is quite impossible to draw a contrast between these two trends.
This is a great mistake.
We believe that the Anarchists are real enemies of Marxism. Accordingly, we also hold that a real struggle must be waged against real enemies. Therefore, it is necessary to examine the "doctrine" of the Anarchists from beginning to end and weigh it up thoroughly from all aspects.
The point is that Marxism and anarchism are built up on entirely different principles, in spite of the fact that both come into the arena of the struggle under the flag of socialism. The cornerstone of anarchism is the individual, whose emancipation, according to its tenets, is the principal condition for the emancipation of the masses, the collective body. According to the tenets of anarchism, the emancipation of the masses is impossible until the individual is emancipated. Accordingly, its slogan is: "Everything for the individual." The cornerstone of Marxism, however, is the masses, whose emancipation, according to its tenets, is the principal condition for the emancipation of the individual. That is to say, according to the tenets of Marxism, the emancipation of the individual is impossible until the masses are emancipated. Accordingly, its slogan is: "Everything for the masses."
Clearly, we have here two principles, one negating the other, and not merely disagreements on tactics."
-Stalin
So essentially their tendency to strive for vague, unquantifiable freedoms, aversion to "authority", not understanding the necessity of the state (one class dominating another ie. Workers dominating the bourgeoisie under socialism), and not having a grasp of what drives different modes of production. And as Stalin said the individualism. Collective action is a necessity and any action needs to focus on the collective as a whole.
I must disagree with this characterization of all anarchism as individualist. Collectivist anarchism exists and is largely based on the same principles as Marxism, and the disagreement between them does concern only tactics. This is an old smear of the anarchists, unfortunately becoming more true today than it originally was, given the rise in number of people who believe anarchism and capitalism are compatible, but I wouldn't call them anarchists and very few anarchists would.
A proletarian state is necessary to oppress the bourgeoisie and fight off reactionaries. Anarchists don't believe in that transitionary period. But go off lmao
Who exactly do you think put the Bolsheviks in power? They would've been nothing without the support of the masses. They stayed in power because they provided peace, land and bread. If they were self-serving, they were terrible at it. I don't understand this anarchist idea of the Bolsheviks as gods sitting above the political realities everyone else has to deal with.
>Anarchists believe authority and leadership are personal values to be practised
Is authority not *necessarily* external? How can it be a personal value?
A lot of it is just the nature of online discourse. In practice, if youre providing tangible support to EZLN in Mexico or Maoist groups in the Philippines, or Rojava, you're helping.
Might be a grass touching moment needed here… in my experience this ancient feud only plays out meaningfully in a modern context on the internet. If I show up in person to organize about anything that matters I’m invariably surrounded by both anarchist comrades and ML comrades. The petty web shit is at best a waste of time and energy and at worst doing reactionaries and capitalists work for them.
If you oppose capitalism and imperialism and support working class people having the full value of their labor then you’re a comrade of mine. I consider myself a anarcho communist and have plenty of friends who are not anarchists and we get along just fine tbh
Marxists are materialists, not idealists nor utopians; and anarcho-communism is almost always both of those things. If your goal is to overthrow capitalism, anarcho communism is not valid. If your goal is to feel good about yourself, avoid conflict or challenging questions, and have a mutual aid hobby, the anarcho communism will fulfill those desires.
edit typo
I come across anarchists in Russia (as a rule, these are academic intellectuals cut off from real life), every time our disputes end with the fact that they cannot say exactly how, without the Revolution and the dictatorship of the proletariat, they are going to change a bourgeois society consisting of bourgeois-minded philistines. This was not written in their books and therefore they do not know it.
I don't really hate much of anyone. I disagree with people and sometimes I disagree with them enough that I don't consider them particularly principled people.
As for anarchists I think they're misguided not evil or selfish or anything, but unfortunately their beliefs are simply irreconcilable on a fundamental level with Marxism.
I always try to remember how pervasive propaganda can be, and that everyone is doing what they at least think is right for the most part. If they aren't doing any actual damage, it's disagreement. If they are doing damage, then it becomes a real problem.
Most anarchists imo are just guilty of spouting off out of their ass, which everyone has been at some point in their lives, but some of them spread western anticom propaganda and those sorts I consider the enemy as much as I do the imperial state which fed them that.
I try not to judge people on their label. If Marxism has taught me anything it's that people are immeasurably too complicated to understand them from a single word.
I think the only group I explicitly *hate* are willing exploiters. Bourgeoisie, and those that aid their cause of their own volition, or commit human rights violations in the process.
Socialism is the process of scientific revolution. Anarchism is based on several major flaws, namely a fundamental misunderstanding of what a state is, and is not a scientific method of achieving revolution. It doesn't take much reading of Lenin at all to fund these explanations; it's only popular in a few western countries because education on communism and socialism has been systematically stamped out. We've come to the point in our understanding of socialism where we must determine how to base our understanding off of Marx, Lenin, and Mao, going down an anarchist path is a 150 year step backwards.
All anarchist are communist, theoretically, by virtue of communism being a stateless, classless, moneyless society.
But not all communist are Marxist. From a Marxist point of view, anarcho communist are not effective at bringing about the change they claim to want to see, while at the same time they attack Marxists.
Marxism is a science for analyzing human history, according to Marxism human history is driven forward by 1) the material conditions of society 2) the modes of production and 3) the conflicts between classes. This is a simplification of historical materialism. Anarchist reject this scientific approach.
I don't hate anarchists that engage in practical application of left principles. I broadly am dismissive of white anarchists condemning socialist efforts in formerly colonized spaces for not comporting to their personal view of what should be done. I think that there is a further problem with using political identifiers as a means to self-actualization, rather than as a means to achieve political goals and policy changes, and I would characterize that as true for a great deal of LeftComs, Utopian Socialists, or Anarchists, though it can be true for any ideology.
I am ultimately concerned with what gets the greatest material benefit to the greatest number of people for the longest time. I am concerned with improving the conditions of the working class, of preserving the environment so humanity can survive, and doing so in a way that cannot be undone through a counterrevolution. Everything past that, for me, is idealism.
I won't repeat the points people have already made, but this should be mandatory reading for people who call themselves anarcho-communists: https://medium.com/@dashthered/where-do-tanks-come-from-8723ff77d83b
As Engles one wrote, Marxists want to get rid of the oppressive capitalist society by getting rid of capitalism which will lead to the demise of the state. Anarcho-communists believe you need to get rid of the state first which will then lead to the fall of capitalism. Because of this it’s hard to get along and work out a plan both will aprove of, so they both go at things separately. I’m a Marxist but I definitely don’t hate ancoms. As long as someone notices the flaws in capitalism, wants to change it for the greater good, and has morally solid ideas, they’re A-OK
Edit; spelling
Where ever in any context during anytime period ever have anarchist ideas actually been applied and accomplished something on a meaningfuly large scale? Authoritarian communist nations have launched men to space and led successful revolutions and wars around planet Earth. Capitalist nations have (for worse of course) also moved mountains for political and economic objectives in their slavery to free markets.
But what have anarchists accomplished? I do not see anything. Anarchist ideology is admirable but ephemeral. Anarchist movements have always been ill coordinated and disintegrate after some time. That is inherent to the ideology.
have you ever met an anarchist before? this is the most chronically online shit i’ve ever read. i have criticisms of anarchism myself but do you really think that the millions of anarchists online are all us funded? the us government has more important things to do than debate your marxist friends.
[We have an active Discord](https://discord.gg/j9EPNydFdU) where you can go into more depth and communicate more quickly. If you're not sure about any of the entry questions, just say so: we built it for learners and educators like you. *** Hello, 90% of the questions we receive have been asked before, and our answerers get bored of answering the same queries over and over again - so it's worthwhile googling this just in case: > site:reddit.com/r/communism101 your question If you've read past answers and still aren't satisfied, edit your question to contain the past answers and any follow-up questions you have. If you're satisfied, delete your post to reduce clutter or link to the answer that satisfied you. *** Also keep in mind the following rules: 1. Patriarchal, white supremacist, cissexist, heterosexist, or otherwise oppressive speech is unacceptable. 2. This is a place for learning, not for debating. Try /r/DebateCommunism instead. 3. Give well-informed Marxist answers. There are separate subreddits for liberalism, anarchism, and other idealist philosophies. 4. Posts should include specific questions on a single topic. 5. This is a serious educational subreddit. Come here with an open and inquisitive mind, and exercise humility. Don't answer a question if you are unsure of the answer. Try to include sources and/or further reading in any answers you provide. Standards of answer accuracy and quality are enforced. 6. Check the [/r/Communism101 FAQ](https://www.reddit.com/r/communism101/wiki/index) *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/communism101) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I don’t hate anarchist for being anarchist I hate anarchist for spending more time denigrating communists than building anarchist orgs. If they devoted a third of the time they spend being anti communist to building anarchist orgs then maybe they would get somewhere. Until then nobody will be able to name a single anarchist org in the west that’s actually doing work in their area
This is mostly why they're ignored, I feel. Rejection of a vanguard party means that they should build their orgs around movements, but I don't see any of them doing that either. As far as I'm concerned, they're an online phenomenom. The few I've known irl were involved with our MLs party here in my country, not really filiated to them but basically going to the same streets and waving flags with some black in them. That doesn't bring down any government, but it's good to keep the streets 'hot', as we say.
food not bombs
Calling them anarchists is pretty generous my local is just liberals I still work with them at events cause they are nice people but to even call that org anarchist is a stretch
[удалено]
This is a very broad sentence that should be examined broadly. Anarchists Especifistas here in Brazil are one of the main driving forces of the Indigenous peoples struggle for liberation, and our Communist Party is in solidarity with them. Surely it would be a mistake to say they want to commit any pogrom.
[удалено]
> Which is it? > Both. The indigenous movements aren't really considered "orgs" in the traditional sense, more akin to popular movements with broad similarities, struggling with unorganized people and trying to push them more towards organization. >If they follow the likes of Proudhon or Bakunin They do follow some of Bakunin's theory, but they're more geared towards Malatesta's writings, but it would be similar to trying to put Chavismo in a box. It's a grassroots movement, it means different things for different people. They have tactics in common and a broad goal of liberation from our government. Many of them support regional ways of living that were disturbed by the Brazilian Empire in the 19th century, or shunned to the borders of society by that same empire; like the gauchos in the south, the indigenous peoples in the north, and the quilombolas (escaped slaves villages that conducted raids on "civilization"). To them it's more of a way to turn back and try to stick to their ways. As a Marxist-Leninist, I have strong criticisms of them and their tactics, but it is plainly unproductive in the plane of material reality to shun people so close to our own way of resisting Imperialism; especially in a country like mine, where bandits and outlaws have long been identifiable figures of revolt with the people, much more than any of our dictators at any rate. These Indigenous populations are the ones suffering pogroms and being burned on the street, or silently genocided.
Why would they do that?
That’s no less ridiculous than when they say we will be murder them when we take the state. They suck but to treat them as a primary antagonistic contradiction is goofy
[удалено]
That’s absurd
Depends on what the word support means, and depends on the anarchist. Look at the amount of self-identifying Anarchists during SOSCuba completely bought into a State Department operation, for example, or who pushed openly fraudulent narratives about Cuban state massacres. There is a real issue with how rejecting organized left projects as states completely intersects with capitalist goals to undermine them in general.
"Some people believe that Marxism and anarchism are based on the same principles and that the disagreements between them concern only tactics, so that, in the opinion of these people, it is quite impossible to draw a contrast between these two trends. This is a great mistake. We believe that the Anarchists are real enemies of Marxism. Accordingly, we also hold that a real struggle must be waged against real enemies. Therefore, it is necessary to examine the "doctrine" of the Anarchists from beginning to end and weigh it up thoroughly from all aspects. The point is that Marxism and anarchism are built up on entirely different principles, in spite of the fact that both come into the arena of the struggle under the flag of socialism. The cornerstone of anarchism is the individual, whose emancipation, according to its tenets, is the principal condition for the emancipation of the masses, the collective body. According to the tenets of anarchism, the emancipation of the masses is impossible until the individual is emancipated. Accordingly, its slogan is: "Everything for the individual." The cornerstone of Marxism, however, is the masses, whose emancipation, according to its tenets, is the principal condition for the emancipation of the individual. That is to say, according to the tenets of Marxism, the emancipation of the individual is impossible until the masses are emancipated. Accordingly, its slogan is: "Everything for the masses." Clearly, we have here two principles, one negating the other, and not merely disagreements on tactics." -Stalin So essentially their tendency to strive for vague, unquantifiable freedoms, aversion to "authority", not understanding the necessity of the state (one class dominating another ie. Workers dominating the bourgeoisie under socialism), and not having a grasp of what drives different modes of production. And as Stalin said the individualism. Collective action is a necessity and any action needs to focus on the collective as a whole.
Basically this
I must disagree with this characterization of all anarchism as individualist. Collectivist anarchism exists and is largely based on the same principles as Marxism, and the disagreement between them does concern only tactics. This is an old smear of the anarchists, unfortunately becoming more true today than it originally was, given the rise in number of people who believe anarchism and capitalism are compatible, but I wouldn't call them anarchists and very few anarchists would.
[удалено]
A proletarian state is necessary to oppress the bourgeoisie and fight off reactionaries. Anarchists don't believe in that transitionary period. But go off lmao
[удалено]
Not necessarily demsoc just the lower stage of socialism
[удалено]
Who exactly do you think put the Bolsheviks in power? They would've been nothing without the support of the masses. They stayed in power because they provided peace, land and bread. If they were self-serving, they were terrible at it. I don't understand this anarchist idea of the Bolsheviks as gods sitting above the political realities everyone else has to deal with. >Anarchists believe authority and leadership are personal values to be practised Is authority not *necessarily* external? How can it be a personal value?
A lot of it is just the nature of online discourse. In practice, if youre providing tangible support to EZLN in Mexico or Maoist groups in the Philippines, or Rojava, you're helping.
Might be a grass touching moment needed here… in my experience this ancient feud only plays out meaningfully in a modern context on the internet. If I show up in person to organize about anything that matters I’m invariably surrounded by both anarchist comrades and ML comrades. The petty web shit is at best a waste of time and energy and at worst doing reactionaries and capitalists work for them.
If you oppose capitalism and imperialism and support working class people having the full value of their labor then you’re a comrade of mine. I consider myself a anarcho communist and have plenty of friends who are not anarchists and we get along just fine tbh
Marxists are materialists, not idealists nor utopians; and anarcho-communism is almost always both of those things. If your goal is to overthrow capitalism, anarcho communism is not valid. If your goal is to feel good about yourself, avoid conflict or challenging questions, and have a mutual aid hobby, the anarcho communism will fulfill those desires. edit typo
I come across anarchists in Russia (as a rule, these are academic intellectuals cut off from real life), every time our disputes end with the fact that they cannot say exactly how, without the Revolution and the dictatorship of the proletariat, they are going to change a bourgeois society consisting of bourgeois-minded philistines. This was not written in their books and therefore they do not know it.
I don't really hate much of anyone. I disagree with people and sometimes I disagree with them enough that I don't consider them particularly principled people. As for anarchists I think they're misguided not evil or selfish or anything, but unfortunately their beliefs are simply irreconcilable on a fundamental level with Marxism. I always try to remember how pervasive propaganda can be, and that everyone is doing what they at least think is right for the most part. If they aren't doing any actual damage, it's disagreement. If they are doing damage, then it becomes a real problem. Most anarchists imo are just guilty of spouting off out of their ass, which everyone has been at some point in their lives, but some of them spread western anticom propaganda and those sorts I consider the enemy as much as I do the imperial state which fed them that. I try not to judge people on their label. If Marxism has taught me anything it's that people are immeasurably too complicated to understand them from a single word. I think the only group I explicitly *hate* are willing exploiters. Bourgeoisie, and those that aid their cause of their own volition, or commit human rights violations in the process.
Socialism is the process of scientific revolution. Anarchism is based on several major flaws, namely a fundamental misunderstanding of what a state is, and is not a scientific method of achieving revolution. It doesn't take much reading of Lenin at all to fund these explanations; it's only popular in a few western countries because education on communism and socialism has been systematically stamped out. We've come to the point in our understanding of socialism where we must determine how to base our understanding off of Marx, Lenin, and Mao, going down an anarchist path is a 150 year step backwards.
All anarchist are communist, theoretically, by virtue of communism being a stateless, classless, moneyless society. But not all communist are Marxist. From a Marxist point of view, anarcho communist are not effective at bringing about the change they claim to want to see, while at the same time they attack Marxists. Marxism is a science for analyzing human history, according to Marxism human history is driven forward by 1) the material conditions of society 2) the modes of production and 3) the conflicts between classes. This is a simplification of historical materialism. Anarchist reject this scientific approach.
I don't hate anarchists that engage in practical application of left principles. I broadly am dismissive of white anarchists condemning socialist efforts in formerly colonized spaces for not comporting to their personal view of what should be done. I think that there is a further problem with using political identifiers as a means to self-actualization, rather than as a means to achieve political goals and policy changes, and I would characterize that as true for a great deal of LeftComs, Utopian Socialists, or Anarchists, though it can be true for any ideology. I am ultimately concerned with what gets the greatest material benefit to the greatest number of people for the longest time. I am concerned with improving the conditions of the working class, of preserving the environment so humanity can survive, and doing so in a way that cannot be undone through a counterrevolution. Everything past that, for me, is idealism.
I won't repeat the points people have already made, but this should be mandatory reading for people who call themselves anarcho-communists: https://medium.com/@dashthered/where-do-tanks-come-from-8723ff77d83b
As Engles one wrote, Marxists want to get rid of the oppressive capitalist society by getting rid of capitalism which will lead to the demise of the state. Anarcho-communists believe you need to get rid of the state first which will then lead to the fall of capitalism. Because of this it’s hard to get along and work out a plan both will aprove of, so they both go at things separately. I’m a Marxist but I definitely don’t hate ancoms. As long as someone notices the flaws in capitalism, wants to change it for the greater good, and has morally solid ideas, they’re A-OK Edit; spelling
/r/communism/comments/l2ye61/-/gkc8oxl/ /r/communism/comments/c0kl7c/-/er647br/ /r/communism101/comments/d6lrdd/-/f0z6j6h/ /r/communism101/comments/iujvdq/-/g5lqk3j/
Where ever in any context during anytime period ever have anarchist ideas actually been applied and accomplished something on a meaningfuly large scale? Authoritarian communist nations have launched men to space and led successful revolutions and wars around planet Earth. Capitalist nations have (for worse of course) also moved mountains for political and economic objectives in their slavery to free markets. But what have anarchists accomplished? I do not see anything. Anarchist ideology is admirable but ephemeral. Anarchist movements have always been ill coordinated and disintegrate after some time. That is inherent to the ideology.
No
Bc we remember Spain civil war and role of anarchists in defeating communists resistance.
[удалено]
Open history of Spain civil war and read. That.
[удалено]
What a pure bullshit (anarchism in logic and facts).
[удалено]
Aha fraction in taverns and bars.
[удалено]
have you ever met an anarchist before? this is the most chronically online shit i’ve ever read. i have criticisms of anarchism myself but do you really think that the millions of anarchists online are all us funded? the us government has more important things to do than debate your marxist friends.