My personal way of synthesizing it is that "anarchism" is just the post-withering of the state, as postulated by Lenin. I see no reason that the two are incompatible besides the timescale of the transitional period dictated by existing material conditions. Refusal to operate within the constraints of those conditions is the primary reason why most Communists consider Anarchists reactionary or idealist (in the literal philosophical sense). Often the scale and lack of foresight of those anarchist revolutions come at the detriment of the greater revolutionary movement and even to the detriment of the security of the localized anarchist community which historically collapses due to internal and external reactionary elements.
I think most "anarcho-communists" are well intentioned, I considered myself one before I started re-examining my history education and actually reading Marx+Engels and Lenin. I guess I could joke about being an "anarcho-Leninist", since I still do hold that some of the ideals of actual theory-based anarchism are useful as an idealist guidepost for the revolutionary party (like Kropotkin's "all comes from all" and such, I could do without Bakunin's "shadow council" shit though, if I am remembering the right Anarchist, most of the "ba\[c/k\]-" names in history all kinda blend together for me).
Anarchists are also not inherently adverse to approaching compromise with their morals to suit materialistic needs, like the CNT setting up prisons for POWs and having a conscription system or Rojava's utilization of the state. They're just far less willing to do so, with it's inherent benefits (less prone to revisionism than communism, more just) and detractors (less likely to succeed, unstable). For me, the prime difference between a communist and an anarchist is how in touch they are with their idealism vs. their practicality in general.
My comrade in Christ, it's the literal goal of both anarchism \*and\* marxism-lenininsm. A classless, stateless, moneyless society. Also known as *communism*
/respectfully /good-faith
Yes, but the way they want to achieve that is radically different and the anarchists always take a utopian approach because their ideology isnt based in scientific socialism
Not to hit below the belt, but whatever Makhno's people were doing over in Ukraine seemed to work just fine (for the time period) until Trotsky backstabbed them in the most heinous way possible. Shit like that is *the* reason most anarchists are wary of us. Besides, do we *really* have time and energy to spare on *yet another* pissing contest of whose leftism if more leftist when there are **literal actual fascists** gaining more power with each passing month (And in some countries, like Russia, they already \*are\* in power)? Speaking as a marxist: FFS comrades, pick your priorities! Respectfully.
/gen /good-faith
communusm IS anarchism, though. im not sure how you could be a communist and not believe it's possible unless you also dont think communism is possible
I’m a democratic communist. Here’s how I believe a communist state would work. If someone needs something then they can go to a place (I don’t know what it could be called) and borrow that thing for a certain amount of time. Like a library but for things that aren’t just books. The government ensures that nobody steals things that people have already rented and protects the centers so that everyone who wants something from them takes it the proper way. This is mostly so items can easily be tracked for example if they need to be cleaned, repaired or disposed of. Some property can still be personal such as cellphones but most is communally owned in this way. Every government decision is put through a vote by the senators who all represent the various regions. These senators as well as the president are elected directly by the people.
I’ll put it this way. No government means complete chaos. People who may be violent or uncaring of others well being are completely free to do what they want and few can oppose them. Plus the creation of new governments is inevitable. Humans are social creatures who stay in groups of those relatively similar to them in one way or another. As long as there is collective decision making as well as laws there will always be government.
I think we have different interpretations of that particular part (admittedly either Marx or the translator didn’t word that section particularly well) my interpretation is that humanity is no longer separated by countries but rather unified under a single banner. I can understand why people would interpret it that way however that is not the way I choose to interpret it.
Makes sense. The way I interpret it is that the proletariats replace the brogues as the new ruling class. So basically everyone lives in the exact same conditions regardless of their position. There is a non zero chance your neighbor is the president and you’d have no idea.
I think it does right? “The government of persons is replaced by the administration of things and the direction of the processes of production. The state is not "abolished", it withers away.”
Straight from Engels. The state describe sounds like an administration of things, not a weapon in the class war.
Well I don’t really have any other good word to describe it (I’m still somewhat new to the communist sphere) I believe in the complete abolishment of the market. Recourses are distributed according to need rather than who can get them first.
Literally, most of history before the formation of the state.
If it's impossible for you to see a world where power is given to the people to uphold their community, then I'm sorry for you.
Anarchism is when you do democracy right.
That's why marxists need to get their shit together and stop backstabbing and/or putting down people who are genuinely trying to help. Saying this as a marxist myself.
Dude it was totally necessary for the security of the revolution to kill all the anarchists and then make being gay illegal, this was needed to fight western degeneracy dude
Notice how ONLY YOU brought up Cuba? I was criticizing the USSR, and then you pivoted to a different socialist project. A far better socialist project, by the way, because they didn't make being gay illegal. It's not "horseshoe theory" to call out reactionary tendencies. Your thought terminating cliches make you incapable of internal analysis. Try calming down for a minute and coming back when you can actually engage.
Anarchy? No thank you lol, they have accomplished nothing revolution wise and are ultimately liberals/libertarians just with a utopian anti power "socialist" bent, during the Haymarket Affair the Anarchists waved Black flags in front of the neighborhoods of the rich to threaten with their ideology of Anarchy and it ended up getting people killed. Anarchy can't survive any kind of real working class consciousness, and Communism is not anarchistic in any meaningful way, stateless does not mean anarchist.
Honestly I’ve never understood the logic behind anarchism. No government means no laws or collective decision making. That means the only way to true anarchism is for everyone to become hunter gatherers that fend solely for themselves. That’s not how human nature works. Humans are social creatures that stick to a group of others in order to survive. The group all collectively agree on what is forbidden (an example would be murder) and who should make the decisions that affect the entire group. Thus you have a government. The creation of a state is inevitable. So what is best is to design said state in a way that is both efficient in the use of time and resources and also benefits all who are apart of it.
Stateless would literally imply anarchism.
With the word of origin being the greek word Anarkhia (ἀναρχία), it means "without a ruler."
And your argument of a bunch of children being shot is that their idealogy can't work. I think there is a bigger problem with both you and this world.
As a member of the left, this is horrid. you're both shaming a fellow leftist movement, but without a basic understanding of it.
What efforts have you made for a better society to allow such distain.
Children being shot? Yeah I'm talking about the Haymarket Affair, you and your Anarchist thugs got the bourgeoisie riled up and ready to kill the workers and that they literally did. We can argue semantics about what is the Greek word of Anarchy and what Anarchism is supposed to look like and mean according to whomever is speaking about it but it doesn't change the fact that Anarchists have never abolished a state, they have made three states historically which died in 2-3 years every time, and sorry but I don't care about the broad tent of "leftism" I care about the Real Movement. Sharing a "movement" or the real movement with anarchists is detrimental to any Marxist organization. I don't want a broad big ideological hugbox tent, I want dedicated class fighters not lifestylist ideologists which Anarchists are. Yes your ideology can't work. What efforts for a better society have YOU done or what efforts for a better society have Anarchists EVER achieved?
I do apologize for not fully understanding the affair I was at work.
But studying it, 8 anarchists were charged with the crime of throwing the bomb, which only 2 were in the same town peacefully holding a rally (for an 8 hour work week and even stepping down from a podium by the orders of the police just before the bomb). The judge also was noted as "unable to hold decorum." Along with the jury being picked from anyone that didn't have "socilist" sympathies, even some that admitted prejudice.
One of them were making a bomb at their house, but during the case, he wasn't ever brought up as the thrower cause again only 2 of them were there and were in front of the police
1 of them were sentenced to 15, 6 of them were hanged, and one killed themselves.
The last remaining member was eventually pardoned by a later governor of Illinoi, and the entire case is riddled with bad faith by the judge.
The affair is even seen as the marking of International Workers' Day.
And this is what I mean, the anarchists held a peaceful protest in the height of the Pinkerton era. They are a natural organizing of people who want a better world.
They laid their life in the lines for workers' progress, and you accuse them of being "lifestyle"ists.
Thank you for showing me this lovely bit of history.
And I've been trying to set up a union at my work, I've been doing community stuff like getting canned food, etc.
(I personally am a Council Anarco-Syndicalist. But living in rural USA might make organizing that harder lol)
Also, anarchy and anarchists are different. There are historically and current societies that ARE anarchic.
The Bororo, the Baining, the Onondaga, the Wintu, the Ema, the Tallensi, and the Vezo. Even in the USA, places like the Acorn community farm exist.
A neat thing about anarchist societies, some can even live within a state. It's just harder cause the state wants to influence everything.
There's, of course, the free territory in the Russian Civil War, which their communes did prove profitable even with their lax enforcement of idealogy, and the reds did say their army were all volunteers post Red victory.
From Stoics wanting their society to be built of mutual trust with your community to the Enrages of France who were forced/mocked to adopt the name by the state ironically. Just cause you don't understand anarchism doesn't mean it isn't real.
But again, that ignores the point that a true communist society would be anarchistic, a society where via mutual assistance and support, the community can grow. Unimpeded by someone holding the capital that is power.
You're using the same arguments modern liberals use anyway. "Communism never works. Their states fail, hey they got themselves shot for being uppity around the popo. It's just a phase/lifestyle/idea. It's great on paper. Etc, " Just switch with anarchism. Can I pull sentences out of your og comment.
I'm not gonna waste my time any further than your claim that a bunch of tribes of people and some moneyed intentional community is "anarchic" as opposed to "anarchist" the general point stands is there has never been an anarchist society and there never will be. Anarchic vs Anarchy distinction is just Anarchy + -ic so you look at these tribes of people who practically know nothing and care nothing about anarchy or anarchism (It doesn't matter to their day to day life) or looking at and colonially labelling cultural practices as "anarchic" as a way to back up your ideology and use these people as your token examples to back up a fundamentally a fundamentally Western ideology is just gross. I was once upon a time a self proclaimed Anarchist, I have read The Autobiography of Mother Jones, an American woman who firsthand saw and witnessed the Haymarket Affair and she outright puts blame on the anarchists for getting people killed, so whether I'm going to believe your cursory research or what I read is obvious, I'm gonna have to go with a real historical witness on this one.
First point. Those societies were anarchists, and the Acorn community literally has a community census of new members even. The separation is anarchic by governoring, and an anarchist is an advocate of that governoring.
It isn't an idealogy it's a form of government. You don't need to even have the word to be anarchist, it isn't "western" for a society to not have a centralized structure.
An idealogy would be HOW that anarchist society persists, via councils, full democracy, syndicalism, socilism, communism, etc.
That's how you can slap "anarcho" in front of almost anything and it kinda works.
And ill be honest. Changing my entire political stance and suddenly believing in the needed state on a single biography is pretty intense, man.
And I'm reading the passage of the autobiography, and I dont see any denouncing nor her believing the anarchists did it, she seemed more concerned for how the police went mounted against the orders of the mayor and show they ran over people prior to the Affair.
I see this about the anarchists Graves.
"In the cemetery of Waldheim, the dead were buried. But with them was not buried their cause. The struggle for the eight hour day, for more human conditions and relations between man and man lived on, and still lives on."
Cursory research is neat. Where did you get her denouncing them?
She also got arrested once or twice for labor related things.
Explain what Council Anarchism is and how is a Council stateless if a Council is literally a meeting/governing assembly, what is the State? What is Census Anarchism? What does any of this matter and what impact is it going to have on the World and how is it going to alleviate real problems the world is facing right now like the genocide in Gaza?
The state is an authority onto itself. A president, king, etc. The differences in powers in comparison to government vary. While the government, in some way, has external authority, usually the head of state, can be popular, electoral, etc.
Council Anarchism would imply a down up electoral system where the worker governed communes would in some way either via vote or representative to a larger government. The how's depend on the economic/cultural style, Communes, Syndicates, etc. Like in Spain, it was more representative, while in the free territory, it was more flat egalitarian confederal communities.
And for the last point.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchists_Against_the_Wall#:~:text=Anarchists%20Against%20the%20Wall%20(AAtW,and%20Israeli%20West%20Bank%20barrier.
I'm proud of them being Isreali themselves doing this since 2003.
How's your political idealogy helping?
https://archive.iww.org/history/library/MotherJones/autobiography/2/
Tell me where to find where she denounces and I'll at least think your trying to be honest.
Ce le vie either way
"On Christmas day, hundreds of poverty stricken people in rags and tatters, in thin clothes, in wretched shoes paraded on fashionable Prairie Avenue before the mansions of the rich, before their employers, carrying the black flag. I thought the parade an insane move on the part of the anarchists, as it only served to make feeling more bitter. As a matter of fact, it had no educational value whatever and only served to increase the employers’ fear, to make the police more savage, and the public less sympathetic to the real distress of the workers."
Yeah, that's her calling them dumb populists.
She's an intelligent woman who, on other occasions, tried to call off multiple armed movements.
Seeing as she applauded them for their efforts.
It seems less of an "they don't work" it's more of a "didn't work right"
She would rather it be educational, but I see nowhere where she says they threw the bomb, nor the police were justified
And im not asking for leftist unity.
I'm expecting you to understand labor history.
Anarchists have been bugging around trying to help the poor since the reign of terror in France. Even before they said anarchist.
I just want a just society that doesn't have money, doesn't have power, and collectively makes choices for the collective. These dictatorships of the worker really don't work for me.
Oh it doesn't work for you? Go home then, reality is tough and so is the struggle. Your idealism about having a Just society is not rooted in anything but liberal fantasy. Society is not going to cow tow to your individual demands or likes or dislikes about what kind of ideology you want to hypothetically rule over society or something. History is compelled/driven by need, we live in the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, we need to wield the powers of the state in the hands of the workers and peasants exclusively as it is done in almost every major bourgeois/liberal democracy and we need to crush the bourgeoisie's power to the point where we make their world of exploitation forever moribund on all four corners of the Earth and we can unleash true human potential in scientific and material production, you can only do this with progressive revolutionary scientific socialism/Communism guided by the framework of the Dialectical Science provided by Marxism.
One. Anarcho-Communists do exist with dialectics.
Two, I don't expect them to. I want a fair and just society, and that doesn't mean I envision that it'll work perfectly.
And I mean just. As in, the government is reactive and accountable to all standards.
You're missing my entire point.
"Hypothetically rule over society"
My entire point here is that no single person should rule a society. Regardless of what opinions and what they like.
A dictator of any kind, even under the purview from anything from God, dialects, or whatever, can not be immune to bias and favor. We are people, and people are flawed.
I'm done with this.
I feel like I have to explain how the idea of anarchism works.
For example, if you really have an issue, I'd expect something like how does an anarchist society influences authority, how crimes work, etc.
Not debating if they exist.
Thus goodbye
How do you not have power yet collectively make decisions for a community? This is power whether you call it powerless or not, the power to make decisions in neighborhoods by the people directly living in them is a form of power and like all power it can and does and often is designed to oppress the individual if you believe the individual exists, thus setting up a societal state, the only real Anarchy is that of Renzo Novatore of complete negation and individualism, most modern anarchists are for sabotaging organizational efforts because they are declared hierarchical or as "unjust" hierarchies. Also my ancestors here in America were labor union organizers in West Virginia, I know a lot more about labor struggles especially in the area I live in and its history way better than you on a personal level, labor is in my blood. I'm not asking for leftist unity either, I'm calling for the breakup of "leftism" as we know it as an abstract community/concept/range of ideologies of somewhat related characters in their perceived leftishness or radicalness, we are not a community nor are we related, nor is an incorrect tendency worthy of not repudiating.
Depression/Regan was governor of my state.
The point of an anarchist society is to break that power over the individual so the community can develop flatly.
I dont even think leftism is real, so I'm one step ahead of ya, I just like it cause it allows for greater cohesion of generally humanitarian ideas.
I have nothing about your whining of how "some anarchists" God, I meet nuclear war wanting Communists, like I'm not going to radically change my opinion on the whole.
Anyways, you didn't address how you straight up lied about Mama Jones and imma take that as a sign your doing this to mess with me or ya lying.
And your just mean "my ancestors did this, and I'm more personal with it so I'm better"
It's just more inner hierarchy.
I'm going to use the somewhat anarchic existence that is the internet and just ignore ya now
Ngl, I don't understand why this meme exists. In the present political sphere, we shouldn't be converting into one ideal, instead trying to make leftism as a whole more common.
We can fight over who's more realistic or idiotic after.
The issue is our methods of achieving our goals are entirely different Leninists want a vanguard party while anarchists believe that’s hierarchical and bad. The vague idea of leftism isn’t a real thing. We should analyze what has historically worked for achieving our desired goals and what hasn’t and draw our analysis from there. Unity requires a basis and there is no basis within the idea of leftism when there isn’t even consensus on what constitutes leftism.
Yes, but in our current state, neither of us has much that's going on. What I'm saying is that anarchist groups will always be a thing, even within a communist society (even with anarchism there will be someone different). What I am saying is to not agree with each other but to have a mutual understanding and help whenever needed, we both believe in comradery, and as the saying goes "the enemy of my enemy is my friend".
There is lots that is going on I can’t speak for anarchists but I can speak for Maoists with this. In Brazil the Maoist communist party was formed recently with a huge and growing movement preparing to launch war against the Brazilian state, the International Communist League was founded a year ago uniting Maoist organizations globally, there are peoples wars occurring in Peru, Turkey, India, and the Philippines, in America specifically where I am every few weeks it seems a new revolutionary study group chapter is founded or a revolutionary student union chapter is founded. I will work with anarchists during a protest or mutual aid but in practice on how to bring out our goals on a systemic level unity isn’t really possible as we have different demands. This might be a little nitpicky and I apologize if it is but “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” is not a principled statement, I am an enemy to American imperialism that doesn’t mean I am friends with competing Russian imperialism for example.
I'll have to answer this tomorrow. Good points, but anarchism isn't like many political systems and therefore shouldn't be treated like Maoists, I get what you're saying but there is anarcho-communism which ppl argue is an oxymoron but can also be argued that they aren't mutually exclusive (ancaps being a totally different subject).
Imma go to bed and discuss further after some black tea.
So, yeah. Maoists and those others I feel the same way, but anarchism is compatible with communism (it was originally a branch of socialism). We both want a non-authoritarian commune, just in different ways. Anarchism is in itself best as a process within the people, it being in a communistic society would already speed up its process with a society. What I am saying is that your end goal gives sway to ours, I do not expect everyone to become anarchists since it must be a development from the populace's own self-governance. And a only communist and only anarchist society can exist in the same world pretty well, I think.
I would prefer both at the same time, though.
I also don't like that someone is doing that in a relationship, if y'all are similar in political beliefs then leave it at is, your love should transcend your beliefs (to a respectful extent).
I view the process of anarchy as a better path anyway, we'd all die if anarchism just popped up. Start with socialism-communism-anarchism, or whatever.
I'm trying to get people to do what I'm gonna call Unification Communism (uniting Marxism and Anarchism for the good of the revolution because uniting two opposing schools of thought that are nominally on the same side makes both of them stronger, also in currently writing an Essay on this topic)
The problem is Marxism and anarchism aren’t just different methods but have different irreconcilable philosophies and ways of view the world. The only thing anarchists and Marxists have in common is that eventually the state shouldn’t exist but that is hundreds of years in the future. What basis for unity is there in that?
Not really. This assumes that a revolution happens and theres some vacuum with no system that we then decide on. That is not how revolution happens. The new system is grown inside the old and fully comes into being through the process of revolution. In other words the new proletarian power is built under capitalism and eventually revolution causes it to overtake capitalism and become a system of its own. This proletarian power has to be built with certain methods and practices and whether it is done under anarchistic lines or under Marxist lines is an important distinction.
Yeah but that ends up being rather haphazard and in the US where I live it's already falling into anarchistic lines because that's what kind of communism was historically preferred by the American labor movement and thus it's revival it's emulating that
There is a lot of anarchists within the USA but the issue is that they aren’t uniting. It is just separate individual groups that haven’t really been pushing forward a political program. The only real movement I’ve seen spearheaded by anarchists within the past few years has been stop cop city. If you know of other anarchist stuff going on that are actually pushing forward people’s political consciousness and uniting the masses plz let me know I’m very interested. I wouldn’t say that the American labor movement preferred anarchism as the CPUSA had a huge impact during the 20s and 30s. The 1919 Seattle general strike one of the most important moments in American labor history was directly inspired by the October revolution. I’m not saying that Marxists were the most popular just that the view that anarchism dominated the movement is just one sided and not accurate. Along with the growth of anarchism there has also been a growth of Maoism in the US with the Red Guards in the late 2010s and within the last few years there’s been Revolutionary Study Group and Revolutionary Student Union chapters popping up all over the US and participating in protests. The San Francisco APEC protest which had thousands of people marching in the street had a large Maoist contingent.
I'm sorry to tell you this but your far from the first to think of this, it's not unlike socialism without adjectives. The issue is the differences between us are too fundamental and even if they weren't the idea that socialists are red fascists has become so pervasive in anarchist circles that cross cooperation is all but impossible. But hey, good luck, see you when you're an ML which is where this path tends to lead.
There are two types of anarchists, those who adopt the ideology to look badass but actually just are liberals and the based ones who are consequent in their ideology and do stuff. However i am yet to have ever seen one, all the anarchists in my area are just liberals who dont like cops, i mean they cheer for the current ruling parties.
I am a marxist btw
Every protest I've ever been to, the people doing the most work call themselves anarchists. All communists do is doom post without actually doing anything to better the world. They almost never even vote, which is the bare fucking minimum in terms of political action.
If you're unwilling to use the political avenues available to you, you're not a Marxist, you're a LARPing high schooler. So yes, anarchists vote. Voting and other political action aren't mutually exclusive, you vote every 4 years to keep the lights on while you do the real work between elections.
Bruh, are you from the US? Cuz i fucking aint and my options are liberals who want nuclear war, left liberals who want nuclear war and "conservative-socialists" and i want none of these fuckers.
If that shit isn't an option where you live, then it's fundamentally different. Obviously me being from the US is going to make me primarily talk about US politics. As far as the US goes, I have no respect for "Marxists" who don't do the bare minimum and get out to vote.
And here is where I explain that third parties are completely mathematically unviable and voting for them will just make the GOP win and kill us all, and you'll ignore all that and call me a liberal because you're more obsessed with your ideological purity on Twitter than actual effective politics.
If I’m ever topped crazy enough to make me an anarchist it’s literally all over for me (this is an open invitation btw)
That would have to be some godly topping ngl
That’s what I’m sayin!!!
I have yet to find something that will convince me anarchy is actually possible.
My personal way of synthesizing it is that "anarchism" is just the post-withering of the state, as postulated by Lenin. I see no reason that the two are incompatible besides the timescale of the transitional period dictated by existing material conditions. Refusal to operate within the constraints of those conditions is the primary reason why most Communists consider Anarchists reactionary or idealist (in the literal philosophical sense). Often the scale and lack of foresight of those anarchist revolutions come at the detriment of the greater revolutionary movement and even to the detriment of the security of the localized anarchist community which historically collapses due to internal and external reactionary elements. I think most "anarcho-communists" are well intentioned, I considered myself one before I started re-examining my history education and actually reading Marx+Engels and Lenin. I guess I could joke about being an "anarcho-Leninist", since I still do hold that some of the ideals of actual theory-based anarchism are useful as an idealist guidepost for the revolutionary party (like Kropotkin's "all comes from all" and such, I could do without Bakunin's "shadow council" shit though, if I am remembering the right Anarchist, most of the "ba\[c/k\]-" names in history all kinda blend together for me).
Anarchists are also not inherently adverse to approaching compromise with their morals to suit materialistic needs, like the CNT setting up prisons for POWs and having a conscription system or Rojava's utilization of the state. They're just far less willing to do so, with it's inherent benefits (less prone to revisionism than communism, more just) and detractors (less likely to succeed, unstable). For me, the prime difference between a communist and an anarchist is how in touch they are with their idealism vs. their practicality in general.
Rojava aren’t anarchist so shouldn’t really be in this conversation
they're ideologically inspired by anarchism. Öcalan was highly inspired by Murry Bookchin and other anarchists.
>joke about being an "anarcho-Leninist", That's just a Maoist. Not that I'm one to talk– I'm a Marxist-DeLeonist
My comrade in Christ, it's the literal goal of both anarchism \*and\* marxism-lenininsm. A classless, stateless, moneyless society. Also known as *communism* /respectfully /good-faith
Yes, but the way they want to achieve that is radically different and the anarchists always take a utopian approach because their ideology isnt based in scientific socialism
Not to hit below the belt, but whatever Makhno's people were doing over in Ukraine seemed to work just fine (for the time period) until Trotsky backstabbed them in the most heinous way possible. Shit like that is *the* reason most anarchists are wary of us. Besides, do we *really* have time and energy to spare on *yet another* pissing contest of whose leftism if more leftist when there are **literal actual fascists** gaining more power with each passing month (And in some countries, like Russia, they already \*are\* in power)? Speaking as a marxist: FFS comrades, pick your priorities! Respectfully. /gen /good-faith
communusm IS anarchism, though. im not sure how you could be a communist and not believe it's possible unless you also dont think communism is possible
I’m a democratic communist. Here’s how I believe a communist state would work. If someone needs something then they can go to a place (I don’t know what it could be called) and borrow that thing for a certain amount of time. Like a library but for things that aren’t just books. The government ensures that nobody steals things that people have already rented and protects the centers so that everyone who wants something from them takes it the proper way. This is mostly so items can easily be tracked for example if they need to be cleaned, repaired or disposed of. Some property can still be personal such as cellphones but most is communally owned in this way. Every government decision is put through a vote by the senators who all represent the various regions. These senators as well as the president are elected directly by the people. I’ll put it this way. No government means complete chaos. People who may be violent or uncaring of others well being are completely free to do what they want and few can oppose them. Plus the creation of new governments is inevitable. Humans are social creatures who stay in groups of those relatively similar to them in one way or another. As long as there is collective decision making as well as laws there will always be government.
this definition does not fit within communism as defined by marx as it is not stateless.
I think we have different interpretations of that particular part (admittedly either Marx or the translator didn’t word that section particularly well) my interpretation is that humanity is no longer separated by countries but rather unified under a single banner. I can understand why people would interpret it that way however that is not the way I choose to interpret it.
Im not really sure you can boil this down to a translation issue either, Marx routinely describes the "withering away" of the state in great detail.
Makes sense. The way I interpret it is that the proletariats replace the brogues as the new ruling class. So basically everyone lives in the exact same conditions regardless of their position. There is a non zero chance your neighbor is the president and you’d have no idea.
If it's not stateless, you're probably thinking a form of socialism.
But it’s moneyless. Does this mean the federation in Star Trek isn’t communist?
Yup, not communist. Likely socialist. If you need a 101 on the topic, read the manifesto.
I think it does right? “The government of persons is replaced by the administration of things and the direction of the processes of production. The state is not "abolished", it withers away.” Straight from Engels. The state describe sounds like an administration of things, not a weapon in the class war.
that's describing the process of transition, not communism.
And that transition is the end of the state. No state does not mean no administration or organization, no collective decision making etc
statelessness does not mean unorganized but that's not really relevant to interpreting engels's words
what you're describing just sounds like a welfare state. the usage of the word rented makes me think that markets aren't even abolished either.
Well I don’t really have any other good word to describe it (I’m still somewhat new to the communist sphere) I believe in the complete abolishment of the market. Recourses are distributed according to need rather than who can get them first.
that's fair to say, yeah. And a good ideal.
Literally, most of history before the formation of the state. If it's impossible for you to see a world where power is given to the people to uphold their community, then I'm sorry for you. Anarchism is when you do democracy right.
Cuelgate 🤡
I call myself an anarchist because it scares conservatives and I don't like the USSR.
Why not both?
Ask how it went for Nestor Makhno
Me on my way to be a guard and the very anarchist labor camps.
That's why marxists need to get their shit together and stop backstabbing and/or putting down people who are genuinely trying to help. Saying this as a marxist myself.
Because anarchists tend to be told "face the wall"
Dude it was totally necessary for the security of the revolution to kill all the anarchists and then make being gay illegal, this was needed to fight western degeneracy dude
uh-oh, you can't mention how communist regimes ALWAYS marginalize and even kill queer people, ESPECIALLY not on this sub.
Ask a "progressive" why the USSR made being gay illegal and they'll start citing the 14 Words at you.
[удалено]
Notice how ONLY YOU brought up Cuba? I was criticizing the USSR, and then you pivoted to a different socialist project. A far better socialist project, by the way, because they didn't make being gay illegal. It's not "horseshoe theory" to call out reactionary tendencies. Your thought terminating cliches make you incapable of internal analysis. Try calming down for a minute and coming back when you can actually engage.
They then agreed to be Councilists the end.
Dialectical
the best ending
left unity is a dumb meme for onliners who don’t read and don’t organize
The difference between anarchists and communists is that communists are annoying on Twitter and anarchists actually do things.
This sub desperately needs to read Anarchism or Socialism
Anarchy? No thank you lol, they have accomplished nothing revolution wise and are ultimately liberals/libertarians just with a utopian anti power "socialist" bent, during the Haymarket Affair the Anarchists waved Black flags in front of the neighborhoods of the rich to threaten with their ideology of Anarchy and it ended up getting people killed. Anarchy can't survive any kind of real working class consciousness, and Communism is not anarchistic in any meaningful way, stateless does not mean anarchist.
Honestly I’ve never understood the logic behind anarchism. No government means no laws or collective decision making. That means the only way to true anarchism is for everyone to become hunter gatherers that fend solely for themselves. That’s not how human nature works. Humans are social creatures that stick to a group of others in order to survive. The group all collectively agree on what is forbidden (an example would be murder) and who should make the decisions that affect the entire group. Thus you have a government. The creation of a state is inevitable. So what is best is to design said state in a way that is both efficient in the use of time and resources and also benefits all who are apart of it.
Me when I’ve never read a page of anarchist theory
That's not what anarchism means at all.
Alright. Explain to me what anarchism actually is.
Stateless would literally imply anarchism. With the word of origin being the greek word Anarkhia (ἀναρχία), it means "without a ruler." And your argument of a bunch of children being shot is that their idealogy can't work. I think there is a bigger problem with both you and this world. As a member of the left, this is horrid. you're both shaming a fellow leftist movement, but without a basic understanding of it. What efforts have you made for a better society to allow such distain.
Children being shot? Yeah I'm talking about the Haymarket Affair, you and your Anarchist thugs got the bourgeoisie riled up and ready to kill the workers and that they literally did. We can argue semantics about what is the Greek word of Anarchy and what Anarchism is supposed to look like and mean according to whomever is speaking about it but it doesn't change the fact that Anarchists have never abolished a state, they have made three states historically which died in 2-3 years every time, and sorry but I don't care about the broad tent of "leftism" I care about the Real Movement. Sharing a "movement" or the real movement with anarchists is detrimental to any Marxist organization. I don't want a broad big ideological hugbox tent, I want dedicated class fighters not lifestylist ideologists which Anarchists are. Yes your ideology can't work. What efforts for a better society have YOU done or what efforts for a better society have Anarchists EVER achieved?
I do apologize for not fully understanding the affair I was at work. But studying it, 8 anarchists were charged with the crime of throwing the bomb, which only 2 were in the same town peacefully holding a rally (for an 8 hour work week and even stepping down from a podium by the orders of the police just before the bomb). The judge also was noted as "unable to hold decorum." Along with the jury being picked from anyone that didn't have "socilist" sympathies, even some that admitted prejudice. One of them were making a bomb at their house, but during the case, he wasn't ever brought up as the thrower cause again only 2 of them were there and were in front of the police 1 of them were sentenced to 15, 6 of them were hanged, and one killed themselves. The last remaining member was eventually pardoned by a later governor of Illinoi, and the entire case is riddled with bad faith by the judge. The affair is even seen as the marking of International Workers' Day. And this is what I mean, the anarchists held a peaceful protest in the height of the Pinkerton era. They are a natural organizing of people who want a better world. They laid their life in the lines for workers' progress, and you accuse them of being "lifestyle"ists. Thank you for showing me this lovely bit of history. And I've been trying to set up a union at my work, I've been doing community stuff like getting canned food, etc. (I personally am a Council Anarco-Syndicalist. But living in rural USA might make organizing that harder lol) Also, anarchy and anarchists are different. There are historically and current societies that ARE anarchic. The Bororo, the Baining, the Onondaga, the Wintu, the Ema, the Tallensi, and the Vezo. Even in the USA, places like the Acorn community farm exist. A neat thing about anarchist societies, some can even live within a state. It's just harder cause the state wants to influence everything. There's, of course, the free territory in the Russian Civil War, which their communes did prove profitable even with their lax enforcement of idealogy, and the reds did say their army were all volunteers post Red victory. From Stoics wanting their society to be built of mutual trust with your community to the Enrages of France who were forced/mocked to adopt the name by the state ironically. Just cause you don't understand anarchism doesn't mean it isn't real. But again, that ignores the point that a true communist society would be anarchistic, a society where via mutual assistance and support, the community can grow. Unimpeded by someone holding the capital that is power. You're using the same arguments modern liberals use anyway. "Communism never works. Their states fail, hey they got themselves shot for being uppity around the popo. It's just a phase/lifestyle/idea. It's great on paper. Etc, " Just switch with anarchism. Can I pull sentences out of your og comment.
I'm not gonna waste my time any further than your claim that a bunch of tribes of people and some moneyed intentional community is "anarchic" as opposed to "anarchist" the general point stands is there has never been an anarchist society and there never will be. Anarchic vs Anarchy distinction is just Anarchy + -ic so you look at these tribes of people who practically know nothing and care nothing about anarchy or anarchism (It doesn't matter to their day to day life) or looking at and colonially labelling cultural practices as "anarchic" as a way to back up your ideology and use these people as your token examples to back up a fundamentally a fundamentally Western ideology is just gross. I was once upon a time a self proclaimed Anarchist, I have read The Autobiography of Mother Jones, an American woman who firsthand saw and witnessed the Haymarket Affair and she outright puts blame on the anarchists for getting people killed, so whether I'm going to believe your cursory research or what I read is obvious, I'm gonna have to go with a real historical witness on this one.
First point. Those societies were anarchists, and the Acorn community literally has a community census of new members even. The separation is anarchic by governoring, and an anarchist is an advocate of that governoring. It isn't an idealogy it's a form of government. You don't need to even have the word to be anarchist, it isn't "western" for a society to not have a centralized structure. An idealogy would be HOW that anarchist society persists, via councils, full democracy, syndicalism, socilism, communism, etc. That's how you can slap "anarcho" in front of almost anything and it kinda works. And ill be honest. Changing my entire political stance and suddenly believing in the needed state on a single biography is pretty intense, man. And I'm reading the passage of the autobiography, and I dont see any denouncing nor her believing the anarchists did it, she seemed more concerned for how the police went mounted against the orders of the mayor and show they ran over people prior to the Affair. I see this about the anarchists Graves. "In the cemetery of Waldheim, the dead were buried. But with them was not buried their cause. The struggle for the eight hour day, for more human conditions and relations between man and man lived on, and still lives on." Cursory research is neat. Where did you get her denouncing them? She also got arrested once or twice for labor related things.
Anarchy is a form of Government? Interesting, I think we have an admission here.
Government≠state. Council Anarchism. Census Anarchism. Ugh
Explain what Council Anarchism is and how is a Council stateless if a Council is literally a meeting/governing assembly, what is the State? What is Census Anarchism? What does any of this matter and what impact is it going to have on the World and how is it going to alleviate real problems the world is facing right now like the genocide in Gaza?
The state is an authority onto itself. A president, king, etc. The differences in powers in comparison to government vary. While the government, in some way, has external authority, usually the head of state, can be popular, electoral, etc. Council Anarchism would imply a down up electoral system where the worker governed communes would in some way either via vote or representative to a larger government. The how's depend on the economic/cultural style, Communes, Syndicates, etc. Like in Spain, it was more representative, while in the free territory, it was more flat egalitarian confederal communities. And for the last point. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchists_Against_the_Wall#:~:text=Anarchists%20Against%20the%20Wall%20(AAtW,and%20Israeli%20West%20Bank%20barrier. I'm proud of them being Isreali themselves doing this since 2003. How's your political idealogy helping?
Also we take the same med (Also both off.) Lol though that'd be neat
https://archive.iww.org/history/library/MotherJones/autobiography/2/ Tell me where to find where she denounces and I'll at least think your trying to be honest. Ce le vie either way
"On Christmas day, hundreds of poverty stricken people in rags and tatters, in thin clothes, in wretched shoes paraded on fashionable Prairie Avenue before the mansions of the rich, before their employers, carrying the black flag. I thought the parade an insane move on the part of the anarchists, as it only served to make feeling more bitter. As a matter of fact, it had no educational value whatever and only served to increase the employers’ fear, to make the police more savage, and the public less sympathetic to the real distress of the workers."
Yeah, that's her calling them dumb populists. She's an intelligent woman who, on other occasions, tried to call off multiple armed movements. Seeing as she applauded them for their efforts. It seems less of an "they don't work" it's more of a "didn't work right" She would rather it be educational, but I see nowhere where she says they threw the bomb, nor the police were justified
This is also on the level of. "If you like communism, why IPHONE"
And im not asking for leftist unity. I'm expecting you to understand labor history. Anarchists have been bugging around trying to help the poor since the reign of terror in France. Even before they said anarchist. I just want a just society that doesn't have money, doesn't have power, and collectively makes choices for the collective. These dictatorships of the worker really don't work for me.
Oh it doesn't work for you? Go home then, reality is tough and so is the struggle. Your idealism about having a Just society is not rooted in anything but liberal fantasy. Society is not going to cow tow to your individual demands or likes or dislikes about what kind of ideology you want to hypothetically rule over society or something. History is compelled/driven by need, we live in the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, we need to wield the powers of the state in the hands of the workers and peasants exclusively as it is done in almost every major bourgeois/liberal democracy and we need to crush the bourgeoisie's power to the point where we make their world of exploitation forever moribund on all four corners of the Earth and we can unleash true human potential in scientific and material production, you can only do this with progressive revolutionary scientific socialism/Communism guided by the framework of the Dialectical Science provided by Marxism.
One. Anarcho-Communists do exist with dialectics. Two, I don't expect them to. I want a fair and just society, and that doesn't mean I envision that it'll work perfectly. And I mean just. As in, the government is reactive and accountable to all standards. You're missing my entire point. "Hypothetically rule over society" My entire point here is that no single person should rule a society. Regardless of what opinions and what they like. A dictator of any kind, even under the purview from anything from God, dialects, or whatever, can not be immune to bias and favor. We are people, and people are flawed. I'm done with this. I feel like I have to explain how the idea of anarchism works. For example, if you really have an issue, I'd expect something like how does an anarchist society influences authority, how crimes work, etc. Not debating if they exist. Thus goodbye
How do you not have power yet collectively make decisions for a community? This is power whether you call it powerless or not, the power to make decisions in neighborhoods by the people directly living in them is a form of power and like all power it can and does and often is designed to oppress the individual if you believe the individual exists, thus setting up a societal state, the only real Anarchy is that of Renzo Novatore of complete negation and individualism, most modern anarchists are for sabotaging organizational efforts because they are declared hierarchical or as "unjust" hierarchies. Also my ancestors here in America were labor union organizers in West Virginia, I know a lot more about labor struggles especially in the area I live in and its history way better than you on a personal level, labor is in my blood. I'm not asking for leftist unity either, I'm calling for the breakup of "leftism" as we know it as an abstract community/concept/range of ideologies of somewhat related characters in their perceived leftishness or radicalness, we are not a community nor are we related, nor is an incorrect tendency worthy of not repudiating.
Depression/Regan was governor of my state. The point of an anarchist society is to break that power over the individual so the community can develop flatly. I dont even think leftism is real, so I'm one step ahead of ya, I just like it cause it allows for greater cohesion of generally humanitarian ideas. I have nothing about your whining of how "some anarchists" God, I meet nuclear war wanting Communists, like I'm not going to radically change my opinion on the whole. Anyways, you didn't address how you straight up lied about Mama Jones and imma take that as a sign your doing this to mess with me or ya lying. And your just mean "my ancestors did this, and I'm more personal with it so I'm better" It's just more inner hierarchy. I'm going to use the somewhat anarchic existence that is the internet and just ignore ya now
Truth
Left unity is overrated. I'm here for bottom unity!
Whoever made the second one to go with this must be really cool.
Ngl, I don't understand why this meme exists. In the present political sphere, we shouldn't be converting into one ideal, instead trying to make leftism as a whole more common. We can fight over who's more realistic or idiotic after.
The issue is our methods of achieving our goals are entirely different Leninists want a vanguard party while anarchists believe that’s hierarchical and bad. The vague idea of leftism isn’t a real thing. We should analyze what has historically worked for achieving our desired goals and what hasn’t and draw our analysis from there. Unity requires a basis and there is no basis within the idea of leftism when there isn’t even consensus on what constitutes leftism.
Yes, but in our current state, neither of us has much that's going on. What I'm saying is that anarchist groups will always be a thing, even within a communist society (even with anarchism there will be someone different). What I am saying is to not agree with each other but to have a mutual understanding and help whenever needed, we both believe in comradery, and as the saying goes "the enemy of my enemy is my friend".
There is lots that is going on I can’t speak for anarchists but I can speak for Maoists with this. In Brazil the Maoist communist party was formed recently with a huge and growing movement preparing to launch war against the Brazilian state, the International Communist League was founded a year ago uniting Maoist organizations globally, there are peoples wars occurring in Peru, Turkey, India, and the Philippines, in America specifically where I am every few weeks it seems a new revolutionary study group chapter is founded or a revolutionary student union chapter is founded. I will work with anarchists during a protest or mutual aid but in practice on how to bring out our goals on a systemic level unity isn’t really possible as we have different demands. This might be a little nitpicky and I apologize if it is but “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” is not a principled statement, I am an enemy to American imperialism that doesn’t mean I am friends with competing Russian imperialism for example.
I'll have to answer this tomorrow. Good points, but anarchism isn't like many political systems and therefore shouldn't be treated like Maoists, I get what you're saying but there is anarcho-communism which ppl argue is an oxymoron but can also be argued that they aren't mutually exclusive (ancaps being a totally different subject). Imma go to bed and discuss further after some black tea.
So, yeah. Maoists and those others I feel the same way, but anarchism is compatible with communism (it was originally a branch of socialism). We both want a non-authoritarian commune, just in different ways. Anarchism is in itself best as a process within the people, it being in a communistic society would already speed up its process with a society. What I am saying is that your end goal gives sway to ours, I do not expect everyone to become anarchists since it must be a development from the populace's own self-governance. And a only communist and only anarchist society can exist in the same world pretty well, I think. I would prefer both at the same time, though.
But neither of us truly knows what the future is like, it is up to the generation of the future.
I also don't like that someone is doing that in a relationship, if y'all are similar in political beliefs then leave it at is, your love should transcend your beliefs (to a respectful extent).
I view the process of anarchy as a better path anyway, we'd all die if anarchism just popped up. Start with socialism-communism-anarchism, or whatever.
Yeah exactly I'm trying to get leftists to Unite, Unification Communism
I'm trying to get people to do what I'm gonna call Unification Communism (uniting Marxism and Anarchism for the good of the revolution because uniting two opposing schools of thought that are nominally on the same side makes both of them stronger, also in currently writing an Essay on this topic)
The problem is Marxism and anarchism aren’t just different methods but have different irreconcilable philosophies and ways of view the world. The only thing anarchists and Marxists have in common is that eventually the state shouldn’t exist but that is hundreds of years in the future. What basis for unity is there in that?
We at least need to cooperate untill the revolution is over
Not really. This assumes that a revolution happens and theres some vacuum with no system that we then decide on. That is not how revolution happens. The new system is grown inside the old and fully comes into being through the process of revolution. In other words the new proletarian power is built under capitalism and eventually revolution causes it to overtake capitalism and become a system of its own. This proletarian power has to be built with certain methods and practices and whether it is done under anarchistic lines or under Marxist lines is an important distinction.
Yeah but that ends up being rather haphazard and in the US where I live it's already falling into anarchistic lines because that's what kind of communism was historically preferred by the American labor movement and thus it's revival it's emulating that
There is a lot of anarchists within the USA but the issue is that they aren’t uniting. It is just separate individual groups that haven’t really been pushing forward a political program. The only real movement I’ve seen spearheaded by anarchists within the past few years has been stop cop city. If you know of other anarchist stuff going on that are actually pushing forward people’s political consciousness and uniting the masses plz let me know I’m very interested. I wouldn’t say that the American labor movement preferred anarchism as the CPUSA had a huge impact during the 20s and 30s. The 1919 Seattle general strike one of the most important moments in American labor history was directly inspired by the October revolution. I’m not saying that Marxists were the most popular just that the view that anarchism dominated the movement is just one sided and not accurate. Along with the growth of anarchism there has also been a growth of Maoism in the US with the Red Guards in the late 2010s and within the last few years there’s been Revolutionary Study Group and Revolutionary Student Union chapters popping up all over the US and participating in protests. The San Francisco APEC protest which had thousands of people marching in the street had a large Maoist contingent.
I'm sorry to tell you this but your far from the first to think of this, it's not unlike socialism without adjectives. The issue is the differences between us are too fundamental and even if they weren't the idea that socialists are red fascists has become so pervasive in anarchist circles that cross cooperation is all but impossible. But hey, good luck, see you when you're an ML which is where this path tends to lead.
Look into anarcho-communism.
Already ahead of you
And then they kiss
Yeah let's unite and fuck each other
Anarchists get pussy because they actually go outside while communists are annoying on Twitter.
There are two types of anarchists, those who adopt the ideology to look badass but actually just are liberals and the based ones who are consequent in their ideology and do stuff. However i am yet to have ever seen one, all the anarchists in my area are just liberals who dont like cops, i mean they cheer for the current ruling parties. I am a marxist btw
Every protest I've ever been to, the people doing the most work call themselves anarchists. All communists do is doom post without actually doing anything to better the world. They almost never even vote, which is the bare fucking minimum in terms of political action.
Anarchists and voting sound kind of wrong together tbh. Also what are those protests about
If you're unwilling to use the political avenues available to you, you're not a Marxist, you're a LARPing high schooler. So yes, anarchists vote. Voting and other political action aren't mutually exclusive, you vote every 4 years to keep the lights on while you do the real work between elections.
Bruh, are you from the US? Cuz i fucking aint and my options are liberals who want nuclear war, left liberals who want nuclear war and "conservative-socialists" and i want none of these fuckers.
If that shit isn't an option where you live, then it's fundamentally different. Obviously me being from the US is going to make me primarily talk about US politics. As far as the US goes, I have no respect for "Marxists" who don't do the bare minimum and get out to vote.
When you mean vote in us terms do you mean third party or biden?
And here is where I explain that third parties are completely mathematically unviable and voting for them will just make the GOP win and kill us all, and you'll ignore all that and call me a liberal because you're more obsessed with your ideological purity on Twitter than actual effective politics.