- cross-posted to:
- socialism@lemmy.ml
- cross-posted to:
- socialism@lemmy.ml
You must log in or register to comment.
I love this line:
The bourgeois will become an anarchist again after the proletarian revolution: he will once again become aware of the existence of a State; of the existence of laws foreign to his will, hostile to his interests, to his habits, to his freedom. He will realize that “State” is synonymous with “compulsion” because the workers’ State will take away the bourgeoisie’s freedom to exploit the proletariat, because the workers’ State will be the bulwark of a new mode of production which, as it develops, will destroy every trace of capitalist ownership and any possibility of its revival.
This is exactly the crux of the failure of ideological “Freedom Now” maximalism. That maximalist freedom they want includes the freedom to exploit and take away the freedom of others. The paradox that needs to be accepted and synthesised is that Freedom necessarily must be imposed at this stage.
Precisely, without the dictatorship of the proletariat there is no path towards stopping exploitation.
@Blursty> That maximalist freedom they want includes the freedom to exploit and take away the freedom of others.
You do know that this is by far false, and you must be referring to neo-liberals. The anarchist tradition is of anarcho-communism/syndicalism and libertarian-communism and the perversion some fools describe as anarcho-capitalism (us libertarianism) is not accepted as anarchist by anarchists themselves. In some areas they would even fear of having a physical presence among the rest. So what good is it to base some conclusion on a false premise?
Do you think when Marx was spending time with Kropotkin discussing, playing chess, it was because Kropotkin was defending the freedom to exploit? Go read the consititutions of CNT, of FAI, the Italian Federation, and see whether there is a clear position against ANY exploitation of humans by humans.
Where the weakness of the libertarian proposal lies is that “society” on its own will not find a way to organize against capitalism, or be organized adequately to survive without a state. Society can and will not do such things without a revolutionary vanguard leading it to that direction. Anarchist organization has had to deal with this contradiction where itself becomes the vanguard “over” society or the working class, deciding for the class things like tactics, methods, goals, etc. The relationship between a political organization and society or the working class therefore becomes hierarchical and allows little “freedom” for those outside the organization to decide or even affect the decisions made. So, a revolutionary process becomes one where the vanguard imposes conditions and rules on the working class. The more anarchists try to organize the fewer stay with it as they feel uncomfortable with the contradiction.
In m-l tradition the vanguard is an acceptable and conscious decision to maintain this hierarchy, use the class struggle as a movement to overthrow the government and take over the state. Unfortunately those two branches of radical anti-capitalism can’t seem to synthesize any form of collaboration and possibility of coexistence. For historic reasons there is little trust or hope for such cooperation or agreement.
There is a trend (specially after 1950s cointelpro activities) of individualism that can extent all the way to anti-communism, otherwise called insurrectional individualist anarchists, who are also very much against any formal organization as being the source of oppression. Those fools write and write as individuals, appealing to individuals, and formulating individual beliefs that can never escape their lack of organization. Lack of a collective organ to promote their ideas keeps them well in the bottom of movement significance. They have never been able to achieve anything. But you can’t characterize 150y+ traditions by some neo-con trends of youth lifestylism.
How would you classify and explain the presence of IWW for two centuries? The presence of CNT in the 1930s Spain’s uprising against the invasion of Franco with US and German support?
If there is superiority of m-l over anarchism/libertarian-communism, there must be presented and analyzed on true premises not lies and characterizations empty of content. For the anarchist freedom can not exist without equality, but equality is as political as it is economic. It would be hard to believe that people of “equal” presence in decision making would produce a system of exploitation or oppression, or any other form of inequality. Systems of inequality exist because minorities serving individual interests form organizations to maintain inequality.
@Blursty
You do know that this is by far false,
I didn’t know that no. Looking forward to hearing an argument against it.
So what good is it to base some conclusion on a false premise?
I think it’s a terrible idea to base a conclusion on a false premise. I’d advise against it. I’m still waiting to hear a counterargument for this simple truth.
Do you think when Marx was spending time with Kropotkin discussing, playing chess, it was because Kropotkin was defending the freedom to exploit?
People play games for fun. This is what I would imagine the reason for them playing was.
Go read the consititutions of CNT, of FAI, the Italian Federation, and see whether there is a clear position against ANY exploitation of humans by humans.
I very much doubt if they’d state it openly. It’s a simple and obvious end result of “freedom maximalism”.
… The more anarchists try to organize the fewer stay with it as they feel uncomfortable with the contradiction.
Presumably because the individuals’ freedom being inevitably curtailed by unavoidable realities contradicts their anarchist beliefs.
There is a trend (specially after 1950s cointelpro activities) of individualism that can extent all the way to anti-communism, otherwise called insurrectional individualist anarchists, who are also very much against any formal organization as being the source of oppression. Those fools write and write as individuals, appealing to individuals, and formulating individual beliefs that can never escape their lack of organization. Lack of a collective organ to promote their ideas keeps them well in the bottom of movement significance. They have never been able to achieve anything. But you can’t characterize 150y+ traditions by some neo-con trends of youth lifestylism.
I’m going to guess that this is some copypasta you just tried to shoe-horn in here. Honestly without your comment history I’d guess that this is chatGPT copy paste. Who is characterising anything “by some neo-con trends of youth lifestylism.”. What for that matter even is a neo-con trend of youth lifestylism?
How would you classify and explain the presence of IWW for two centuries? The presence of CNT in the 1930s Spain’s uprising against the invasion of Franco with US and German support?
As proven failures. What’s to explain?
If there is superiority of m-l over anarchism/libertarian-communism, there must be presented and analyzed on true premises not lies and characterizations empty of content.
If there’s to be any counterargument for what I stated, I’d like to hear it. All I’ve got is weird randomly generated paragraphs of nothingspeak.
For the anarchist freedom can not exist without equality, but equality is as political as it is economic. It would be hard to believe that people of “equal” presence in decision making would produce a system of exploitation or oppression, or any other form of inequality.
Hard to believe? Wait til you hear about Capitalism.
Systems of inequality exist because minorities serving individual interests form organizations to maintain inequality.
And such minorities are an inevitable product of systems designed for pander to individualism.
I’m still not sure if I’m talking to a robot.
Who is characterising anything “by some neo-con trends of youth lifestylism.”. What for that matter even is a neo-con trend of youth lifestylism?
I am speaking of this post 70s-80s trend of this “black-block” tendency to utilize workers and other social movement demonstrations to form a front to battle the police without any expectation to ever gain anything from the clash other than the dispersion of demonstrators and the reluctance of ever reappearing. This is youth-lifestylism. Youth because it takes age and physical ability to run in front of demonstrators, surprise cops with an attack then run behind demonstrators for cover. None of these people ever handed out a leaflet or published their position, except for some really dumb blogs without signatures, on why they do what they do.
Neo-com, because this is the effect this activity has on the public and the food it provides on mass media to describe wider parts of the worker/social movement. Media and others like to portray this as anarchy, but anarchists (libertarian communists) would have nothing to do with such practice. The bibliography that exists on anarchy is very heavily anarcho-communist, not “insurectional individualist/black block” non-sense.
Pretending not to know this because you can bag as one thing the same that is prescribed by state-agencies and media because it serves your rhetoric should have nothing to do with critical theory or Marxism-Leninism. Focus on the true content of the object you are criticizing, not the capitalist definition of it.
So all this is a No True Scotsman based argument? Okay.
I recommend you talk to some western anarchists and disabuse them of the faulty notions you allege them to have, rather than argue with ML’s very correct observations of them.
I’ve never been even for curiosity’s sake in chatGPT, infowars, or any of that stuff because I sense that people there argue and debate for the sake of the individualistic interest to display they are better debaters. They have no interest in forming any vehicle towards change or even revolution. This is the problem with anything that is considered public domain and people without commone values and principles, or a minimal philosophical/ideological agreement. Just by identifying as different they display no intention of ever altering their initial positions, so it is fruitless whatever they talk about in there.
It is funny you accuse me of being a bot or doing copy paste, and to reveal a maybe poor personal trait, if I write something and try to copy it, or place it within another document, I can never do it. I change it so much that at the end it comes out very different or just doesn’t fit. With someone here we exchanged some personal messages and one day I hit the wrong button for submitting it and it was lost. I tried to rewrite what I had just written and it came up so different that after the fact I remeber writing something that just wouldn’t fit in what I wrote as a second time.
There is much confusion of what people mean by freedom and most of all this confusion has riddled the anarchist movement speaking about it in generic non-defines terms. There is personal/individual freedom and collective freedom. When Marxists speak of worker freedom they refer to the specific freedom of the class from the owners of the means of production. In this respect this is a collective freedom. In a community, a commune if you like, the maximum freedom anyone can have would be the freedom that doesn’t overstep others’ freedoms. So this collective freedom is the maximum freedom that can be attained by a regulated and organized equality of all the freedoms. So really freedom either has to be the product of social organization that aims for equality or it would be a chaotic condition where each and everyone in the community would abuse their freedom against others. Whether the commune is centrally organized and there is hierarchical authority on who regulates this equality or whether this power is spread among equals to hold this power is the true difference between a Marxist or an Anarchist commune. Same goes for the workplace/means-of-production, either centrally directed or by assembly of equals.
Individual freedom, for those who pursue it, is ultimate inequality and it best pursued by neoliberal capitalism. The more wealth you have the more freedom you have to do anything, order others to do what you wish, even governments to legitimize your freedom and inequality by passing laws to protect this inequality.
The freedom to get on a plane and travel to the other side of the world, have room and board and slaves to clean up after you, to visit and do things, you have in capitalism because of this inequality of wealth. If the commune doesn’t have the resources to pay for such experience for everyone you don’t have this freedom. It is either a freedom for all or for nobody. The propaganda about the SU and China was that certain freedoms were restricted by central government. The untold propaganda in capitalism is that many people can’t ever afford such luxuries as freedoms, but some can. There are people even in the US or western Europe who never flew with a plane, simply because they could never afford it. There are people in the US who haven’t even crossed state lines due to financial hardship. Nobody prohibited them from walking away but Biden forbid if they are caught in private or “state” land to be camping without paying a campground.
So again, freedom is useless without documenting equality. It doesn’t matter what your gospel is, Marxist or Anarchist.
PS If you have proof I copied this or anything else from somewhere provide it, if not plain and simply STF UP, because it is a baseless insult and I don’t have to take it from you or anyone else. Simply it shouldn’t have been tolerated by anyone here, mods or users, to be attacking and accusing somebody of anything without any evidence. I am surprised that charlatans like you, who provide ZERO rational arguments in a debate/discussion are allowed to accuse anyone of anything. And, let’s say I did copy a rational argument from a public forum here, this non-originality doesn’t constitute the rational argument as wrong. Where is your rational argument that invalidates it should have been the goal of discussing, not the origin of the argument.
So kindly, if you have nothing to offer in the discussion exercise your “freedom” and remain silent, and not try to silence someone else because you don’t agree with what is said.
tl;dr?
Hard to believe? Wait til you hear about Capitalism.
You are a cheap provocator who thinks winning an argument by either insulting or tiring the opposite party is what makes you a WINNER. Just for stating this IN HERE you should have been banned and thrown out. You are nothing but a populist with zero substance and content to participate in any discussion.
Go back to capitalist facebook with your smart-ass commenting style,
Sir, you came in here blustering about false premises and offered nothing bu walls of empty text about your fantasies. You’re shadowboxing with your own notions and have no coherent response to anything I wrote. You’re a waste of everyone’s time here.
The bourgeois was anarchic before his class seized political power and imposed on society the ideal State regime suitable to safeguard the capitalist mode of production
definitely going to use this in future convos
I can see the retort being, a now-proletarian anarchic movement can ‘seize[] political power and impose[] on society the ideal State regime suitable to safeguard the [anarchist] mode of production’.
Still, it’s a good quote and could be used at the same time as the idea that capitalism entails an ‘anarchy of production’, which leads to crises of overproduction. The question becomes, without planning, how do left wing anarchists plan to avoid this problem?
I think, if you have convinced an anarchist to form a state to defend their anarchist ideals, you have pretty much convinced them of Marxism, just with different words.
They’re still missing the important Marxist class analysis
By hook or crook!
This is really bad quote to use by itself if you’re trying to “debunk” anarchists. Not because it’s actually a bad quote, but because it seems like one when read naively.
Even though it’s trying to make a different, much more salient point, it just reads as another version of the “Hitler was a vegan” cliche.
Seems like some people are overly optimistic with when the state should be abolished.
Socialist transition to communism will last for a long time, that’s because socialists are not tyrannical bastards like capitalists, and the material conditions required for communism isn’t going to be reached in the foreseeable future.
A good timeline to follow is the second centenary goal of China, that is to “build a modern socialist country that is prosperous, strong, democratic, culturally advanced and harmonious by 2049”.
It’s idealist af. It’ll take generations upon generations, just like in the transition from feudalism to capitalism. Hell, we’re still dealing with the remnants of old feudal orders in the age of late stage capitalism.
There is no communism button.
thanks for the post interesting read so far
I agree that anarchists are often conceited, but do we really have to take the exact opposite position to them, and decree that because an oppressive proletarian State is in the interest of the proletariat, that we should not try and dissolve the state at all? Is limiting ourselves to the short-term desires of the proletarian class, not even considering what kind of class structures that could form in the future, really the best way forward?
This reads a strange form of vulgar Marxism to me, a kind of reaction to the idea of anarchism that arises when you criticize it from gut opposition at their “arrogance” rather than the actual issues with it. I’m not saying the article is actually saying this, but what it is saying is dangerously compatible with such a viewpoint.
I am a Marxist because I believe that the struggle of the proletariat has the greatest chance to end the constant class struggle of human society, not because I think that the state is a necessary or even remotely “ok” methods of human organization. It is only justifiable as a form of self-defense for the proletariat (which the dictatorship of the proletariat should fundamentally be viewed as). Anything more than that isn’t just bad from some abstract moral opinion, but because it’s completely pointless to the revolutionary struggle.
Marx was very clear regarding the fact that a proletarian state under the dictatorship of the proletariat would be necessary to replace the existing capitalist state. Marxist idea is not that the state can be dissolved spontaneously, but rather that the state withers away as society internalizes new socialist relations. It’s also quite obviously not possible to do away with the state while capitalism is the dominant ideology in the world and capitalist states actively work to destroy socialist ones.
But that is what I am saying.
The article seems to miss the fact that the ultimate point of instating a dictatorship of the proletariat is to protect the creation of a mode of production that doesn’t need a State at all.
If the Anarchist says they are against the existence of the State, then that makes their desire ultimately the same as ours - a communist mode of production. The flaw of anarchist ideology seems to be this idea that the State is not justifiable even if it’s purpose is to destroy itself, which seems like a simple example of not reading about the tolerance paradox to me.
The arguments in the article just seem inefficient.
The article focuses on the immediate task of organizing the working class to carry out a revolution. That’s a pretty important context that you’re ignoring. In order for a socialist state to wither away, it actually has to be created first. That’s the task the article is discussing, and that’s the task before the western left today. Only after a socialist state has been established is there any point to discuss how it will evolve and whether it will wither away.
That’s not how convincing people works, though. Their concern might be silly in the short term but telling them it’s stupid is going to get people rightfully angry at you
When you point out that the goal is to have the state wither away, it’s a lot easier to convince someone to side with you then just going “states good actually 4head”
My experience is that focusing on convincing anarchists of anything is a waste of time. Anarchists are difficult to convince because they’ve already formed strongly held beliefs, and they’re typically actively antagonistic towards communists. Meanwhile, both anarchists and communists combined represent a tiny fraction of the population.
The real focus should be on convincing people in the mainstream who are becoming disillusioned with the capitalist system, but haven’t yet formed strong political opinions. These people are much easier to convince and there are a lot more of them. This is the demographic that the messaging needs to be tailored to.
What Gramsci argues might not be terribly helpful for convincing anarchists, but it is a useful argument to explain why communist approach is the one that can achieve tangible results to people who haven’t yet formed strong opinions of their own.
In my experience, young anarchists in person can be reasoned with, but if you’re a full on adult and still believe in anarchism, you’re probably too far gone.
pretty much yeah
deleted by creator
Sure, that’s an important point as well. It’s always important to recognize where the person you’re talking with at and to tailor the messaging accordingly. I’m mainly just cautioning against spending a lot of time on trying to convince people who don’t want to be convinced. It’s easy to get sucked down the rabbit hole of arguing with them endlessly while that time can be spent better talking to people who are actually receptive to what you’re saying.
This is a very sad picture you are painting. It is like saying that if someone doesn’t know about cars and this is the first time buying you can convince them to buy a Chevy, but if they already know about cars and have had a few they will never buy one. Alternatively if they have a BMW why trade it for a Daewoo?
Is the object of the revolutionary to tell people what they prefer to hear or what it is actually right, scintifically supported that is as a choice?
If the Anarchist says they are against the existence of the State, then that makes their desire ultimately the same as ours - a communist mode of production.
They don’t want what we want. We want a highly efficient, industrialized, centrally administered society, but without “special bodies of armed men” and without class oppression.
I want bullet trains, I don’t want to barter for dubious insulin.
I want bullet trains
The first word, I, is wrong, when the preceeding sentence is we. Why is a fast train preferred over a slow train, why the rush? Ask your average sporty cyclist, above 16kph(10mph) the effort needed to maintain speed or accelerate increases exponentially due to wind resistance. Same for any vehicle, land, sea, air. On whose clock are you running? The capitalist clock where time is money and money is time?
What you want and what society needs may be in contradiction. Who decides what society needs? Popular vote, majority rule, experts, politicans, scientists, … everyone?
We most definitely do not need fast trains, planes, or automobiles. The reason they are available is because they are profitable to someone(s).
The world better slow down or it is burning itself up
This is a really long-winded way of saying “diabetics should die from bathtub insulin”.
Do you have any clue that in an international political forum your neighborhood’s slang and idioms are just nonsensical waste of bandwidth?
Oof, I’m wounded, what happened to that code of conduct? Are you swimming in the muck with me as a punk now?
I’m saying that you’ve written a lot of meaningless words (long-winded) that say diabetics should die from poorly homemade (bathtub) insulin.
You’re arguing for a low-tech, Anarchist, society. This amounts to eugenics for people who rely on a high-tech, organized society to live.
Hold on. Fuck you. You skipped the meat of the comment to snip at my use of “I” in the end.
Argue against the argument or fuck off.
you have spoken like a true “communist” … ??
And what the fuck have you spoken like? Does dithering about my use of “I” make you a true idealist?
then that makes their desire ultimately the same as ours - a communist mode of production
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.”
Stalin. “Anarchism Or Socialism?”
@Vertraumir> 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.
I don’t know who “we” is in this sentence and under which organization the goal is to “protect Marxism” from its enemies, when the enemy is capitalism. The process we refer to as revolution, the total destruction of capitalism, must be maintained as the core goal under which organization exists, to defend Marxism ideologically against other ideologies would have been secondary.
In terms of tactics, there have been factions of m-l organization that consider the possibility of improving relations with anarchist/libertarian groups as well as other revolutionaries (Trots…somethings) in order to improve the chances of successful transition, then use and deal with adversaries at a later stage.
On the other hand reformist Marxists are tactically more dangerous and need to be dealt with as adversaries, if not outright enemies of the dictatorship of the proletariat than revolutionaries are. Therefore the issue is not as simple as some people rush to laugh and clap about, or try to collectively convince themselves as superior.
In any case, within revolutionary anti-capitalism within 150y of friction, there had better been a synthesis than a preservation of antithesis and avoidance. For the m-l movement to be reduced to a tiny elite and the anarcho-communist/liberarian-communist periodically to be exploding with dynamic presence, especially among working class youth, students, unemployed, etc. in many corners of the globe, a logical group would have to sit down and rethink, at least tactics, before it throws up a party of superiority triumph.
So, what would happen in the 6th International has yet to be thought about.
don’t know who “we” is in this sentence and under which organization the goal is to “protect Marxism” from its enemies.
https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1906/12/x01.htm
For the m-l movement to be reduced to a tiny elite and the anarcho-communist/liberarian-communist periodically to be exploding with dynamic presence, especially among working class youth, students, unemployed, etc.
There are more MLs in China than anarchists in the whole world. Anarchists are almost entirely petit-bourge western crackers, and Anarchism as a movement is wholly irrelevant.
Which, again, this is a completely false definition of Anarchism’s proposed slogan and is mostly made up.
I wish there was an actual anarchist here to describe things, I have more familiarity with anarchism than most but I’m definitely not able to communicate that familiarity well.
Which, again, this is a completely false definition of Anarchism’s proposed slogan and is mostly made up.
No it’s not.
deleted by creator
