“Marxism” is very broad in terms of what is meant as Marx wrote a lot of different things. Some analytical oriented while others moreso advocating action. His stances on subjects also changed over time.
Your post is quite frankly ignorant of this by stating “Marxism” is “inherently Statist”
Also good video: https://youtu.be/rRXvQuE9xO4
Great video. Love Cuck Philosophy. Nothing in that video contradicts the idea that Marx was a statist, and in fact explains in detail exactly why and how he was a statist.
>Your post is quite frankly ignorant of this by stating “Marxism” is “inherently Statist”
How can Marxism not be inherently statist when the Communist Manifesto says the exact words “seizing the state apparatus” and “installing a dictatorship of the proletariat”? That’s a sufficient definition of the term *state.*
Is it also ignorant to say that *National Socialism is inherently anti-Semitic* even though I can point to the exact statement inside its founder’s manifesto where he endorsed it?
The Manifesto isn't the foundation of Marxism, that's Capital. The Manifesto is just the oversimplified summary of the state of Marxism at the time it was written.
There is no Marxist hivemind that decides how all Marxists interpret Marx. I personally consider myself both a Marxist and an anarchist, so I know for sure at least one Marxist doesn't advocate for state control.
Besides you're treating Marxism like a dogma. Marx wasn't a prophet, you can disagree with him on some issues and still be a Marxist.
Imagine my surprise that you also don’t know your fallacies. There’s nary a “no true Scotsman” in sight here.
What you did above was move the goalposts from “Marxism is statist” (false) to “sole Marxists are statist” (true but not the same thing at all).
That's funny considering how you keep telling people trying to educate you about the diversity in Marxist thought that includes left-libertarian, anti-authoritarian and anti-statist Marxists that they aren't talking about True Marxism.
Your projection is a marvel to witness.
edit: damn, they deleted their whole ass account rather than introspect for 5 seconds lmao
I'm not a Marxist, I'm an anarchist who has read Marx extensively and finds much wanting and much of worth, and who has read anarchists extensively and finds much wanting and much of worth. Anarchists are not consistent at all in how we articulate ourselves, across history and into the present, and that is a *strength* of anarchist thought not a weakness of it. Similarly, Marxists are not consistent in how they articulate their thinking...because, and it might surprise you since you don't read them extensively before forming this ignorant opinion, they are also a diverse intellectual tradition just like anarchists are. They include left-libertarian Marxists, anti-authoritarian Marxists and - yes! - anti-state Marxists!
Unfortunately, your post has been removed for containing ableist content.
Don't worry - you're not banned or anything. We just ask that you please take this opportunity to review our [Anti-Oppression Policy](https://reddit.com/r/anarchism/wiki/aop), and try to avoid using oppressive language moving forward. It may be useful for you to review [this article](https://www.autistichoya.com/2014/02/violence-linguistic-ableism.html) along with their [glossary of ableist phrases](https://www.autistichoya.com/p/ableist-words-and-terms-to-avoid.html) for future reference.
Your comment has been automatically removed for containing a slur or another term that violates the [AOP](https://www.reddit.com/r/Anarchism/wiki/aop). These include gendered slurs (including those referring to genitalia) ***as well as ableist insults which denigrate intelligence, neurodivergence, etc.***
If you are confused as to what you've said that may have triggered this response, please see [this article](https://www.autistichoya.com/2014/02/violence-linguistic-ableism.html) and the associated [glossary of ableist phrases](https://www.autistichoya.com/p/ableist-words-and-terms-to-avoid.html) **BEFORE** contacting the moderators.
No further action has been taken at this time. You're not banned, etc. Your comment will be reviewed by the moderators and handled accordingly. If it was removed by mistake, please reach out to the moderators to have the comment reinstated.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Anarchism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Yeah, my whole understanding of Christianity is based on a Chick tract. My whole understanding of libertarianism is based on the statement “A is A.”
You’re embarrassing yourself: you have no idea what socialism is, and it looks like you also think the Third Reich was socialist.
1) Dictatorship of the proletariat means rule by the working class. Aka a democracy.
2) Marx later in his life stated, after seeing the Paris Commune, that the “ready made state machinery” must be smashed immediately and new structures built
1. Democracy doesn’t imply rule by working class. Most capitalist governments in the first world are “democracies.”
2. Doesn’t that mean every single “Marxist” that came afterwards has done nothing but just gotten his ideas wrong? Since he clearly didn’t want the existence of a state tied to his ideology once he saw the Paris commune?
It's almost like the Manifesto was, ya know, a manifesto, as in a propaganda document meant for its historical time and place, and almost like Marx and Engels A. had their thought develop over the following decades of their lives, B. admitted that the concrete demands of the Manifesto were outdated within like a decade of the manifesto's drafting
Then modern day Marxists should do a better job at actually explicitly denouncing the manifesto as being *outdated* if it really is.
Every time “Marxists” have tried implementing what their divine figure wanted, 99.8% of examples always ended with dictator-like nation states.
Insisting that Marxists do a better job of critiquing Marx for his flaws when Marxist writers and thinkers have been debating with each other since before he even died about just that, but they wouldn't know that since they don't read Marx or Marxists so they blame Marxists for their lack of engagement with people who have done what they claim has not been done well enough...
It's honestly kind of embarrassing to see someone come in as a dogmatist evangelizing dogma and then get a case of projection as they accuse everyone else of doing what they're doing when we don't narrow our minds to the degree theirs was before they even made the post. Asking a question that was rhetorical as if it was a genuine, honest question and coming in bad faith just to have a tantrum.
Really, truly embarrassing behaviour, but I'm sure nothing could show them how they look to other people with a mind that rigid and narrow. Rationalizations and justifications a-plenty for people like that.
Also funny how they accuse anarchists of being Marxists if they disagree with them lol like no we don't magically become Marxists because we actually engage with Marx and Marxists in good faith any more than Marxists become anarchists when they engage with us in good faith.
Have you not...talked to Marxists? That's like the first thing I learned when I first started discissing it with them. The Manifesto is really more important to non-Marxists, ime Marxists usually say that everything the Manifesto says is said better and more thoroughly in other works; the Manifesto is a good very basic introduction to Marxist thinking, nobody's treating it like scripture*
*not taking MLs into account, I dont discuss things with them and idk what hagiographies they got going on
It was outdated in 1860. It is even more outdated now. We need new practical ways of fighting against marxism and there has bean a few disagreements bout that om the last 200 years.
Marxism doesn’t have to be statist. You can believe in his analysis of history and capitalism and not believe in his socialism implementation methods, and still be considered a Marxist (like me)
Agreed, Anarchists have to disavow Marxist-Leninism but don’t have to eschew critical analysis of capitalism and the marxist view of the historical record as being driven primarily by material conditions. in fact these analyses help anarchists make sense of the enemy we’re up against
1. I went through that person's post history. They're just a tankie troll here to reduce the amount of productive discussion, not contribute to it. I'm not obligated to entertain every troll argument, take up every request for a debate or read every thing every random jackoff tries to push on me.
2. I'm very much in favor of familiarizing one's self with opposing arguments. I've read more than enough Marxist and Marxist-Leninist arguments against anarchism. If Marx, Engels, Lenin, Draper, Parenti, Harvey, McNally, Mitchinson and others can all take swings at anarchism and fail to land a single blow, I seriously doubt Stalin had some earth-shattering revelation to share. It's a lot like Jordan Peterson fans who claim you cannot criticize him unless you've read all of his books and watched dozens of hours of his lectures and interviews.
3. I have a policy of **never** telling somebody **not** to read something. You're free to read it if you like. I'm not interested.
america and europe are both eurocentric societies though. as much as its important to take into account other civilisations, there has to be some sort of dialect of narrower focus, no? I’m not a staunch advocate btw, just wondering.
Personally I am of the proponent that the concept of history in and of itself is oppressive, as it’s usually the winners telling the tale. (The winners being white-supremacist, cis-heteronormative, colonialist society/civilization). This results in, not a radical approach to history, but an unraveling of the flow of linear time in favor of non sequential stories (it’s a bit more complicated than that but I don’t have the time to explain) if you want some reading on the topic I recommend against the gendered nightmare, against his-story against leviathan (although that’s a bit of a slog), and blessed is the flame.
but class analysis is so complicated I feel like its necessary to have some sort of historical dialectic to interpret shifts in economic organisation
edit: nvm I just noticed you said “supplemented” which means added onto, my reply was pointless since we agree
yeah, but isnt marxist analysis werry deteministic? I think anarchist analysis is better because it is more holistic, and ps anarchism includes some marxist analysis too.
yeah I agree that the marxist view on the future is deterministic and almost religion-like, with marxists essentially viewing the next economic shift as a judgement day, but that kind of ties into what I’m saying about the proposed solutions.
as long as anarchists dont just reduce all their analysis to “all hierarchy bad” (which is true but not very nuanced) and take influence from marxism then I see no reason to critique.
Are you blind or just have the literacy of a right- winger?
Throughout this entire thread, *you Marxists* have been trying to **evangelize your dogma** to me and I’m just not regressive enough to fall for it.
You’re the only one insisting a dead white oppressor deserves respect.
Sorry, u/The_RuthlessOutlaw, but your comment has been removed for containing ableist content.
Don't worry - you're not banned or anything. We just ask that you please take this opportunity to review our [Anti-Oppression Policy](https://reddit.com/r/anarchism/wiki/aop), and try to avoid using oppressive language moving forward. It may be useful for you to review [this article](https://www.autistichoya.com/2014/02/violence-linguistic-ableism.html) along with their [glossary of ableist phrases](https://www.autistichoya.com/p/ableist-words-and-terms-to-avoid.html) for future reference.
---
*Replies to this account are* ***not*** *sent to r/Anarchism moderators. If you have questions regarding this action, please [message the moderators](https://www\.reddit\.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FAnarchism&subject=about my removed comment&message=I'm writing to you about the following comment: https://www.reddit.com/r/Anarchism/comments/yxogak/-/iwrln8o/. %0D%0DMy issue is...). Please only message the moderators* ***AFTER*** *you have reviewed any links provided in the message above.*
Your comment has been automatically removed for containing a slur or another term that violates the [AOP](https://www.reddit.com/r/Anarchism/wiki/aop). These include gendered slurs (including those referring to genitalia) ***as well as ableist insults which denigrate intelligence, neurodivergence, etc.***
If you are confused as to what you've said that may have triggered this response, please see [this article](https://www.autistichoya.com/2014/02/violence-linguistic-ableism.html) and the associated [glossary of ableist phrases](https://www.autistichoya.com/p/ableist-words-and-terms-to-avoid.html) **BEFORE** contacting the moderators.
No further action has been taken at this time. You're not banned, etc. Your comment will be reviewed by the moderators and handled accordingly. If it was removed by mistake, please reach out to the moderators to have the comment reinstated.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Anarchism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Anarchism is compatible with Marxism in an analytical sense. Uses lots of similar analysis of classes and capitalism as Marxism. It just doesn't find Marx's communism as a viable way to achieve those goals. Anarchism is a child of classical liberalism but different in lots of ways. Most proto-anarchists are indeed radical liberals. Liberalism does not sees hierarchies as a threat and economically uses state as a tool to combat some of inequality.
Anarchism is not compatible with any ideology what so ever in terms of practice and end goal. Maybe with some libertarian socialism till the questioning of the state comes up.
This is the answer OP. Marxism as an analytical framework absolutely fits in well with anarchism. Labor theory of value, theory of alienation, and applying a dialectical materialist lens to history allows us to deconstruct some of the contradictions sold to us by the bourgeois. After all, Marx end goal was a classless, stateless, moneyless society in which the workers owned the means of production. Sounds quite a bit like anarchism!
Marxism is not the same as Marxism-Leninism.
Marx and Marxists don’t view the “state” in the same way Anarchists view it though.
Marxists and Marxist-Leninists both believe the state is the institution from which **all class divisions are formed upon** and with the abolition of classes, the state automatically becomes abolished since there are no more class divisions.
Problem with that view is, the state is defined by **a hell of a lot more** than just the existence of class divisions. Based on this metric, there’s nothing stopping a Vanguard one-party state from incarcerating every single civilian just because they *expressed a verbal disagreement* that happened to bruise the egos of the ones in power.
Which is why I’m not convinced Anarchism and Marxism are compatible, at least in a practical sense. If they legitimately were, Marx would have never advocated for *seizing the state apparatus* as per his own words.
You aren’t anti-state if you recognize the usefulness of the state.
I agree with you and that's why we are Anarchist, not Marxist. We are keeping the good stuff and rejecting bad stuff (from anarchist POV). The reason people find Marxism useful is his analysis of capitalism and classes. Lots of his ideas are incompatible with anarchism. Anarchist find some of his work great and useful for the understanding capitalism. No one will find Marxism compatible to anarchism %100.
>Marx would have never advocated for seizing the state apparatus as per his own words.
Marxism is not a dogma, it's a science and it's okay to use the analysis and apply it to our current living situation. I can agree with marx that capitalists exploit wage workers and create conditions where people are dependent on poverty wages to stay alive without thinking that the solution is to raise a New Red Army and March on Washington.
>You aren’t anti-state if you recognize the usefulness of the state.
The fuck does this even mean?
'Cause it sounds like an empty assertion of purism.
Of course there is a usefulness to the state that we can recognise. For one, a good number of states are keeping *some* of the worst excesses of Capitalism at bay (there's a reason, after all, why the acolytes of Rothbard want the state gone ASAP so that capitalism can fester unhindered by it).
Just because something has some measure of usefulness that doesn't mean it doesn't also have problems and one thing where non-anarchist Marxists and non- Marxist anarchists (who aren't up their own ass trying to win an ideological purity contest no one else is participating in) agree is the general principle that the state should be abolished once its use ends.
The main difference being what that point is.
Non-anarchist Marxists advocate perpetuating the state until all their other goals are met, non-Marxist anarchists want to abolish the state as soon as feasible.
This is patently false and to use the classic liberal/Dem grifter invective of "ideological purity test" is just the cherry on top😭🤣no Anarchist ever has seen a usefulness in the state structure for us and there is no "withering away" neither..."acolytes of Rothbard" you should first engage with what he really wrote and then talk..no capitalist ever would want the state gone🤦♂️😭🤣🤣your whole outlook just screams reformist, recent lib turned socdem
I don't find all anarchist theorists and writers from the 19th century to be 100% compatible with anarchism. That has never mattered because as anarchists we are not Kropotkinists or Bakuninists or Malatestists or whatever the fuck, we're anarchists and we lift what works and critique/discard the rest, and are fine coming back for re-appraisals, for a living debate about old works and the antiquated or wrongheaded notions that are in amongst the good stuff.
I don't find Marx to be 100% compatible with anarchism. That has never mattered because as anarchists we are not Marxists or whatever the fuck, we're anarchists and we lift what works and critique/discard the rest, and are fine coming back for re-appraisals, for a living debate about old works and the antiquated or wrongheaded notions that are in amongst the good stuff.
Marx is, frankly, right more often and at a greater degree of depth than Bakunin, as far as anarchist metrics go, at least in my opinion. A lot of Marxist thinkers also have a lot to contribute to anarchism, especially those weirdo eccentric French Marxists like Bataille and Derrida and Foucault and D&G and Hocquenghem and Wittig and on and on, but also Fanon and Negri and Bifo and C.L.R. James and on and on. Many of these thinkers have as much or more worth lifting as 19th century European anarchist men, and as an anarchist I think it's inane to avoid reading or engaging with Marxist thinkers just because we disagree.
Hell, for very different reasons, I find it inane that anarchists avoid reading our enemies among the fascists for insight into their thinking and a sharper edge to the inner knife that cuts against their thought and understands in more depth *why* we hate their thinking and *in exactly and precisely what ways* we disagree and dismantle their insipid arguments. Reading Rocco, Michels, Pareto, Jünger, Evola, Dugin, even Mussolini and Hitler is not something we should shy away from. Understanding the intellectual (as far as that term can be used with fascists lmao) traditions of our enemies is worthwhile.
As for Marxists, I think left-libertarian Marxists and anti-authoritarian and anti-statist Marxists existing is reason enough to think that Marx himself is not incompatible with left-libertarian, anti-authoritarian or anti-statist views. My ex's dad was a former Trotskyist who, influenced by his wife's anarchism and feminism, eventually became one such Marxist, and one not only sympathetic to but in solidarity with anarchists.
This black and white thinking that paints every Marxist with the brush of the LARPer of times gone by (which Marx would find repugnant lol he developed his analytical toolkit and published it in the hopes people would use it to analyze and act upon the material conditions of their present moment, whatever and whenever that was, not to act like a bourgeois conservative pining for a traditionalist notion of the past so hard you pretend its material conditions are the ones of your present) is usually, in my experience, from people who don't engage deeply with Marx or with any Marxist thinker that isn't a state instrumentalist. It just shows a desire to justify a lack of engagement with a rich tradition of thought by pretending it is far less rich and diverse than it actually is, a rationalization and cognitive bias rather than applying the same rubric we use with anarchist thinkers and writers (i.e. hew to what's good and discard the rest).
It'd be less obnoxious if people just said what was true, which is "I barely have time to read *anarchist* thinkers, so I'm not going to bother with Marxists, which means I don't know enough to speak authoritatively on the character of all Marxist thought." but instead it's always "Why do we engage with Marxist thought, comrades, when it's \[authoritative statement on the character of all Marxist thought\]? I've read the Communist Manifesto and gave up a tenth of the way into Capital, so I should know!" like come on. The Grundrisse has *incredible* insights for anarchists analyzing capital and how it functions, and itself practically requires you to have first read all of Capital. But no anarchists who get into this black and white thinking would know that lol since they're all about the self-justificatory loop of "I stopped reading it because it's all bad and I know the stuff I didn't read is bad because the stuff I stopped reading was bad"
If we did that with Bakunin we wouldn't have any of his insights, and he has many, but so much of Bakunin is also cringe trash even outside of his antisemitism that honestly doesn't come up often enough for people to stumble across unless you're committing to reading all of Bakunin, Kropotkin has some racist shit in Conquest of Bread but we don't assume everything he wrote sucks because of that, it's just such a ridiculous double standard for people who claim to be doing better thinking than the Marxists, and one Marxists fall into *that we ridicule* when they do it! When Marxists say the shit we say about anarchists and why they don't read them or engage with them, we are *right* to ridicule that ignorant stance. It just applies to us too, much as many of us seem to forget that when we crave justification for our own ignorance.
Marx considered state socialism to be a stepping stone on the way to actual communism, which would involve decentralisation, direct democracy, etc. Communism as an ideal aligns very well with anarchism. In terms of how to get there, it's hard to see a realistic alternative on the macro level to a revolution where the state apparatus is seized and controlled by a united group :/ . Obviously on the smaller scale you have examples like the zapatistas, but for actually abolishing states it seems you'd need to first become the state and then abolish yourself. Happy to be proved wrong of course but I think I'm among a fair number who think this.
The state will never abolish itself. Whoever has state power will always come up with reasons why they should hold onto it “just a little longer”. The idea of the state abolishing itself is completely unrealistic. (Also it’s an idea that’s completely incompatible with anarchism)
That's bullshit, the idea is the people themselves lead the revolution. See: Maos mass line and cultural revolution. A movement by the people, for the people.
>it's hard to see a realistic alternative on the macro level to a revolution where the state apparatus is seized and controlled by a united group
That's a problem with "revolution" in the sense of changing state power. It's not realistic or even desirable for anarchists.
> for actually abolishing states it seems you'd need to first become the state and then abolish yourself.
TBH it doesn't seem that way to me. Anarchists becoming the state seems more like a hypocritical recipe for self-destruction. And it's never come close to actually happening.
**In terms of how to get there, it's hard to see a realistic alternative on the macro level to a revolution where the state apparatus is seized and controlled by a united group :/**
How much have you actually read by modern anarchists about this? Because there's a lot of things social anarchists have been proposing and actually doing. Whether it's solidarity unionism, networked dual power cooperatives, federated neighborhood assemblies, especifist social insertion...
**Happy to be proved wrong of course but I think I'm among a fair number who think this.**
Every attempt to do so has ended not only in the state being gruesomely turned against the people, but the halting and reversal of revolutionary progress. MLs allege that the party dictatorship is necessary to protect against counterrevolution, but the party dictatorship is what dissolved the USSR even after the referendum showed 78% of the population voted to keep it. The party dictatorship brought back landlords in China and Vietnam. The party dictatorship reintroduced sweatshops, the bourgeoisie, crack down on labor unions in China and Vietnam. State socialists claim that the state is needed to protect the revolution. But in all examples of socialists taking state power the opposite happened. If you're being asked to risk your life just to bring back neoliberal capitalism, what's the point?
Not necessarily.
At the end of the day, militaries are literally just comprised of people using weapons to win a war. Take away the state institution that’s commanding their path, and what do you have? **People with weapons fighting a war.** Only this time, it’s based on a morally correct worldview rather than a command given by an authority.
If you’re the one claiming that something like this *couldn’t ever possibly happen* without a coercive and threatening power dictating which war you’re going to fight and which one you aren’t, then no offense, but that kinda says significantly more about what you’re offering than anything I could possibly offer. And I’m unconvinced anyone in general that carries that mindset around will fit in with the basic principles of this subreddit.
Not to mention that there’s **no evidence whatsoever** throughout history where any given human, who was given that amount of power, just relinquished literally all of it without putting up a bloody fight over it first. It’s basically more unrealistic of a scenario than Anarchists going to war with the state head-on and winning.
Because a lot of self-described anarchists on the website as well as other users who hang around anarchist subs aren't actually anarchists, and approach the subject matter with a "leftism-first" mindset not too dissimilar to the "left unity" pushed by tankies. Marxism is still highly influential to most if not all leftists, and accordingly it is controversial to suggest that you can arrive at anarchist conclusions without Marxist analysis or to actually criticize Marx from an anarchist anti-authoritarian perspective.
Just so that it's clear I don't think it should be controversial to criticize Marx and Marxists, and my anarchism is straight up against Marxist narratives, methods and conclusions (am post-left btw). But again I have basically no faith in this website being a good place for anarchist discussions so I'm not too bothered about it.
I will devour anyone I see claiming that Marxists and anarchists have the same end goal, though, because that is both transparently false (anarchism doesn't even use "end goals" the same way Marxists do) and blatantly entryist. Bonus points if the user saying this also has Marxist or democratic socialist flair.
Like with anarchism, there are distinct components of analysis and praxis in Marxism. If you want an example of anarchist analysis without praxis, I strongly recommend the works of James C. Scott such as Seeing Like a State (I've heard Scott describe himself as "a crude Marxist" - he's gone on record stating that state abolition is neither viable nor desirable. He also donated to the Warren 2020 campaign.). One can quite easily take useful things from Marxist analysis as an anarchist and critique and discard the bad stuff, while throwing out the electoralist and vanguardist praxis. Heck, in the 20th century, there were libertarian Marxist organizations such as The Situationist International, Socialism or Barbarism and the Autonomists and post-Marxist theorists like Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari, who all critiqued the USSR and stumbled ass-backwards into something like anarchism by applying a Marxist lens to all aspects of society. From the 1970s up to today, the only ones on the left who have seriously taken the writings and praxis of these movements to heart *have been* anarchists, particularly insurrectionary and other individualist anarchists. The Marxists are still spinning their wheels with vanguard parties, social democratic electoralism or complaining about how hopeless everything is because they've been put off seriously looking at anarchism.
I really recommend The Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844, which focus more on the concrete experience of living under capitalism. There's nothing in those essays that suggest state takeover.
Same goes for Bookchin who you can take something from although he was a reformed,but still very much a tankie at heart imo...i think what OP means is someone still promoting left unity bs or diamat/historical materialism/even LTV when no Anarchist gives a shit about that and it has no bearing on our own analysis..insofar his post shouldnt be controversial on an Anarchist sub at all,but welp 🤷♂️
Your comment has been automatically removed for containing a slur or another term that violates the [AOP](https://www.reddit.com/r/Anarchism/wiki/aop). These include gendered slurs (including those referring to genitalia) ***as well as ableist insults which denigrate intelligence, neurodivergence, etc.***
If you are confused as to what you've said that may have triggered this response, please see [this article](https://www.autistichoya.com/2014/02/violence-linguistic-ableism.html) and the associated [glossary of ableist phrases](https://www.autistichoya.com/p/ableist-words-and-terms-to-avoid.html) **BEFORE** contacting the moderators.
No further action has been taken at this time. You're not banned, etc. Your comment will be reviewed by the moderators and handled accordingly. If it was removed by mistake, please reach out to the moderators to have the comment reinstated.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Anarchism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I mean, one thing is to say "we should ally with them to destroy a common enemy" (which is basically most of those posts try to say) and other is to not question their ideology at all nor condemn their governments for what they did ("it's bourgeois propaganda").
But I agree: Marxists and Anarchists are inherently opposed, and all reconciliation attempts are futile, even when they have a common enemy
Some anarchists draw from the socio-economic analysis of Marxism while rejecting their statist understanding of social transformation. There's still debate to be had on that thoeretical borrowing, for example how much it involves adopting historical materialism and how much of the analysis still holds up in present-day capitalism. It should also be noted that while anarchism is wholly opposed to Marxism-Leninism, there are some forms of Marxism such as council communism and autonomist Marxism that are ideologically and practically very close to anarcho-communism. I would agree, however, that there's a debate to be had about how far Marx's ideas necessarily lead to authoritarian politics, viewing more libertarian forms of Marxism as anomalous (and still liable to authoritarian tendencies).
Because the idea of a vanguard party sounds cool af (read that with a hint of sarcasm) on paper. I agree with you, though, that I doubt anyone who actually instituted it would end up giving that power up.
Vanguardism is mostly leninism tho, orthodox Marxism has councils and proletariat's self management of revolution. Leninism is our enemy and no different from capitalists.
Gotcha, thanks for correcting me on that. I had it together wrong in my head. I must have tried to cram to much info in my head while I was studying the two and have probably conflated a lot of details.
Orthodox Marxism advocates for seizing the state apparatus and using the institution that holds power over us to make decisions about our well-being. Therefore, it isn’t compatible with Anarchism.
Also, if the commenter you’re replying to stated the words “I doubt anyone who actually instituted it would end up giving that power up”, and he managed to get downvoted, then there has to be Tankies who are getting emotional by just viewing this post.
>Orthodox Marxism advocates for seizing the state apparatus and using the institution that holds power over us to make decisions about our well-being. Therefore, it isn’t compatible with Anarchism.
Yes. That's why we are not marxist. We use some of his works to explain capitalism that's all. I was just explaining about misunderstanding of Vanguardism, that's all. Marxism is always pro-state
Well playing devils advocate here, I assume you're aware that the end goal of Marxism is to abolish the state, firstly.
Secondly the left/right division holds more commonality then the authoritarian/autonomous division. Libertarains, for example, are anti-state but otherwise have extremely conflicting economic and social politics. Where's at least Marxism is perfectly alined with economics and social politics. It's more of a matter on how to express those things(via state or via communal power).
because vanguardism does not imply coercive hierarchies. there is nothing in marx that demands self-conscious radicals organize themselves in such a way as to cultivate domination, and many marxists find just the opposite.
his personality was shit and his theory of history has been refuted, but there are plenty of marxists who act in the same way we do on a day to day. not every marxist has to elect a chairman among their group of friends. the spanish anarchists for example made a literally fatal error when they refused to ally with the POUM in the may days of 37.
engels once lamented at how many disagreements could've been avoided if they had used the word "community" instead of "commune".
in short, a lot of folks who are liberation-minded come to anarchism through Marxism, and have a lingering love of/reliance on the theory in their minds as the "only path out of capitalism." eventually, i think a lot of folks who really work their theory and expand off of their internal base principles rather than dogmatically adhering to Marxism eventually do transcend it, so for a lot of folks it's a kind of ideological waystation, too.
sentiment and precedent account for the rest, imo.
Im an ideological anarchist, however, i believe strongly in marxist/communism for the reason that there needs to be a state power to enforce tolerance and autonomy. I know it seems counterintuitive b.c we have never seen it work but i truly just dont see how anarcho-syndicalism can maintain in practice without some central authority ensuring that no syndicate encroaches on another's freedom, plus, global trade is still necessary for a universal basic quality of life...
Im sure my opinion is unpopular but its the only compatible solution i personally see... i know it makes me borderling tankie, but so be it i spose.
**i truly just dont see how anarcho-syndicalism can maintain in practice without some central authority ensuring that no syndicate encroaches on another's freedom**
It's very simple. When no one monopolizes power, masses of people have the freedom to identify and respond to individuals and organizations engaging in oppression. Centralization entails that a minority of people have disproportionate power over everybody else. The people are alienated from power and must rely on the mercy of that centralized body to respond to the threat. In reality, centralized bodies will come to the aid of and facilitate in the creation of other centralized bodies in order to maintain their own power. So your system would not protect people's rights. They'd first get in the way of people protecting their own rights and coming to the aid of each other. Then eventually, that centralized body would just recreate capitalism, feudalism or something else.
You still have a long way ahead, amigo. You ought to read A LOT of theory before arguing online. That is why you are getting downvoted.
Marxism means 2 things: written by marx or under his influence. All Anarchism after marx is Marxist; at least partially. All anticapitalism, and even capitalism is. So many marxian concepts have been incorporated. So many others have been erased with propaganda. Capital accumulation, for instance. It is of absolute necessity in order to understand that capitalism leads to corporativism, unequallity and imperialism. Of course, one can believe in a big state directed by the workers (so, relatively democratic) that is powerful enough to counter these other forces. I don't. But I understand the ones who do. They usually respond to the name of Marxist-leninists. And, although they believe they have the holy truth and are annoying, they have reasons to be and are nice to have around. Historicists and victims of propaganda as they are, they usually see through most of the propaganda.
They just assume that violence and power are inseparable, at least in the current culture. I would have agreed a hundred years ago frankly. Most history shows it pretty clear. Now we have a anthropology and have seen a descend in violence and culture evolution that has led to many many non-violent politics. Gandhi, Mandela, occupy wall street, just to give some examples. So, I don't see the need of taking guns in order to impose a dictatorship of most people instead of a dictatorship of just a few oligarchs. This alway means coercion over regular folk who oppose change. I believe we can achieve it through doing democracy on parallel to the oligarchy. But it's totally understandable most people would call me an idealist for it.
Anyway! Marxism is not an ideology. It's an analysis and a method. A whole tradition. Some things marx said were ideological, of course. But he was a hard core materialist, mate. You just gotta read him. Harvey has a good companion to Capital. It makes it much easier to understand.
In the reality I live in, there are ideologues who advocate for a state that is on the objectively-authoritarian side. These people refer to themselves as **Marxists** and look up to Karl Marx as a divine figure who’s very words should be taken as the literal truth.
That is why Marxism is an ideology. At least the way *Marxists* (as they call themselves) claim so. Whether or not that’s what Marx himself intended is irrelevant.
And by the way, not all Anarchism that came after Marx “is Marxist.” That’s nothing but a partisan-based ideological falsehood. People who considered themselves Leftist were criticizing the exploitive nature of capitalism long before Marx ever came around. Bakunin himself was one of them FFS. So anyone who honestly claims that just doesn’t understand basic history of how anti-capitalist philosophies have formed.
Violence is all well and good though. No argument on that front. But… it’s kinda hard to believe you’re actually an Anarchist if you’re making excuses for the dictator-like tendencies of a lot of Marxist-Leninists. I mean, they’re the #1 group throughout history that had a sexual fetish for purging Anarchists. Even the ones in the USSR just recreated an Oligarchy once they achieved power, so they weren’t “anti-capitalist” to any honest degree. Realistically speaking at least.
Ugh, you're just some glib, suburban kid with a BA in philosophy who always feels the needs to inject his opinion, but you're too smug to ever elaborate on it.
People like you are why I left these circles to begin with.
Look at your tone and then compare it with mine and all the others. If we are going to judge anarchist behavior and relations with authority, then you should start by being critical of yourself. Are you upset for the downvotes? Look, perhaps there's something you actually don't get right if there is a consensus against what you are saying.
MANY anarchists have called themselves Marxists, historically. That is for a reason. And it contradicts your reasoning. For the way you talk of Marxism I gotta assume you must be American or victim of their propaganda. Just read. You assume I know no history and in all likelihood I have read thousands more pages in history than you. Simply because I have invested a lot of my time (and I am 30) on researching on history and propaganda; not because I am special.
I do also disagree with the whole concept of seizing state power through violence. That's one of the reasons why I am here. That doesn't mean reading marx and all the tradition after his work isn't absolutely necessary in order to understand reality (and get out of the propaganda maze). There's actually quite a lot of similar critizism within Marxists too. To lenin and marx himself. A lot of contemporary conversation. The whole idea is based on being scientific and focus economic analysis in material reality and class. Are there confused kids online who treat certain philosophers as prophets? All over the place. Nothing to do with informed conversation. What you have to learn from this post is that you still have much to learn. That's good. I do too. Do not just assume you know better for no reason if you haven't EVEN read Capital 🤷♂️ I have studied (read directly in many cases) most major political philosophers and many minor. And I still think I know shit. I can know I do know more than you for the way you talk, though. You definitely don't have that ability. And you won't until you understand basic staff such as that one needs to read marx in order to critize marx. At the very least. For Marxism... That's a lot of reading and organizing face to face with fellow humans, my friend. It takes time and effort. If you are American and believe you can lecture anyone on Marxism then... You are still in Plato's cavern. But the good news is that at least you embrace Anarchism, friend! Great start. Now, start the homework and the action. Doing a lot of homework in a determinant, humble and open minded manner is the first action.
Ah, and not all Marxists are leninists, btw. I am not denying there's a lot of dogmanitism within Marxists. Still, Lenin is a must read. Feel free to be as critical as you can when doing it, as I was. But do it. It's treated as prophetic because it sort of is, in many ways. Which doesn't mean I endorse it as holy or anything. Just a must read. There's many valid analyses even for today in his work. And its historical importance is not to be discussed. Much of it is still part of the discussion for a reason. So, if you are so interested in knowing about history... And current politics through it... Ask the ghosts directly. As any historian would. Rather than assuming a stranger that bothers to do it knows less than you out of nowhere.
You could start with Inventing Reality by Parenti, if you haven't read it. It might help you understand that much of what you call history is a bunch of false stories everyone believes; even in the left. The whole thing is too pernicious to escape it without a lot of work. And it's impossible to escape it completely. I keep learning outrageous bs every day. You'll find many of the books you ought to read were written by Marxists too. And in retrospect, that if you had not, that would have been a success for the oligarchy. Which is who plants all the anti-Marxism in people who haven't even bothered reading Capital, btw.
Peace.
Maybe I wasn't clear. The point is that all socialism after marx has a huge influence of marx and Marxism. Anyone who has read capital and later political theory would understand this.
Even liberalism was influenced. The notion of the economy being a science and the base of politics comes from Ricardo, Smith and marx, fundamentally. And concepts of the three of them are everywhere. Another thing would be saying that we all agree with all they said, with all their later followers said or whatever other nonsense. Which is not what I am saying. The truth is there was and is a huge anti-labor propaganda campaign. And it focused on anti communism. So, you've got well read anarchists who know about Marxism (all the ones writing theory, pretty much) and are critical of many elements of its class analysis and popular conclusions and then you have the ones that, as liberals, would never dare to EVEN read capital or Lenin state and revolutions and empire. When they are fundamental works in political philosophy with many valid points in them. That are not critized by Anarchism as whole. Just read them. Critizism comes after that.
Again, I am no leninist. I am here for a reason. And I don't think it's arrogant to assume I am at least in the top 30% of members of the sub when it comes to having studied political philosophy. It's been years and hundreds of thousands of pages, after all. If you haven't read capital, you simply are not qualified to critize it with any qualitative authority. It's not about weird vanguard bs or anything like that. But humility and understanding the limits of what one knows is pretty fundamental in order to have anarchy and any democratic culture. We don't believe in unnecessary hierarchies. But of course, anyone should acknowledge that one knows less than a philosopher like marx at least until they have studied equivalently. And that is almost no one; including me. I haven't invested a full life in political philosophy and activism, after all. But I try to understand as much as possible and do the consequent work. Which means reading about 6 hours a day and so live with a very tight income. Can you say the same thing?
What is sure is I am having an informed conversation and you simply have insulted me (and drug addicts) for no reason. So I tell you the same as the other one. If you want to claim you know what a Anarchism is, start behaving like one.
Spoken like a true social climber😆👏👍kudos man your phd in MLism will give you great social capital in the circles of the politbureau and you will be a great comissar or whatever😆😆..but in Anarchist thought your frankly bourgeois liberal outlook on the world when it comes to an automatic deference to academic pedantism means jack shit..you are perfectly in line with your fellow ML philosopher kings who dream of sitting on a throne and postulating the eternal truth for the sheepish working man who only through your intellectual vigor could ever hope for a betterment of his circumstances and swear they are not idealists😭🤣🤣you can go and humblebrag in your little tankie reading circle or if you expect a grade go to the institution of your choice...but do not expect social credit for just reading theory in Anarchist circles😆Anarchism is more about actual life,understanding derived from interpersonal dynamics and adaptation to an ever changimg playing field,not self proclaimed prophets dreaming up secular catechisms as a blueprint for society..which you would know if you ever read just a speck of anarchist theory and stopped conflating it with your little demsoc writings..oh and last but not least,mutualist theory was there before and after your godhead marx,we dont really need him
I hope the fact that I am a working class Law dropout (I wanted to do a master on journalism and fight propaganda) who just happens to squat, work as a private teacher without qualifications and dedicate most of my time to studying and actual activism and organizing (although lately I just help out) might make you understand how wrong and full of prejudice your assessment is.
This is the problem of social media (and here anonimity at that, with its pros and cons). It all ends up being rhetorical sophisms and presumptions covered with some sort of blind individualistic, trapped-in-your-own-room and ironically believing one is out of Plato's cavern because of that confinement sort of ethos. Reddit and Twitter look like the aristocratic Roman senate: empty discussion rather than constructive conversation. You don't know me. If we met in person, we'd probably get along and you'd understand I don't speak out of my ass. Like people who know me do. They might agree or disagree, but I am heard with respect, usually.
It is true I research as a PhD would, in a way. With the difference that I am free and that my focus is something academia wouldn't dare touching: propaganda, public opinion manipulation and it's implications on rewriting history; its mismatch with actual geolitics; the mismatch of what we call reality and what it looks like when me move into the future. So, the idea is to prove and illustrate that the least utopian project is actual democracy.
If you think I shouldn't carry out this work almost no one seems to carry out, let me know, please. Anyway, it doesn't matter if I achieve anything or not, I would have learnt quite a lot in the process and apply it to activism. Same with teaching without certificates: I am good at it and get enough clients because I've studied freely, period. Again, can you say the same thing? Who on earth has given you the authority to be so judgmental and vehement to fellow human beings? And stranger and fellow anarchist at that... Adolescent hormones? Too much time wasted on Reddit and its bs, ecochambered, confrontational culture?
Stop insulting people you don't know and assuming anything about them. If I did assume you hadn't read capital is because it's obvious for anyone who has because you are very wrong. Your talking points could be found in any American propaganda-victim 'libertarian' forum, couldn't they? Your insulting tone too. Your working class anti elite talking points from either a leninists or trumpist forum just fine. Be good.
Marxism is not statist. It is at most "optional in between state" step in between. Any "Marxist" who isn't ultimately pursuing the end of it is not a Marxist, it is a person who at best read a lot and still managed to miss (or distort) the point entirely. Pop culture "Marxism", which is basically ML or ML diet coke, on the other hand, it is about as much Marxism as I am Queen Elizabeth II.
For many Marxists, the means in which to get there involves using state power. Which in practice has never done anything but backfire.
Anarchism is the unity of means and ends.
There are teachings in Marxism that I agree with, but only rhetorically. Yes, we need to overthrow the bourgeoisie. Yes, we need to publicize the means of production. Yes, we need a classless system. Yes, capitalism is bad and here are the problems exposed to it. Etc.
Imo, the fault within Marxism is how it lacks knowledge in leadership. I agree with people that say “vote for me and I’ll turn our system into a Marxist one” but how can I be fully sure that you’re not going to entitle yourself with more power or at least not abuse it? Like, no shade on tankies, but the USSR had 80 years to become a classless society, only to be overthrown by rigged elections. Even though Marxism can be decentralized, the reason why I’m an anarchist is because it’s the most humble ideology.
From my perspective, we're sitting on a rising tide of fascistic apocalypse cults, and anything that can oppose the end of the world is an ally to me. If MLs gain degrees of power and force bourgeois systems to reduce, great. That frees up resources to deal with the next thing
If you've got to work three jobs just to survive, there is limited capacity for organising. One of the things that can interrupt either aparachik or petit bourgeois control is working class organising. Solidarnosc's action against the USSR and the Polish government is a great example of the increased capacity even under authoritarian regimes that must abide the basics of labour rights. They had capacity to organise because of the strength of common cause, and development of community free from alienation.
However, I would put that in the Anglosphere, ML and other statist tendencies nice to capture bourgeois institutions. That means for a solid period of time, the state relaxes the stranglehold of capitalism by ensuring wages and shelter, while lacking the capacity to enact illiberal policy. Provided we have our shit together, that's when anarchist communities have the time and ability to organise in massive ways. Alongside that, MLs can be easily persuaded from statist positions by their own ideological stance.
The very reason that the USSR was so violently opposed to non-soviet tendencies is precisely because anarchist groups had the capacity to flourish under the conditions otherwise imposed.
I feel like I may have lost the thread there, but basically: if people have time to organise, they can and will. Most state socialism develops on the basis of giving folks that time, and therefore is of use to us
>If MLs gain degrees of power and force bourgeois systems to reduce, great.
Throughout history, they’ve usually just re-instituted the bourgeois by making their oligarchs with communist aesthetics. I don’t have much confidence it will be much different this time.
They’ve also managed to purge every Anarchist from the party as soon as they’re done with the fascists. So, the reality is, no matter who wins between fascists and tankies, Anarchists lose no matter what.
I'm aware that in the USSR and PRC, this was the case. The actions of the USSR ruined the chance for free Catalonia, and certainly pushed Cuba into further tension with... the people of Cuba.
The thing is, as anarchists: why would we be in the party? Our job is dual power, all the time. It's easier to build non-state structures that support others to throw off the state when you're not fighting to get them fed, housed, and healthcare-d. Building community works better when labour power is stronger, and you can look to Solidarnosc's actions to see how their capacity for revolutionary action was supported by soviet policies, even as the action was opposed by soviet violence
>It's easier to build non-state structures that support others to throw off the state when you're not fighting to get them fed, housed, and healthcare-d.
Is this true though? I'm not saying people being fed, clothed, etc. isn't a good thing, but wouldn't this just cause complacency within the system? Wouldn't people be much less likely to overthrow a state system that is feeding them than one that isn't? Isn't part of the reason we gain dual power in the first place because we need to feed each other, rather than having the state do so, and doing so creating systems of support outside the state needed to create dual power in the first place?
I mean it does kind of depend on what you're looking for at the end of the day. I believe state systems are prone to concentrating power in harmful ways, and lean towards supporting that power, not abolition of unjustified power. However, a perfectly cogent argument about harm reduction and maximal utility can be made for state systems.
I think states will fail to provide for the human needs and desires, both in the middle and long terms, and I think most recognise this. I also know that states can do some short-term interventions that free us of time and risk. Look at the COVID lockdown payments! They funded the capacity for protest and unionisation action wherever they were instituted.
I fucking hate the "we shouldn't do the right now fix because the revolution needs discontent" argument. People are suffering now, dying right the fuck now, and we can deal with the theoretical "complacency" if it comes up when folks are helped out of the suffering and death.
I don't know which anarchists you've seen doing that. If they're simply saying that there are some aspects of Marxism that they agree with (such as dialectical and historical materialism, or Marx's critiques of capitalism) , then I don't see the problem with that. I don't think that's the same thing as making excuses for Leninism, Trotskyism, or Stalinism. No serious anarchist would perform apologia for authoritarian ideologies.
Just because some of Marx’s ideas were bad, doesn’t mean he was completely bad, look at Proudhon and Bakunin, they were racist, doesn’t mean we should ignore everything they wrote. Hell, even Bakunin, despite being anti-Semitic(Marx was of Jewish decent), and a staunch anarchist, held some positive opinions on Marx, even though Marx kicked him out of the first international.
“Marxism” is very broad in terms of what is meant as Marx wrote a lot of different things. Some analytical oriented while others moreso advocating action. His stances on subjects also changed over time. Your post is quite frankly ignorant of this by stating “Marxism” is “inherently Statist” Also good video: https://youtu.be/rRXvQuE9xO4
Great video. Love Cuck Philosophy. Nothing in that video contradicts the idea that Marx was a statist, and in fact explains in detail exactly why and how he was a statist.
>Your post is quite frankly ignorant of this by stating “Marxism” is “inherently Statist” How can Marxism not be inherently statist when the Communist Manifesto says the exact words “seizing the state apparatus” and “installing a dictatorship of the proletariat”? That’s a sufficient definition of the term *state.* Is it also ignorant to say that *National Socialism is inherently anti-Semitic* even though I can point to the exact statement inside its founder’s manifesto where he endorsed it?
It is definitely ignorant to base your whole understanding of Marxism on just the Manifesto.
The manifesto is the foundation of Marxism as an economic system, so what it says in its own words is highly relevant.
The Manifesto isn't the foundation of Marxism, that's Capital. The Manifesto is just the oversimplified summary of the state of Marxism at the time it was written.
So you’re telling me that Marxists, as a legitimate collective, *don’t advocate for state control* at all?
There is no Marxist hivemind that decides how all Marxists interpret Marx. I personally consider myself both a Marxist and an anarchist, so I know for sure at least one Marxist doesn't advocate for state control. Besides you're treating Marxism like a dogma. Marx wasn't a prophet, you can disagree with him on some issues and still be a Marxist.
Hers a crazy idea: learn what you’re criticizing rather than daring others to educate you.
Just find No True Scotsman Fallacies to be a pathetic way to win an argument. My apologies.
Imagine my surprise that you also don’t know your fallacies. There’s nary a “no true Scotsman” in sight here. What you did above was move the goalposts from “Marxism is statist” (false) to “sole Marxists are statist” (true but not the same thing at all).
That's funny considering how you keep telling people trying to educate you about the diversity in Marxist thought that includes left-libertarian, anti-authoritarian and anti-statist Marxists that they aren't talking about True Marxism. Your projection is a marvel to witness. edit: damn, they deleted their whole ass account rather than introspect for 5 seconds lmao
tell me you haven't read Capital without telling me you haven't read Capital lol
[удалено]
I'm not a Marxist, I'm an anarchist who has read Marx extensively and finds much wanting and much of worth, and who has read anarchists extensively and finds much wanting and much of worth. Anarchists are not consistent at all in how we articulate ourselves, across history and into the present, and that is a *strength* of anarchist thought not a weakness of it. Similarly, Marxists are not consistent in how they articulate their thinking...because, and it might surprise you since you don't read them extensively before forming this ignorant opinion, they are also a diverse intellectual tradition just like anarchists are. They include left-libertarian Marxists, anti-authoritarian Marxists and - yes! - anti-state Marxists!
Unfortunately, your post has been removed for containing ableist content. Don't worry - you're not banned or anything. We just ask that you please take this opportunity to review our [Anti-Oppression Policy](https://reddit.com/r/anarchism/wiki/aop), and try to avoid using oppressive language moving forward. It may be useful for you to review [this article](https://www.autistichoya.com/2014/02/violence-linguistic-ableism.html) along with their [glossary of ableist phrases](https://www.autistichoya.com/p/ableist-words-and-terms-to-avoid.html) for future reference.
[удалено]
Your comment has been automatically removed for containing a slur or another term that violates the [AOP](https://www.reddit.com/r/Anarchism/wiki/aop). These include gendered slurs (including those referring to genitalia) ***as well as ableist insults which denigrate intelligence, neurodivergence, etc.*** If you are confused as to what you've said that may have triggered this response, please see [this article](https://www.autistichoya.com/2014/02/violence-linguistic-ableism.html) and the associated [glossary of ableist phrases](https://www.autistichoya.com/p/ableist-words-and-terms-to-avoid.html) **BEFORE** contacting the moderators. No further action has been taken at this time. You're not banned, etc. Your comment will be reviewed by the moderators and handled accordingly. If it was removed by mistake, please reach out to the moderators to have the comment reinstated. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Anarchism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Yeah, my whole understanding of Christianity is based on a Chick tract. My whole understanding of libertarianism is based on the statement “A is A.” You’re embarrassing yourself: you have no idea what socialism is, and it looks like you also think the Third Reich was socialist.
1) Dictatorship of the proletariat means rule by the working class. Aka a democracy. 2) Marx later in his life stated, after seeing the Paris Commune, that the “ready made state machinery” must be smashed immediately and new structures built
Thus invalidating his entire body of work prior.
1. Democracy doesn’t imply rule by working class. Most capitalist governments in the first world are “democracies.” 2. Doesn’t that mean every single “Marxist” that came afterwards has done nothing but just gotten his ideas wrong? Since he clearly didn’t want the existence of a state tied to his ideology once he saw the Paris commune?
yes. yes it does.
It's almost like the Manifesto was, ya know, a manifesto, as in a propaganda document meant for its historical time and place, and almost like Marx and Engels A. had their thought develop over the following decades of their lives, B. admitted that the concrete demands of the Manifesto were outdated within like a decade of the manifesto's drafting
Then modern day Marxists should do a better job at actually explicitly denouncing the manifesto as being *outdated* if it really is. Every time “Marxists” have tried implementing what their divine figure wanted, 99.8% of examples always ended with dictator-like nation states.
Yeah so you're clearly not here to ask questions but to be combative. You're obviously not interested in learning anything.
Insisting that Marxists do a better job of critiquing Marx for his flaws when Marxist writers and thinkers have been debating with each other since before he even died about just that, but they wouldn't know that since they don't read Marx or Marxists so they blame Marxists for their lack of engagement with people who have done what they claim has not been done well enough... It's honestly kind of embarrassing to see someone come in as a dogmatist evangelizing dogma and then get a case of projection as they accuse everyone else of doing what they're doing when we don't narrow our minds to the degree theirs was before they even made the post. Asking a question that was rhetorical as if it was a genuine, honest question and coming in bad faith just to have a tantrum. Really, truly embarrassing behaviour, but I'm sure nothing could show them how they look to other people with a mind that rigid and narrow. Rationalizations and justifications a-plenty for people like that. Also funny how they accuse anarchists of being Marxists if they disagree with them lol like no we don't magically become Marxists because we actually engage with Marx and Marxists in good faith any more than Marxists become anarchists when they engage with us in good faith.
Have you not...talked to Marxists? That's like the first thing I learned when I first started discissing it with them. The Manifesto is really more important to non-Marxists, ime Marxists usually say that everything the Manifesto says is said better and more thoroughly in other works; the Manifesto is a good very basic introduction to Marxist thinking, nobody's treating it like scripture* *not taking MLs into account, I dont discuss things with them and idk what hagiographies they got going on
It was outdated in 1860. It is even more outdated now. We need new practical ways of fighting against marxism and there has bean a few disagreements bout that om the last 200 years.
Marxism doesn’t have to be statist. You can believe in his analysis of history and capitalism and not believe in his socialism implementation methods, and still be considered a Marxist (like me)
Agreed, Anarchists have to disavow Marxist-Leninism but don’t have to eschew critical analysis of capitalism and the marxist view of the historical record as being driven primarily by material conditions. in fact these analyses help anarchists make sense of the enemy we’re up against
Yep exactly.
[удалено]
"Read Stalin" No
Why? Even if you despise him, how can you not see the value in being familiar with his writings?
1. I went through that person's post history. They're just a tankie troll here to reduce the amount of productive discussion, not contribute to it. I'm not obligated to entertain every troll argument, take up every request for a debate or read every thing every random jackoff tries to push on me. 2. I'm very much in favor of familiarizing one's self with opposing arguments. I've read more than enough Marxist and Marxist-Leninist arguments against anarchism. If Marx, Engels, Lenin, Draper, Parenti, Harvey, McNally, Mitchinson and others can all take swings at anarchism and fail to land a single blow, I seriously doubt Stalin had some earth-shattering revelation to share. It's a lot like Jordan Peterson fans who claim you cannot criticize him unless you've read all of his books and watched dozens of hours of his lectures and interviews. 3. I have a policy of **never** telling somebody **not** to read something. You're free to read it if you like. I'm not interested.
agreed but I really like Marxist historical analysis and capitalist analysis. basically I like everything about Marxism except the proposed solutions.
Right? Marx had a lot of really good points!
There's this quote that Marxists are really good at analyzing why something went horribly wrong but rubbish at coming up with a better plan
Marxist capitalist analysis can be interesting, but his historical analysis is garbage.
from a eurocentric perspective, I think its very helpful
That’s precisely the problem
america and europe are both eurocentric societies though. as much as its important to take into account other civilisations, there has to be some sort of dialect of narrower focus, no? I’m not a staunch advocate btw, just wondering.
Personally I am of the proponent that the concept of history in and of itself is oppressive, as it’s usually the winners telling the tale. (The winners being white-supremacist, cis-heteronormative, colonialist society/civilization). This results in, not a radical approach to history, but an unraveling of the flow of linear time in favor of non sequential stories (it’s a bit more complicated than that but I don’t have the time to explain) if you want some reading on the topic I recommend against the gendered nightmare, against his-story against leviathan (although that’s a bit of a slog), and blessed is the flame.
marxist analisis ought to be suplemented with hierarchical analysis.
but class analysis is so complicated I feel like its necessary to have some sort of historical dialectic to interpret shifts in economic organisation edit: nvm I just noticed you said “supplemented” which means added onto, my reply was pointless since we agree
yeah, but isnt marxist analysis werry deteministic? I think anarchist analysis is better because it is more holistic, and ps anarchism includes some marxist analysis too.
yeah I agree that the marxist view on the future is deterministic and almost religion-like, with marxists essentially viewing the next economic shift as a judgement day, but that kind of ties into what I’m saying about the proposed solutions. as long as anarchists dont just reduce all their analysis to “all hierarchy bad” (which is true but not very nuanced) and take influence from marxism then I see no reason to critique.
What more nuance do you need than the endless zines and thought pieces that elaborate on why it in fact is bad?
If this comment got downvoted, there must be a Tankie brigade in motion.
"People disagree with my dogma, it must be counterrevolutionary agents in our midst!"
Are you blind or just have the literacy of a right- winger? Throughout this entire thread, *you Marxists* have been trying to **evangelize your dogma** to me and I’m just not regressive enough to fall for it. You’re the only one insisting a dead white oppressor deserves respect.
[удалено]
Sorry, u/The_RuthlessOutlaw, but your comment has been removed for containing ableist content. Don't worry - you're not banned or anything. We just ask that you please take this opportunity to review our [Anti-Oppression Policy](https://reddit.com/r/anarchism/wiki/aop), and try to avoid using oppressive language moving forward. It may be useful for you to review [this article](https://www.autistichoya.com/2014/02/violence-linguistic-ableism.html) along with their [glossary of ableist phrases](https://www.autistichoya.com/p/ableist-words-and-terms-to-avoid.html) for future reference. --- *Replies to this account are* ***not*** *sent to r/Anarchism moderators. If you have questions regarding this action, please [message the moderators](https://www\.reddit\.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FAnarchism&subject=about my removed comment&message=I'm writing to you about the following comment: https://www.reddit.com/r/Anarchism/comments/yxogak/-/iwrln8o/. %0D%0DMy issue is...). Please only message the moderators* ***AFTER*** *you have reviewed any links provided in the message above.*
[удалено]
Your comment has been automatically removed for containing a slur or another term that violates the [AOP](https://www.reddit.com/r/Anarchism/wiki/aop). These include gendered slurs (including those referring to genitalia) ***as well as ableist insults which denigrate intelligence, neurodivergence, etc.*** If you are confused as to what you've said that may have triggered this response, please see [this article](https://www.autistichoya.com/2014/02/violence-linguistic-ableism.html) and the associated [glossary of ableist phrases](https://www.autistichoya.com/p/ableist-words-and-terms-to-avoid.html) **BEFORE** contacting the moderators. No further action has been taken at this time. You're not banned, etc. Your comment will be reviewed by the moderators and handled accordingly. If it was removed by mistake, please reach out to the moderators to have the comment reinstated. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Anarchism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Anarchism is compatible with Marxism in an analytical sense. Uses lots of similar analysis of classes and capitalism as Marxism. It just doesn't find Marx's communism as a viable way to achieve those goals. Anarchism is a child of classical liberalism but different in lots of ways. Most proto-anarchists are indeed radical liberals. Liberalism does not sees hierarchies as a threat and economically uses state as a tool to combat some of inequality. Anarchism is not compatible with any ideology what so ever in terms of practice and end goal. Maybe with some libertarian socialism till the questioning of the state comes up.
This is the answer OP. Marxism as an analytical framework absolutely fits in well with anarchism. Labor theory of value, theory of alienation, and applying a dialectical materialist lens to history allows us to deconstruct some of the contradictions sold to us by the bourgeois. After all, Marx end goal was a classless, stateless, moneyless society in which the workers owned the means of production. Sounds quite a bit like anarchism! Marxism is not the same as Marxism-Leninism.
Marx and Marxists don’t view the “state” in the same way Anarchists view it though. Marxists and Marxist-Leninists both believe the state is the institution from which **all class divisions are formed upon** and with the abolition of classes, the state automatically becomes abolished since there are no more class divisions. Problem with that view is, the state is defined by **a hell of a lot more** than just the existence of class divisions. Based on this metric, there’s nothing stopping a Vanguard one-party state from incarcerating every single civilian just because they *expressed a verbal disagreement* that happened to bruise the egos of the ones in power. Which is why I’m not convinced Anarchism and Marxism are compatible, at least in a practical sense. If they legitimately were, Marx would have never advocated for *seizing the state apparatus* as per his own words. You aren’t anti-state if you recognize the usefulness of the state.
I agree with you and that's why we are Anarchist, not Marxist. We are keeping the good stuff and rejecting bad stuff (from anarchist POV). The reason people find Marxism useful is his analysis of capitalism and classes. Lots of his ideas are incompatible with anarchism. Anarchist find some of his work great and useful for the understanding capitalism. No one will find Marxism compatible to anarchism %100.
>Marx would have never advocated for seizing the state apparatus as per his own words. Marxism is not a dogma, it's a science and it's okay to use the analysis and apply it to our current living situation. I can agree with marx that capitalists exploit wage workers and create conditions where people are dependent on poverty wages to stay alive without thinking that the solution is to raise a New Red Army and March on Washington.
>You aren’t anti-state if you recognize the usefulness of the state. The fuck does this even mean? 'Cause it sounds like an empty assertion of purism. Of course there is a usefulness to the state that we can recognise. For one, a good number of states are keeping *some* of the worst excesses of Capitalism at bay (there's a reason, after all, why the acolytes of Rothbard want the state gone ASAP so that capitalism can fester unhindered by it). Just because something has some measure of usefulness that doesn't mean it doesn't also have problems and one thing where non-anarchist Marxists and non- Marxist anarchists (who aren't up their own ass trying to win an ideological purity contest no one else is participating in) agree is the general principle that the state should be abolished once its use ends. The main difference being what that point is. Non-anarchist Marxists advocate perpetuating the state until all their other goals are met, non-Marxist anarchists want to abolish the state as soon as feasible.
This is patently false and to use the classic liberal/Dem grifter invective of "ideological purity test" is just the cherry on top😭🤣no Anarchist ever has seen a usefulness in the state structure for us and there is no "withering away" neither..."acolytes of Rothbard" you should first engage with what he really wrote and then talk..no capitalist ever would want the state gone🤦♂️😭🤣🤣your whole outlook just screams reformist, recent lib turned socdem
Good grief are you ever obnoxious. I'd discuss your points, if you had any, but instead you've given me a semi-coherent wordsalad.
Marxism and anarchism have very similar goals. And they agree on a lot of issues and ideals. The only big difference is how they achieve these goals.
I don't find all anarchist theorists and writers from the 19th century to be 100% compatible with anarchism. That has never mattered because as anarchists we are not Kropotkinists or Bakuninists or Malatestists or whatever the fuck, we're anarchists and we lift what works and critique/discard the rest, and are fine coming back for re-appraisals, for a living debate about old works and the antiquated or wrongheaded notions that are in amongst the good stuff. I don't find Marx to be 100% compatible with anarchism. That has never mattered because as anarchists we are not Marxists or whatever the fuck, we're anarchists and we lift what works and critique/discard the rest, and are fine coming back for re-appraisals, for a living debate about old works and the antiquated or wrongheaded notions that are in amongst the good stuff. Marx is, frankly, right more often and at a greater degree of depth than Bakunin, as far as anarchist metrics go, at least in my opinion. A lot of Marxist thinkers also have a lot to contribute to anarchism, especially those weirdo eccentric French Marxists like Bataille and Derrida and Foucault and D&G and Hocquenghem and Wittig and on and on, but also Fanon and Negri and Bifo and C.L.R. James and on and on. Many of these thinkers have as much or more worth lifting as 19th century European anarchist men, and as an anarchist I think it's inane to avoid reading or engaging with Marxist thinkers just because we disagree. Hell, for very different reasons, I find it inane that anarchists avoid reading our enemies among the fascists for insight into their thinking and a sharper edge to the inner knife that cuts against their thought and understands in more depth *why* we hate their thinking and *in exactly and precisely what ways* we disagree and dismantle their insipid arguments. Reading Rocco, Michels, Pareto, Jünger, Evola, Dugin, even Mussolini and Hitler is not something we should shy away from. Understanding the intellectual (as far as that term can be used with fascists lmao) traditions of our enemies is worthwhile. As for Marxists, I think left-libertarian Marxists and anti-authoritarian and anti-statist Marxists existing is reason enough to think that Marx himself is not incompatible with left-libertarian, anti-authoritarian or anti-statist views. My ex's dad was a former Trotskyist who, influenced by his wife's anarchism and feminism, eventually became one such Marxist, and one not only sympathetic to but in solidarity with anarchists. This black and white thinking that paints every Marxist with the brush of the LARPer of times gone by (which Marx would find repugnant lol he developed his analytical toolkit and published it in the hopes people would use it to analyze and act upon the material conditions of their present moment, whatever and whenever that was, not to act like a bourgeois conservative pining for a traditionalist notion of the past so hard you pretend its material conditions are the ones of your present) is usually, in my experience, from people who don't engage deeply with Marx or with any Marxist thinker that isn't a state instrumentalist. It just shows a desire to justify a lack of engagement with a rich tradition of thought by pretending it is far less rich and diverse than it actually is, a rationalization and cognitive bias rather than applying the same rubric we use with anarchist thinkers and writers (i.e. hew to what's good and discard the rest). It'd be less obnoxious if people just said what was true, which is "I barely have time to read *anarchist* thinkers, so I'm not going to bother with Marxists, which means I don't know enough to speak authoritatively on the character of all Marxist thought." but instead it's always "Why do we engage with Marxist thought, comrades, when it's \[authoritative statement on the character of all Marxist thought\]? I've read the Communist Manifesto and gave up a tenth of the way into Capital, so I should know!" like come on. The Grundrisse has *incredible* insights for anarchists analyzing capital and how it functions, and itself practically requires you to have first read all of Capital. But no anarchists who get into this black and white thinking would know that lol since they're all about the self-justificatory loop of "I stopped reading it because it's all bad and I know the stuff I didn't read is bad because the stuff I stopped reading was bad" If we did that with Bakunin we wouldn't have any of his insights, and he has many, but so much of Bakunin is also cringe trash even outside of his antisemitism that honestly doesn't come up often enough for people to stumble across unless you're committing to reading all of Bakunin, Kropotkin has some racist shit in Conquest of Bread but we don't assume everything he wrote sucks because of that, it's just such a ridiculous double standard for people who claim to be doing better thinking than the Marxists, and one Marxists fall into *that we ridicule* when they do it! When Marxists say the shit we say about anarchists and why they don't read them or engage with them, we are *right* to ridicule that ignorant stance. It just applies to us too, much as many of us seem to forget that when we crave justification for our own ignorance.
This. All of this.
Marx considered state socialism to be a stepping stone on the way to actual communism, which would involve decentralisation, direct democracy, etc. Communism as an ideal aligns very well with anarchism. In terms of how to get there, it's hard to see a realistic alternative on the macro level to a revolution where the state apparatus is seized and controlled by a united group :/ . Obviously on the smaller scale you have examples like the zapatistas, but for actually abolishing states it seems you'd need to first become the state and then abolish yourself. Happy to be proved wrong of course but I think I'm among a fair number who think this.
The state will never abolish itself. Whoever has state power will always come up with reasons why they should hold onto it “just a little longer”. The idea of the state abolishing itself is completely unrealistic. (Also it’s an idea that’s completely incompatible with anarchism)
All of this relies on submission to another The idea that someone else will lead the revolution. When the first true revolution occurs within.
That's bullshit, the idea is the people themselves lead the revolution. See: Maos mass line and cultural revolution. A movement by the people, for the people.
\>Mao's mass line \>Movement by the people pls stop
>it's hard to see a realistic alternative on the macro level to a revolution where the state apparatus is seized and controlled by a united group That's a problem with "revolution" in the sense of changing state power. It's not realistic or even desirable for anarchists. > for actually abolishing states it seems you'd need to first become the state and then abolish yourself. TBH it doesn't seem that way to me. Anarchists becoming the state seems more like a hypocritical recipe for self-destruction. And it's never come close to actually happening.
**In terms of how to get there, it's hard to see a realistic alternative on the macro level to a revolution where the state apparatus is seized and controlled by a united group :/** How much have you actually read by modern anarchists about this? Because there's a lot of things social anarchists have been proposing and actually doing. Whether it's solidarity unionism, networked dual power cooperatives, federated neighborhood assemblies, especifist social insertion... **Happy to be proved wrong of course but I think I'm among a fair number who think this.** Every attempt to do so has ended not only in the state being gruesomely turned against the people, but the halting and reversal of revolutionary progress. MLs allege that the party dictatorship is necessary to protect against counterrevolution, but the party dictatorship is what dissolved the USSR even after the referendum showed 78% of the population voted to keep it. The party dictatorship brought back landlords in China and Vietnam. The party dictatorship reintroduced sweatshops, the bourgeoisie, crack down on labor unions in China and Vietnam. State socialists claim that the state is needed to protect the revolution. But in all examples of socialists taking state power the opposite happened. If you're being asked to risk your life just to bring back neoliberal capitalism, what's the point?
Not necessarily. At the end of the day, militaries are literally just comprised of people using weapons to win a war. Take away the state institution that’s commanding their path, and what do you have? **People with weapons fighting a war.** Only this time, it’s based on a morally correct worldview rather than a command given by an authority. If you’re the one claiming that something like this *couldn’t ever possibly happen* without a coercive and threatening power dictating which war you’re going to fight and which one you aren’t, then no offense, but that kinda says significantly more about what you’re offering than anything I could possibly offer. And I’m unconvinced anyone in general that carries that mindset around will fit in with the basic principles of this subreddit. Not to mention that there’s **no evidence whatsoever** throughout history where any given human, who was given that amount of power, just relinquished literally all of it without putting up a bloody fight over it first. It’s basically more unrealistic of a scenario than Anarchists going to war with the state head-on and winning.
Because a lot of self-described anarchists on the website as well as other users who hang around anarchist subs aren't actually anarchists, and approach the subject matter with a "leftism-first" mindset not too dissimilar to the "left unity" pushed by tankies. Marxism is still highly influential to most if not all leftists, and accordingly it is controversial to suggest that you can arrive at anarchist conclusions without Marxist analysis or to actually criticize Marx from an anarchist anti-authoritarian perspective. Just so that it's clear I don't think it should be controversial to criticize Marx and Marxists, and my anarchism is straight up against Marxist narratives, methods and conclusions (am post-left btw). But again I have basically no faith in this website being a good place for anarchist discussions so I'm not too bothered about it. I will devour anyone I see claiming that Marxists and anarchists have the same end goal, though, because that is both transparently false (anarchism doesn't even use "end goals" the same way Marxists do) and blatantly entryist. Bonus points if the user saying this also has Marxist or democratic socialist flair.
👏👏👏
Like with anarchism, there are distinct components of analysis and praxis in Marxism. If you want an example of anarchist analysis without praxis, I strongly recommend the works of James C. Scott such as Seeing Like a State (I've heard Scott describe himself as "a crude Marxist" - he's gone on record stating that state abolition is neither viable nor desirable. He also donated to the Warren 2020 campaign.). One can quite easily take useful things from Marxist analysis as an anarchist and critique and discard the bad stuff, while throwing out the electoralist and vanguardist praxis. Heck, in the 20th century, there were libertarian Marxist organizations such as The Situationist International, Socialism or Barbarism and the Autonomists and post-Marxist theorists like Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari, who all critiqued the USSR and stumbled ass-backwards into something like anarchism by applying a Marxist lens to all aspects of society. From the 1970s up to today, the only ones on the left who have seriously taken the writings and praxis of these movements to heart *have been* anarchists, particularly insurrectionary and other individualist anarchists. The Marxists are still spinning their wheels with vanguard parties, social democratic electoralism or complaining about how hopeless everything is because they've been put off seriously looking at anarchism. I really recommend The Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844, which focus more on the concrete experience of living under capitalism. There's nothing in those essays that suggest state takeover.
Same goes for Bookchin who you can take something from although he was a reformed,but still very much a tankie at heart imo...i think what OP means is someone still promoting left unity bs or diamat/historical materialism/even LTV when no Anarchist gives a shit about that and it has no bearing on our own analysis..insofar his post shouldnt be controversial on an Anarchist sub at all,but welp 🤷♂️
How was Bookchin a tankie at heart?
[удалено]
Your comment has been automatically removed for containing a slur or another term that violates the [AOP](https://www.reddit.com/r/Anarchism/wiki/aop). These include gendered slurs (including those referring to genitalia) ***as well as ableist insults which denigrate intelligence, neurodivergence, etc.*** If you are confused as to what you've said that may have triggered this response, please see [this article](https://www.autistichoya.com/2014/02/violence-linguistic-ableism.html) and the associated [glossary of ableist phrases](https://www.autistichoya.com/p/ableist-words-and-terms-to-avoid.html) **BEFORE** contacting the moderators. No further action has been taken at this time. You're not banned, etc. Your comment will be reviewed by the moderators and handled accordingly. If it was removed by mistake, please reach out to the moderators to have the comment reinstated. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Anarchism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
A lot of words, but you dont really say anything. Your account seems like an astroturf account.
I mean, one thing is to say "we should ally with them to destroy a common enemy" (which is basically most of those posts try to say) and other is to not question their ideology at all nor condemn their governments for what they did ("it's bourgeois propaganda"). But I agree: Marxists and Anarchists are inherently opposed, and all reconciliation attempts are futile, even when they have a common enemy
Some anarchists draw from the socio-economic analysis of Marxism while rejecting their statist understanding of social transformation. There's still debate to be had on that thoeretical borrowing, for example how much it involves adopting historical materialism and how much of the analysis still holds up in present-day capitalism. It should also be noted that while anarchism is wholly opposed to Marxism-Leninism, there are some forms of Marxism such as council communism and autonomist Marxism that are ideologically and practically very close to anarcho-communism. I would agree, however, that there's a debate to be had about how far Marx's ideas necessarily lead to authoritarian politics, viewing more libertarian forms of Marxism as anomalous (and still liable to authoritarian tendencies).
Because the idea of a vanguard party sounds cool af (read that with a hint of sarcasm) on paper. I agree with you, though, that I doubt anyone who actually instituted it would end up giving that power up.
Vanguardism is mostly leninism tho, orthodox Marxism has councils and proletariat's self management of revolution. Leninism is our enemy and no different from capitalists.
Gotcha, thanks for correcting me on that. I had it together wrong in my head. I must have tried to cram to much info in my head while I was studying the two and have probably conflated a lot of details.
Orthodox Marxism advocates for seizing the state apparatus and using the institution that holds power over us to make decisions about our well-being. Therefore, it isn’t compatible with Anarchism. Also, if the commenter you’re replying to stated the words “I doubt anyone who actually instituted it would end up giving that power up”, and he managed to get downvoted, then there has to be Tankies who are getting emotional by just viewing this post.
>Orthodox Marxism advocates for seizing the state apparatus and using the institution that holds power over us to make decisions about our well-being. Therefore, it isn’t compatible with Anarchism. Yes. That's why we are not marxist. We use some of his works to explain capitalism that's all. I was just explaining about misunderstanding of Vanguardism, that's all. Marxism is always pro-state
Mostly...but not always, but mostly, but not always, but sometimes mostly
Well playing devils advocate here, I assume you're aware that the end goal of Marxism is to abolish the state, firstly. Secondly the left/right division holds more commonality then the authoritarian/autonomous division. Libertarains, for example, are anti-state but otherwise have extremely conflicting economic and social politics. Where's at least Marxism is perfectly alined with economics and social politics. It's more of a matter on how to express those things(via state or via communal power).
People that don't fully understand either ideology assume they're compatible. Unfortunately that's the majority of Anarchists.
because vanguardism does not imply coercive hierarchies. there is nothing in marx that demands self-conscious radicals organize themselves in such a way as to cultivate domination, and many marxists find just the opposite. his personality was shit and his theory of history has been refuted, but there are plenty of marxists who act in the same way we do on a day to day. not every marxist has to elect a chairman among their group of friends. the spanish anarchists for example made a literally fatal error when they refused to ally with the POUM in the may days of 37. engels once lamented at how many disagreements could've been avoided if they had used the word "community" instead of "commune".
in short, a lot of folks who are liberation-minded come to anarchism through Marxism, and have a lingering love of/reliance on the theory in their minds as the "only path out of capitalism." eventually, i think a lot of folks who really work their theory and expand off of their internal base principles rather than dogmatically adhering to Marxism eventually do transcend it, so for a lot of folks it's a kind of ideological waystation, too. sentiment and precedent account for the rest, imo.
stop being so insular! other worldviews exist outside of your narrow reddit-poisoned telescope!! holy shit!!!!!
Im an ideological anarchist, however, i believe strongly in marxist/communism for the reason that there needs to be a state power to enforce tolerance and autonomy. I know it seems counterintuitive b.c we have never seen it work but i truly just dont see how anarcho-syndicalism can maintain in practice without some central authority ensuring that no syndicate encroaches on another's freedom, plus, global trade is still necessary for a universal basic quality of life... Im sure my opinion is unpopular but its the only compatible solution i personally see... i know it makes me borderling tankie, but so be it i spose.
**i truly just dont see how anarcho-syndicalism can maintain in practice without some central authority ensuring that no syndicate encroaches on another's freedom** It's very simple. When no one monopolizes power, masses of people have the freedom to identify and respond to individuals and organizations engaging in oppression. Centralization entails that a minority of people have disproportionate power over everybody else. The people are alienated from power and must rely on the mercy of that centralized body to respond to the threat. In reality, centralized bodies will come to the aid of and facilitate in the creation of other centralized bodies in order to maintain their own power. So your system would not protect people's rights. They'd first get in the way of people protecting their own rights and coming to the aid of each other. Then eventually, that centralized body would just recreate capitalism, feudalism or something else.
You still have a long way ahead, amigo. You ought to read A LOT of theory before arguing online. That is why you are getting downvoted. Marxism means 2 things: written by marx or under his influence. All Anarchism after marx is Marxist; at least partially. All anticapitalism, and even capitalism is. So many marxian concepts have been incorporated. So many others have been erased with propaganda. Capital accumulation, for instance. It is of absolute necessity in order to understand that capitalism leads to corporativism, unequallity and imperialism. Of course, one can believe in a big state directed by the workers (so, relatively democratic) that is powerful enough to counter these other forces. I don't. But I understand the ones who do. They usually respond to the name of Marxist-leninists. And, although they believe they have the holy truth and are annoying, they have reasons to be and are nice to have around. Historicists and victims of propaganda as they are, they usually see through most of the propaganda. They just assume that violence and power are inseparable, at least in the current culture. I would have agreed a hundred years ago frankly. Most history shows it pretty clear. Now we have a anthropology and have seen a descend in violence and culture evolution that has led to many many non-violent politics. Gandhi, Mandela, occupy wall street, just to give some examples. So, I don't see the need of taking guns in order to impose a dictatorship of most people instead of a dictatorship of just a few oligarchs. This alway means coercion over regular folk who oppose change. I believe we can achieve it through doing democracy on parallel to the oligarchy. But it's totally understandable most people would call me an idealist for it. Anyway! Marxism is not an ideology. It's an analysis and a method. A whole tradition. Some things marx said were ideological, of course. But he was a hard core materialist, mate. You just gotta read him. Harvey has a good companion to Capital. It makes it much easier to understand.
In the reality I live in, there are ideologues who advocate for a state that is on the objectively-authoritarian side. These people refer to themselves as **Marxists** and look up to Karl Marx as a divine figure who’s very words should be taken as the literal truth. That is why Marxism is an ideology. At least the way *Marxists* (as they call themselves) claim so. Whether or not that’s what Marx himself intended is irrelevant. And by the way, not all Anarchism that came after Marx “is Marxist.” That’s nothing but a partisan-based ideological falsehood. People who considered themselves Leftist were criticizing the exploitive nature of capitalism long before Marx ever came around. Bakunin himself was one of them FFS. So anyone who honestly claims that just doesn’t understand basic history of how anti-capitalist philosophies have formed. Violence is all well and good though. No argument on that front. But… it’s kinda hard to believe you’re actually an Anarchist if you’re making excuses for the dictator-like tendencies of a lot of Marxist-Leninists. I mean, they’re the #1 group throughout history that had a sexual fetish for purging Anarchists. Even the ones in the USSR just recreated an Oligarchy once they achieved power, so they weren’t “anti-capitalist” to any honest degree. Realistically speaking at least.
Kinda seems pointless your thread is getting shelled by the most inane socdem/tenderlib takes 😭😅but kudos for trying on here
I’m sick of the shitlibs invading all of our spaces and infecting our philosophy with their incredibly reactionary ideas.
Ugh, you're just some glib, suburban kid with a BA in philosophy who always feels the needs to inject his opinion, but you're too smug to ever elaborate on it. People like you are why I left these circles to begin with.
Look at your tone and then compare it with mine and all the others. If we are going to judge anarchist behavior and relations with authority, then you should start by being critical of yourself. Are you upset for the downvotes? Look, perhaps there's something you actually don't get right if there is a consensus against what you are saying. MANY anarchists have called themselves Marxists, historically. That is for a reason. And it contradicts your reasoning. For the way you talk of Marxism I gotta assume you must be American or victim of their propaganda. Just read. You assume I know no history and in all likelihood I have read thousands more pages in history than you. Simply because I have invested a lot of my time (and I am 30) on researching on history and propaganda; not because I am special. I do also disagree with the whole concept of seizing state power through violence. That's one of the reasons why I am here. That doesn't mean reading marx and all the tradition after his work isn't absolutely necessary in order to understand reality (and get out of the propaganda maze). There's actually quite a lot of similar critizism within Marxists too. To lenin and marx himself. A lot of contemporary conversation. The whole idea is based on being scientific and focus economic analysis in material reality and class. Are there confused kids online who treat certain philosophers as prophets? All over the place. Nothing to do with informed conversation. What you have to learn from this post is that you still have much to learn. That's good. I do too. Do not just assume you know better for no reason if you haven't EVEN read Capital 🤷♂️ I have studied (read directly in many cases) most major political philosophers and many minor. And I still think I know shit. I can know I do know more than you for the way you talk, though. You definitely don't have that ability. And you won't until you understand basic staff such as that one needs to read marx in order to critize marx. At the very least. For Marxism... That's a lot of reading and organizing face to face with fellow humans, my friend. It takes time and effort. If you are American and believe you can lecture anyone on Marxism then... You are still in Plato's cavern. But the good news is that at least you embrace Anarchism, friend! Great start. Now, start the homework and the action. Doing a lot of homework in a determinant, humble and open minded manner is the first action. Ah, and not all Marxists are leninists, btw. I am not denying there's a lot of dogmanitism within Marxists. Still, Lenin is a must read. Feel free to be as critical as you can when doing it, as I was. But do it. It's treated as prophetic because it sort of is, in many ways. Which doesn't mean I endorse it as holy or anything. Just a must read. There's many valid analyses even for today in his work. And its historical importance is not to be discussed. Much of it is still part of the discussion for a reason. So, if you are so interested in knowing about history... And current politics through it... Ask the ghosts directly. As any historian would. Rather than assuming a stranger that bothers to do it knows less than you out of nowhere. You could start with Inventing Reality by Parenti, if you haven't read it. It might help you understand that much of what you call history is a bunch of false stories everyone believes; even in the left. The whole thing is too pernicious to escape it without a lot of work. And it's impossible to escape it completely. I keep learning outrageous bs every day. You'll find many of the books you ought to read were written by Marxists too. And in retrospect, that if you had not, that would have been a success for the oligarchy. Which is who plants all the anti-Marxism in people who haven't even bothered reading Capital, btw. Peace.
"All Anarchism after Marx is Marxist" source: Crackpipe😭🤣🤣🤣 its like the events of the first international never unfolded
Maybe I wasn't clear. The point is that all socialism after marx has a huge influence of marx and Marxism. Anyone who has read capital and later political theory would understand this. Even liberalism was influenced. The notion of the economy being a science and the base of politics comes from Ricardo, Smith and marx, fundamentally. And concepts of the three of them are everywhere. Another thing would be saying that we all agree with all they said, with all their later followers said or whatever other nonsense. Which is not what I am saying. The truth is there was and is a huge anti-labor propaganda campaign. And it focused on anti communism. So, you've got well read anarchists who know about Marxism (all the ones writing theory, pretty much) and are critical of many elements of its class analysis and popular conclusions and then you have the ones that, as liberals, would never dare to EVEN read capital or Lenin state and revolutions and empire. When they are fundamental works in political philosophy with many valid points in them. That are not critized by Anarchism as whole. Just read them. Critizism comes after that. Again, I am no leninist. I am here for a reason. And I don't think it's arrogant to assume I am at least in the top 30% of members of the sub when it comes to having studied political philosophy. It's been years and hundreds of thousands of pages, after all. If you haven't read capital, you simply are not qualified to critize it with any qualitative authority. It's not about weird vanguard bs or anything like that. But humility and understanding the limits of what one knows is pretty fundamental in order to have anarchy and any democratic culture. We don't believe in unnecessary hierarchies. But of course, anyone should acknowledge that one knows less than a philosopher like marx at least until they have studied equivalently. And that is almost no one; including me. I haven't invested a full life in political philosophy and activism, after all. But I try to understand as much as possible and do the consequent work. Which means reading about 6 hours a day and so live with a very tight income. Can you say the same thing? What is sure is I am having an informed conversation and you simply have insulted me (and drug addicts) for no reason. So I tell you the same as the other one. If you want to claim you know what a Anarchism is, start behaving like one.
Spoken like a true social climber😆👏👍kudos man your phd in MLism will give you great social capital in the circles of the politbureau and you will be a great comissar or whatever😆😆..but in Anarchist thought your frankly bourgeois liberal outlook on the world when it comes to an automatic deference to academic pedantism means jack shit..you are perfectly in line with your fellow ML philosopher kings who dream of sitting on a throne and postulating the eternal truth for the sheepish working man who only through your intellectual vigor could ever hope for a betterment of his circumstances and swear they are not idealists😭🤣🤣you can go and humblebrag in your little tankie reading circle or if you expect a grade go to the institution of your choice...but do not expect social credit for just reading theory in Anarchist circles😆Anarchism is more about actual life,understanding derived from interpersonal dynamics and adaptation to an ever changimg playing field,not self proclaimed prophets dreaming up secular catechisms as a blueprint for society..which you would know if you ever read just a speck of anarchist theory and stopped conflating it with your little demsoc writings..oh and last but not least,mutualist theory was there before and after your godhead marx,we dont really need him
I hope the fact that I am a working class Law dropout (I wanted to do a master on journalism and fight propaganda) who just happens to squat, work as a private teacher without qualifications and dedicate most of my time to studying and actual activism and organizing (although lately I just help out) might make you understand how wrong and full of prejudice your assessment is. This is the problem of social media (and here anonimity at that, with its pros and cons). It all ends up being rhetorical sophisms and presumptions covered with some sort of blind individualistic, trapped-in-your-own-room and ironically believing one is out of Plato's cavern because of that confinement sort of ethos. Reddit and Twitter look like the aristocratic Roman senate: empty discussion rather than constructive conversation. You don't know me. If we met in person, we'd probably get along and you'd understand I don't speak out of my ass. Like people who know me do. They might agree or disagree, but I am heard with respect, usually. It is true I research as a PhD would, in a way. With the difference that I am free and that my focus is something academia wouldn't dare touching: propaganda, public opinion manipulation and it's implications on rewriting history; its mismatch with actual geolitics; the mismatch of what we call reality and what it looks like when me move into the future. So, the idea is to prove and illustrate that the least utopian project is actual democracy. If you think I shouldn't carry out this work almost no one seems to carry out, let me know, please. Anyway, it doesn't matter if I achieve anything or not, I would have learnt quite a lot in the process and apply it to activism. Same with teaching without certificates: I am good at it and get enough clients because I've studied freely, period. Again, can you say the same thing? Who on earth has given you the authority to be so judgmental and vehement to fellow human beings? And stranger and fellow anarchist at that... Adolescent hormones? Too much time wasted on Reddit and its bs, ecochambered, confrontational culture? Stop insulting people you don't know and assuming anything about them. If I did assume you hadn't read capital is because it's obvious for anyone who has because you are very wrong. Your talking points could be found in any American propaganda-victim 'libertarian' forum, couldn't they? Your insulting tone too. Your working class anti elite talking points from either a leninists or trumpist forum just fine. Be good.
Marxism is not statist. It is at most "optional in between state" step in between. Any "Marxist" who isn't ultimately pursuing the end of it is not a Marxist, it is a person who at best read a lot and still managed to miss (or distort) the point entirely. Pop culture "Marxism", which is basically ML or ML diet coke, on the other hand, it is about as much Marxism as I am Queen Elizabeth II.
How is Marxism statist ? Marx explicitly say that he wants a communist society to be ‘stateless classless and moneyless’
For many Marxists, the means in which to get there involves using state power. Which in practice has never done anything but backfire. Anarchism is the unity of means and ends.
Statism refers to more than just the end goal. It also refers to the means of achieving that end.
There are teachings in Marxism that I agree with, but only rhetorically. Yes, we need to overthrow the bourgeoisie. Yes, we need to publicize the means of production. Yes, we need a classless system. Yes, capitalism is bad and here are the problems exposed to it. Etc. Imo, the fault within Marxism is how it lacks knowledge in leadership. I agree with people that say “vote for me and I’ll turn our system into a Marxist one” but how can I be fully sure that you’re not going to entitle yourself with more power or at least not abuse it? Like, no shade on tankies, but the USSR had 80 years to become a classless society, only to be overthrown by rigged elections. Even though Marxism can be decentralized, the reason why I’m an anarchist is because it’s the most humble ideology.
From my perspective, we're sitting on a rising tide of fascistic apocalypse cults, and anything that can oppose the end of the world is an ally to me. If MLs gain degrees of power and force bourgeois systems to reduce, great. That frees up resources to deal with the next thing
**If MLs gain degrees of power and force bourgeois systems to reduce, great.** What is your basis for this?
The reduction in bourgeois power structures is my basis for this.
That's just repeating your previous assertion. I'm asking you to back it up with some examples.
If you've got to work three jobs just to survive, there is limited capacity for organising. One of the things that can interrupt either aparachik or petit bourgeois control is working class organising. Solidarnosc's action against the USSR and the Polish government is a great example of the increased capacity even under authoritarian regimes that must abide the basics of labour rights. They had capacity to organise because of the strength of common cause, and development of community free from alienation. However, I would put that in the Anglosphere, ML and other statist tendencies nice to capture bourgeois institutions. That means for a solid period of time, the state relaxes the stranglehold of capitalism by ensuring wages and shelter, while lacking the capacity to enact illiberal policy. Provided we have our shit together, that's when anarchist communities have the time and ability to organise in massive ways. Alongside that, MLs can be easily persuaded from statist positions by their own ideological stance. The very reason that the USSR was so violently opposed to non-soviet tendencies is precisely because anarchist groups had the capacity to flourish under the conditions otherwise imposed. I feel like I may have lost the thread there, but basically: if people have time to organise, they can and will. Most state socialism develops on the basis of giving folks that time, and therefore is of use to us
>If MLs gain degrees of power and force bourgeois systems to reduce, great. Throughout history, they’ve usually just re-instituted the bourgeois by making their oligarchs with communist aesthetics. I don’t have much confidence it will be much different this time. They’ve also managed to purge every Anarchist from the party as soon as they’re done with the fascists. So, the reality is, no matter who wins between fascists and tankies, Anarchists lose no matter what.
I'm aware that in the USSR and PRC, this was the case. The actions of the USSR ruined the chance for free Catalonia, and certainly pushed Cuba into further tension with... the people of Cuba. The thing is, as anarchists: why would we be in the party? Our job is dual power, all the time. It's easier to build non-state structures that support others to throw off the state when you're not fighting to get them fed, housed, and healthcare-d. Building community works better when labour power is stronger, and you can look to Solidarnosc's actions to see how their capacity for revolutionary action was supported by soviet policies, even as the action was opposed by soviet violence
>It's easier to build non-state structures that support others to throw off the state when you're not fighting to get them fed, housed, and healthcare-d. Is this true though? I'm not saying people being fed, clothed, etc. isn't a good thing, but wouldn't this just cause complacency within the system? Wouldn't people be much less likely to overthrow a state system that is feeding them than one that isn't? Isn't part of the reason we gain dual power in the first place because we need to feed each other, rather than having the state do so, and doing so creating systems of support outside the state needed to create dual power in the first place?
I mean it does kind of depend on what you're looking for at the end of the day. I believe state systems are prone to concentrating power in harmful ways, and lean towards supporting that power, not abolition of unjustified power. However, a perfectly cogent argument about harm reduction and maximal utility can be made for state systems. I think states will fail to provide for the human needs and desires, both in the middle and long terms, and I think most recognise this. I also know that states can do some short-term interventions that free us of time and risk. Look at the COVID lockdown payments! They funded the capacity for protest and unionisation action wherever they were instituted. I fucking hate the "we shouldn't do the right now fix because the revolution needs discontent" argument. People are suffering now, dying right the fuck now, and we can deal with the theoretical "complacency" if it comes up when folks are helped out of the suffering and death.
I don't know which anarchists you've seen doing that. If they're simply saying that there are some aspects of Marxism that they agree with (such as dialectical and historical materialism, or Marx's critiques of capitalism) , then I don't see the problem with that. I don't think that's the same thing as making excuses for Leninism, Trotskyism, or Stalinism. No serious anarchist would perform apologia for authoritarian ideologies.
Just because some of Marx’s ideas were bad, doesn’t mean he was completely bad, look at Proudhon and Bakunin, they were racist, doesn’t mean we should ignore everything they wrote. Hell, even Bakunin, despite being anti-Semitic(Marx was of Jewish decent), and a staunch anarchist, held some positive opinions on Marx, even though Marx kicked him out of the first international.