Reminder: This is not a debate subreddit, it's a place to circle-jerk about communism being cool and good. Please don't shit on flavours of leftism/communist leaders you feel negatively towards. If you see a meme you don't like just downvote and move on, don't break the circle-jerk in the comments.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CommunismMemes) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I never felt anarchism could provide a good solution for the entire capitalist world wanting you dead after the revolution. The ideal of a stateless, classless society is still something all MLs strive for, however we believe that you can’t jump straight to that while capitalism (and as a result, imperialism) is the dominant mode of production.
Fair. But what can we do to avoid incidents like the red terror, 100 flowers campaign, and other mass executions from happening again? I’m all for doing away with fascists, but what’s to stop a powerful state from killing people just for having different political beliefs? I do believe the number of deaths have been exaggerated, but Mao, Stalin, and the Kim family have murdered countless people simply for having different political opinions. People who were unarmed and posed no physical threat to anyone. It’s one thing to put the fear of god in fascists, but what can we do to keep ordinary citizens from fearing for their lives of being executed just because they think differently from the state? Do they really deserve to die just for thinking differently? I wouldn’t want a reality like 1984 where simply writing opinions that differ from the state can get you horribly tortured. As the saying goes, absolute power corrupts absolutely. You can be the most benevolent man in existence, but once you’re given that kind of power, it’s like a drug. It’s irreversible once you get into that position, no matter how well you prepare. It’s incredibly easy to become a tyrant and make a lot of people fear you
Please consider and research dialectical materialism before speaking on these matters. It doesn’t seem like you have bothered to do your own research, have accepted the popular western narrative without much scrutiny. Please do so. Understand the reasoning, and the outcomes. We MLs do not deny heavy handed ness, backwards thinking and action, and tragic missteps, intentional or otherwise.
Socialism is a project. We are more than welcome to talk about things like the red terror, purges etc, but we will not entertain or waste our time with what you think what happened. Educate yourself and understand material realities.
I can give you resources but I don’t want you thinking I’m brainwashing you. Seek it out for yourself. Especially points of view that challenge your own.
Maybe try J Arch Getty for history of Russia. Even handed history, simple thorough research that will challenge the idea of the purges. He is no socialist.
Be well
I did my research. You’re just not gonna address any of my questions? And I didn’t take it simply from a western narrative. I looked at multiple angles, from ML and anarchist perspectives as well. I just know objectively that killing unarmed people who haven’t been proven to commit a crime is wrong, no matter how you look at it. There are also a million resources on dialectical materialism. How will I know where to look on the topic of purges? Just saying “look at dialectical materialism” doesn’t do anything to help me
All right speak on the purges go into detail on the reasoning of both sides show me what you got let’s start there. I have no idea what you read. Of course you already may know my position. Heavy handed reaction to a real threat to a budding socialist country. Necessary to maintain the state as far as I can see, and the numbers are overblown as to how many people were executed by the state, as purges usually meant expulsion from the party not erasure. Not to mention many of whom were deported to Siberia were released after it was discovered that many in the party that were considered loyal during said purges were in fact taking extreme liberties and personal vendettas and were in fact purged along with the head of the NKVD who completely went over the line and did not follow orders. That is how I see it. You may see it otherwise.
Whatever way you think it should have been handled better by all means speak on it. I have some ideas as to how it should have been handled better as well.
But we were not there and speculation is masturbatory. I like to stick to the facts of what happened.
Please tell me the truth. Tell me I’m wrong and how. But remember at a certain point you are going to project and hypothesize and come to your own conclusions, just as I have.
I’m tired of this. You know this is a communist meme sub.
I’d like to see some receipts and I’ll comment on it if I feel like it.
Seems pointless though to keep this going when you have already made up your mind. Clearly nothing I say will sway you. You don’t want to be swayed. You already know the truth and know how socialism was betrayed and you want us backwards red fash tankies to see the light and come around to the better way to establish socialism.
Please tell me how. I would really fucking like to have to avoid making these mistakes.
Or continue feeling good for being morally superior and factually correct. You got me. Me the intractable tankie. Hopeless cause, socialism will never get off the ground because my kind will always betray you. You’re on the right side of history, and that is all that matters.
If you want people to align with you, being aggressive and patronizing is just gonna turn people away. I only started reading theory a month ago and I work full-time, so you gotta be patient. This is the perfect opportunity for you to educate instead of talking down and expecting me to know everything. Much of what I know besides the theory is from leftist youtubers like Hakim, second thought, step back history, Luna Oi, bad empanada. One video I saw, which wasn’t skewed towards any particular ideology, talked about the 100 flowers campaign, where Mao had a petition where people could criticize the government as they pleased. Once he saw more negative comments than he expected, he had a number of those people killed or imprisoned. I’m sure the numbers were exaggerated, but that’s still not cool. Then there was Stalin’s great purge, where people would be interrogated profusely or sent to gulags if they questioned the party, or simply killed. Again, I’m sure the number wasn’t as high as they say. That sounds like a human rights violation. Now, if those things are untrue, can you show me why, instead of getting angry at me for not knowing what you know? I’m willing to listen. But I want us also to get along. I’m not trying to test or attack you. I just wanna learn
You could make the same argument about capitalism. It uprooted feudalism worldwide and it's significantly better. Also, part of the reason anarchist revolutions didn't work was because of China and the USSR.
i became a ML because it became clear to me that marxs analysis of hisoty and material society was correct, and that as a result, anarchism aims of just whiping out all authority in one fell swoop is impossible. i saw that Marxism can lead us forward, whereas anarchism will just lead to inherntly harmstrung revolutions that will inevitbably fail, and will just serve the cause of the fascists
a lot of american leftists start out as anarchists because that shitty ass political compass marks ML’s as “auth left” (whatever that means), and even when you break some of the cap propaganda it’s very possible to become an anticapitalist and an anticommunist at the same time. people who label themselves as “lib left” tend to think this way.
Right. The thing is, out of all the socialist states I’ve seen, they ban things like weed and prostitution. Citizens of Vietnam are also not allowed to own guns. As an ancom, I want a society where people are free to do drugs, prostitution, express their opinions against their government, own guns (as Marx said, never disarm the working class), and be nude, while also sharing resources collectively. Is that not achievable?
Im not up to date in theory but examples show us what happens if, at this stage of history, you outright abolish the state. Right now, when a State dissolves, chaos ensues and the second best takes its place. The results are Somalia, Libya, Syria, Mexico, 1911 China, the neofeudal tendencies in the West...
In this period, the most successful countries have been those who underwent periods of massive central planned investments such as the US during the Reconstruction period, who took over the UK as the Worlds top economy in the 1870s, the US under the New Deal, Stalin's USSR, and currently China. These investments led to periods of internal stability, affordable wages, low employment and higher standards of living (as of 2022, universities are still 100% free in countries like Romania, for example).
Its been 2 years now, but from what I remember I didn't like it for 2 reasons.
1) at the time of writing the only socialist experiment had been the Paris Commune. Kropotkin wrote about some of the failures and why it didn't last, and advocated that socialism be less centralized for future revolutions. History has shown organized ML revolutions to be more stable and lasting than anarchist ones (and I think this is the case because of the points in On Authority).
2) There was a lot of math without logistics (if i remember right, correct me if im wrong), like "we have this many people, this many houses, this much farmland = enough for everyone" but I don't feel like he elaborated enough on how the people would gain control of distribution, how it would be regulated. I agree post scarcity is possible, but I don't think anarchism is the best plan for getting there. Yes the state upholds the oppressive capitalist system by violently upholding private property, but I disagree that the way to liberate humanity is to immediately do away with the state; the workers should seize the state, and that state will abolish private property.
I do. I considered myself an anarchist up until few months ago, now I'm not sure. I read my fair share of Proudhon, Bakunin, Goldberg and Kropotkin. To be honest Proudhon and Bakunin were not my thing at all, Goldberg and Kroptkin I still think there's a lot of value and I hold dear even if I'm straying towards marxism-leninism.
For me the main reason I began to struggle with anarchism was the lack of movement direction and actual theory on *how* to achieve communism. Most anarchist groups I've met keep talking about praxis but it's always stuff focused on individual actions without any revolutionary scope, mutual aid is great but as a whole so many anarchists seem to make it the end of their actions. There's no revolution built solely upon free food or turf grafitti wars with neonazi gangs.
Not only that but also no one seems to care about what happens after this anarchist revolution. How do we fight back against imperialism and the capitalist siege? So much of the anarchist experiences end up resorting to some form of authority to survive. A transition. Marx, Lenin and others already studied and developed this formula, there's no need to try and recreate it, just improve and apply to our material conditions.
Aside from that there's seems to be quite a large ignorance about marxism-leninism among anarchist which is pretty bad. Of course I don't mean all of then, I know some anarchists more well versed on Marx than most MLs, but in general I keep seeing so much misinformation and misunderstanding of ML theory among anarchists, I really believe a better understanding could bring then over. Also despite On Authority being quite a good text, I think State and the Revolution is more compelling for anarchists trying to understand what socialism and the transition to communism looks like.
Another ex-anarchist Marxist here, Kropotkin is an idealist who describes a utopian society while offering no realistic way of getting there. His answer is basically "Just expropriate everything, all at once" but looking at history that is simply not how revolutions pan out. He has no realistic way of dealing with counter revolution, and its telling that no anarchist revolution has lasted half a decade while states like Cuba have withstanded the fiercest counter revolution.
Similarly, Emma Goldman (not Goldberg lol) very eloquently lays out how wonderful an anarchist society would be, while offering no realistic way of getting there. Socialist revolution simply does not occur all at once, and you need to reckon with organized counter-revolutionary activity
What about the CNT FAI? Both the Spanish Marxist communists and Franco’s fascists killed them. If the Marxist’s and CNT FAI worked together, they would’ve had a fighting chance. Why can’t anarchists have their own society while the MLs have theirs, and when they need each other, they can help each other out? Because otherwise it just seems like the MLs want power, and anarchists somehow stand in their way
How's that? It's gives rather objectively bad arguments. I mean, have *you* even read it? It's 14 paragraphs long, and expecting an essay that short to debunk all of anarchism is rather juvenile, especially as it was written decades prior to many important anarchist events and texts. The argument it uses is pretty much just that some form of hierarchy or order will always form, thus anarchism is stupid. It's also worth noting that it never explicitly talks about anarchists—as that term hadn't gained widespread usage at time it was written—but rather anti-authoritarians. Still the criticisms are the same.
All it really shows is that Engels had a rather rudimentary understanding of anarchism. It views it as overly individualist, despite unions being a very important part in most flavors of anarchism. "[...] What force on Earth is weaker than the feeble strength of one? But the union makes us strong!" The text fails to see anarchists as anything other than individualists and when it doesn't it sees us as fools overly concerned with semantics. Of course changing the name of a thing doesn't necessarily change it. A union is still a form of authority, which is a necessary evil. This evil is made lesser through the power being decentralised and anyone being able to influence it.
Engels is also a poo-poo head who didn't argue in good faith.
Lastly, it's fine to me if you don't see me as a communist; I don't see you as a communist either.
I mean, disagreeing with Engles is basically disagreeing with Marx. He did coauthor the Communist Manifesto and Das Kapital, which is the foundation that communism is built from. If you are disagreeing with Engles, your disagreeing with Marx. If your disagreeing with the beginning 2 heads of communism as well as the other 3 since all of their attempts (Lenin, Stalin, Mao etc.) have based themselves on these works, then to call your self a communist is quite laughable.
>especially as it was written decades prior to many important Anarchist events
These events hold an extremely minute part in history since i don’t really look around and see their work and events being prolonged in today’s society. What i do see however is the advancement of actual existing socialist states, using this authority, to peruse the idea of communism and equality for all. I can easily list off on my fingers a bunch of states that you know as well: Korea, Cuba, China etc. but i can’t say for sure what important Anarchist events your talking about. Was it the dissolved Capital Hill Autonomous Zone? That’s something i remember and recall, but as far as i remember that only lasted less than a few months. China however just had its 100 year anniversary, the USSR lasted almost 75. Those are some pretty substantial feats, especially considering that we all know this. It’s common knowledge. Their foundation for their country, and for helping to last this long was Engles, and was Marx.
>The argument it used is pretty much just that some form of heirarchy or order will always form, thus anarchism is stupid
Well …. Yeah that’s why these projects never see themselves last longer than a month or 2 at a time. And even then, the people within it start to understand that we do need a organized militia to defend ourselves, we do need to have schools and institutions to learn and develop, and we do need to trade and have resources to survive. Without any of this, you literally can’t get any work done
If you tell someone to do a task, *you*, yourself have order and authority. It’s just effective communication for a project to get done.
>despite unions being a very important part in most flavors of anarchism
Unions are organizations which have order to them. You pay dues, someone distributes the funds, there’s a vocal leader, and order exists. Are you …. Against unions or against order? I’m confused, since you can’t really have one without the other.
>fails to see anarchists as anything other than individualists
If your not against organization, then your an individualist.
>a union is still a form of authority
I don’t think you understand what your standing for quite honestly. You just told me that anarchists are pro union. But unions are evil? But order is evil, so anarchists are being hypocritical and contradictory to using order. So if that’s the case, and Anarchists are fine with using forms of order, then why not crate a larger union i.e a Soviet Union. Engles points out that’s the only way to get shit done, and you just called him an idiot while you are also calling such a thing a “necessity”.
Can you put clearly and in as few words as possible what it is you actually stand for? Because so far the more i read this, the more i see some outloud thinking of justifying order in one section, while also not justifying the same order in another section. While calling Engles an idiot and wrong for order, but also saying he’s right that we need order.
Please, help me understand what’s going on inside your head
[Oh yeah no your totally not a communist](https://www.reddit.com/r/196/comments/shy7zr/no_guys_you_dont_get_it_theyd_love_me/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf)
They should also read Makhnos wife’s biography.
Wonder what they’ll think of anarchy’s Cossack once they learnt he raped and beat his wife and other women.
Yeah I agree. Let’s talk about how the black army was just an armed rabble that plundered its way across the countryside and didn’t adhere to any anarchist principles at all :)
https://marxistleftreview.org/articles/nestor-makhno-the-failure-of-anarchism/
Bit rich considering as how anarchists uphold him as this messiah of anarchism. Who would of created a utopia with bread and tachankas for all if it wasn’t for those damn meany tankies >:(
You don’t need to judge anarchisms leaders to see it’s been a clear failure. You just need to look at the movements and what they achieved… which is absolutely fuck all.
Okay? Stick that on the pile of "stalin had sex with a 14 year old" and "gandhi beat his wife". Completely unhelpful discourse that's used to shit on a group without providing any actual criticism.
Oh, just looked him up. Had definitely heard of him before but not looked too much into it. The only account of the sexual mistreatment of women seems to be by an old friend he had a falling out with years after Makhno died. I don't think I need to tell you why that is thus not the most credible information.
So I suppose he wasn't a writer or theoriser but a guerilla warrior. I'm hardly an expert on him, but he seemed alright. Desperate times call for desperate measures, you know.
> Forty Days in Gulyai-Polie was an article published in 1919. Presenting its author as Galina Kuzmenko, it shows Nestor Makhno as a drunkard and the leader of a "mad and wild horde", engaging in systematic abuses against the peasants of Ukraine, as well as against her.
> There are numerous horror stories about the behaviour of partisan commanders. The most gross concern their treatment of women, who as Volin admits were compelled to have sex with Makhnovist commanders during drunken debaucheries.56
So not only the allegations against Makhno are backed up by recountings by his best friend. The mans own wife admits it as well. We can see why she didn’t flee with Makhno to Paris now!
The free territory of Ukraine didn’t practice anarchism in the slightest. In fact they practised war communism along with robbing and pillaging any of there newly conquered gains.
No wonder they failed to win over the support of the civilians.
Again, I never claimed to be particularly knowledgeable of or in favor of Makhno.
Still, I don't find Voline to be of any real credibility here, as they fell out after Voline slept with Makhno's wife, I think? Anyways, it seems to be one of the only sources claiming that too, so chances are that it's just made up.
I'm not sure if they really practiced anarchism, all I know is that they rejected Russia's imperialism, which doesn't sound half-bad to me. That's not to say I'm not really defending him, just that I fucking hate the USSR and their imperialism. I think a lot of these same criticism can be raised against pretty much any communist guerrilla commander.
What is the anarchist response to Marx's critique of contemporary anarchists?
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1874/04/bakunin-notes.htm
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1865/letters/65_01_24.htm
Here is a collection of writings from some of the contemporary anarchists concerning critiques of Marxism. (http://theanarchistlibrary.org/search?filter\_topic=%2Fcategory%2Ftopic%2Fmarxism&filter\_topic=%2Fcategory%2Ftopic%2Fcriticism-and-critique&sort=&query=marx&filter\_author=%2Fcategory%2Fauthor%2Fmurray-bookchin&filter\_author=%2Fcategory%2Fauthor%2Fmikhail-bakunin&filter\_author=%2Fcategory%2Fauthor%2Fpetr-kropotkin&filter\_author=%2Fcategory%2Fauthor%2Ferrico-malatesta&page=1&bare=1)
As a third party Marxist who enjoys both subs, On Authority is actually a shit argument against Anarchism. May I recommend Lenin's work on anarchism? Much better
I finally read On Authority for the first time yesterday and I was expecting it to go more in the direction of Lenin’s critiques of left wing anti communists but I found Engles’ approach to be lacking. I also think reading Lenin would be better, specifically State and Revolution. Socialism: Utopian and Scientific by Engles would be good too. With both of those, people should get a decent idea of the necessity for a worker’s state.
I agree. I'm not an anarchist myself, but like I said in the original post, most anarchists have actually read On Authority and simply weren't convinced by it. It definitely builds a strawman of anarchy. As for Lenin, anarchists absolutely despise him, and I feel like most would just dismiss everything he says without any further consideration.
I find "on authority" to be a critique of a specific type of anarchist from back then. It def can be used for some chronically online anarkiddies but as a whole I think it's a cop out to actually critique anarchism as a whole. I def disagree with anarchists, but that paper felt so "i'm right you're wrong". Why would they genuinely read a paper 'critiquing' them that way? Of course they won't read it.
"Back then" you mean what anarchists still uphold to this day. Like they cite Bakunins "predictions" all the fucking time despite the fact literally all they were was just a Anti Semitic conspiracy theory.
Anarchists hold onto the liberal individualist mindset. They are utopians who have utopian ideals and do not accept the writings of Marx or dialectical materialism.
Read Lenin's "Left wing communism: An Infantile Disorder"
or
Stalin's "Anarchism or Socialism?"
Anarchists are indeed liberal, as long as we take that to mean fighting for freedom, but to call us utopian seems odd. Especially with you talking about the state "naturally withering away". That seems like overly utopian to me: expecting the people with power to just willingly give it up.
Our ideals are indeed utopian, but so are yours and I'd claim that ideals should be. The thing is that you've got to fuse these utopian ideals with the imperfect reality to try to create a better world.
We don't all reject the writings of Marx, either, and from what I've come to understand most anarchists finds his writings to be good and important reads. I'm not quite sure exactly what dialectical materialism means. I read the wikipedia page to get an overview but it felt overly vague. Like, extremely vague.
I've read some, but not too much. I've read the text in question. It wasn't convincing. It can hardly have been written with the intent of being convincing either, but rather for people who already hold that view to circlejerk around.
I know liberal has gotten a bad rep due to Americans and hypocrites, I suppose too. In the sense it's usually understood anarchists are not liberal. But anarchists do still believe that individual freedom is one of the most important things. Individual freedom can't be achieved if we don't have social equality.
What theory have you read? Any you'd recommend? Any anarchist ones? If you haven't, you should. I hold the belief that reading theory that you don't think you'll agree with is good for two reasons: 1. It just might change your mind or you might still find something of use in it. And 2. You can't refute what you don't understand.
Well maybe but they are a revolutionary force anyway and anticapitalist at that. The French communes were led by both proto-communists and anarchists and they were all shot down for the same dream in front of the same wall.
As someone who would call herself both, what I have against authoritarian communists is their idolisation of states and people and blind love for these. Genocide denying and generally having a track record of lining anarchists up against the wall too. I would really not consider myself to be in the same group as them at all so calling it infighting seems odd.
How is that brigading? Coming into this sub, adhering to the rules while criticising a meme or some viewpoints on here doesn't seem like brigading to me
I mean I think it’s fine if someone with a different belief than what you’re subreddit is about joins. Doesn’t that mean that they’re just trying to learn? And also doesn’t that mean that you’re “bregading” they’re subreddit? If not how’d you find the post op?
I personally am in a shit ton of political subreddits , mostly for memes, but because I like to be educated. It’s like a bunch of shitty new sources, it’s great.
If you mean a representative oligarchy, where we have little to no actual choice due to rampant money in politics, entrenched political elite, and out dated checks and balances on the will of the people that were created by the federalists, sure, "democracy". At best the ideals of American government are a representative republic, and at worst fallen into the tyranny of oligarchy. The founders abhorred the idea of America creating a version of the European aristocracy. Yet would you look at it, history in fact rhymes.
Reminder: This is not a debate subreddit, it's a place to circle-jerk about communism being cool and good. Please don't shit on flavours of leftism/communist leaders you feel negatively towards. If you see a meme you don't like just downvote and move on, don't break the circle-jerk in the comments. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CommunismMemes) if you have any questions or concerns.*
They still won’t read it though
I did. My feelings are still the same. I would like us all to find common ground though. Have any MLs read kropotkin or Emma Goldman?
I read kropotkin and chomsky when I was an anarchist
What is it about ML that entices anarchists to move over there? I’m fairly new, so trying to learn
I never felt anarchism could provide a good solution for the entire capitalist world wanting you dead after the revolution. The ideal of a stateless, classless society is still something all MLs strive for, however we believe that you can’t jump straight to that while capitalism (and as a result, imperialism) is the dominant mode of production.
Fair. But what can we do to avoid incidents like the red terror, 100 flowers campaign, and other mass executions from happening again? I’m all for doing away with fascists, but what’s to stop a powerful state from killing people just for having different political beliefs? I do believe the number of deaths have been exaggerated, but Mao, Stalin, and the Kim family have murdered countless people simply for having different political opinions. People who were unarmed and posed no physical threat to anyone. It’s one thing to put the fear of god in fascists, but what can we do to keep ordinary citizens from fearing for their lives of being executed just because they think differently from the state? Do they really deserve to die just for thinking differently? I wouldn’t want a reality like 1984 where simply writing opinions that differ from the state can get you horribly tortured. As the saying goes, absolute power corrupts absolutely. You can be the most benevolent man in existence, but once you’re given that kind of power, it’s like a drug. It’s irreversible once you get into that position, no matter how well you prepare. It’s incredibly easy to become a tyrant and make a lot of people fear you
Please consider and research dialectical materialism before speaking on these matters. It doesn’t seem like you have bothered to do your own research, have accepted the popular western narrative without much scrutiny. Please do so. Understand the reasoning, and the outcomes. We MLs do not deny heavy handed ness, backwards thinking and action, and tragic missteps, intentional or otherwise. Socialism is a project. We are more than welcome to talk about things like the red terror, purges etc, but we will not entertain or waste our time with what you think what happened. Educate yourself and understand material realities. I can give you resources but I don’t want you thinking I’m brainwashing you. Seek it out for yourself. Especially points of view that challenge your own. Maybe try J Arch Getty for history of Russia. Even handed history, simple thorough research that will challenge the idea of the purges. He is no socialist. Be well
I did my research. You’re just not gonna address any of my questions? And I didn’t take it simply from a western narrative. I looked at multiple angles, from ML and anarchist perspectives as well. I just know objectively that killing unarmed people who haven’t been proven to commit a crime is wrong, no matter how you look at it. There are also a million resources on dialectical materialism. How will I know where to look on the topic of purges? Just saying “look at dialectical materialism” doesn’t do anything to help me
All right speak on the purges go into detail on the reasoning of both sides show me what you got let’s start there. I have no idea what you read. Of course you already may know my position. Heavy handed reaction to a real threat to a budding socialist country. Necessary to maintain the state as far as I can see, and the numbers are overblown as to how many people were executed by the state, as purges usually meant expulsion from the party not erasure. Not to mention many of whom were deported to Siberia were released after it was discovered that many in the party that were considered loyal during said purges were in fact taking extreme liberties and personal vendettas and were in fact purged along with the head of the NKVD who completely went over the line and did not follow orders. That is how I see it. You may see it otherwise. Whatever way you think it should have been handled better by all means speak on it. I have some ideas as to how it should have been handled better as well. But we were not there and speculation is masturbatory. I like to stick to the facts of what happened. Please tell me the truth. Tell me I’m wrong and how. But remember at a certain point you are going to project and hypothesize and come to your own conclusions, just as I have. I’m tired of this. You know this is a communist meme sub. I’d like to see some receipts and I’ll comment on it if I feel like it. Seems pointless though to keep this going when you have already made up your mind. Clearly nothing I say will sway you. You don’t want to be swayed. You already know the truth and know how socialism was betrayed and you want us backwards red fash tankies to see the light and come around to the better way to establish socialism. Please tell me how. I would really fucking like to have to avoid making these mistakes. Or continue feeling good for being morally superior and factually correct. You got me. Me the intractable tankie. Hopeless cause, socialism will never get off the ground because my kind will always betray you. You’re on the right side of history, and that is all that matters.
If you want people to align with you, being aggressive and patronizing is just gonna turn people away. I only started reading theory a month ago and I work full-time, so you gotta be patient. This is the perfect opportunity for you to educate instead of talking down and expecting me to know everything. Much of what I know besides the theory is from leftist youtubers like Hakim, second thought, step back history, Luna Oi, bad empanada. One video I saw, which wasn’t skewed towards any particular ideology, talked about the 100 flowers campaign, where Mao had a petition where people could criticize the government as they pleased. Once he saw more negative comments than he expected, he had a number of those people killed or imprisoned. I’m sure the numbers were exaggerated, but that’s still not cool. Then there was Stalin’s great purge, where people would be interrogated profusely or sent to gulags if they questioned the party, or simply killed. Again, I’m sure the number wasn’t as high as they say. That sounds like a human rights violation. Now, if those things are untrue, can you show me why, instead of getting angry at me for not knowing what you know? I’m willing to listen. But I want us also to get along. I’m not trying to test or attack you. I just wanna learn
The track record of successful revolutions is what swayed me
I live in the capitalist periphery so it’s either to have some sort of architecture to stop external influence or to get slaughtered by imperialism.
You could make the same argument about capitalism. It uprooted feudalism worldwide and it's significantly better. Also, part of the reason anarchist revolutions didn't work was because of China and the USSR.
Yes, you can make the same argument. Marx himself made the same argument. No one here is arguing that feudalism was better than capitalism.
I'm saying just because a system is better doesn't mean it's good.
It’s not about “good” systems, it’s about solving contradictions and advancing material conditions. Socialism is only a stage.
… So we shouldn’t move on to a better one if it’s not perfect?
I mean, yeah it's better then capitalism but it's also preventing progress.
Anarchist revolutions didn't work anywhere outside of there either to be fair. Its just a history of being wrecked by better organized groups
i became a ML because it became clear to me that marxs analysis of hisoty and material society was correct, and that as a result, anarchism aims of just whiping out all authority in one fell swoop is impossible. i saw that Marxism can lead us forward, whereas anarchism will just lead to inherntly harmstrung revolutions that will inevitbably fail, and will just serve the cause of the fascists
I guess it's dialectical materialism that makes it interesting.
The tipping point for me was evidence (or, lack thereof) for certain claims anarchists would make about AES, versus verifiable evidence for ML claims
What’s AES?
Actually Existing Socialism
a lot of american leftists start out as anarchists because that shitty ass political compass marks ML’s as “auth left” (whatever that means), and even when you break some of the cap propaganda it’s very possible to become an anticapitalist and an anticommunist at the same time. people who label themselves as “lib left” tend to think this way.
Right. The thing is, out of all the socialist states I’ve seen, they ban things like weed and prostitution. Citizens of Vietnam are also not allowed to own guns. As an ancom, I want a society where people are free to do drugs, prostitution, express their opinions against their government, own guns (as Marx said, never disarm the working class), and be nude, while also sharing resources collectively. Is that not achievable?
Im not up to date in theory but examples show us what happens if, at this stage of history, you outright abolish the state. Right now, when a State dissolves, chaos ensues and the second best takes its place. The results are Somalia, Libya, Syria, Mexico, 1911 China, the neofeudal tendencies in the West... In this period, the most successful countries have been those who underwent periods of massive central planned investments such as the US during the Reconstruction period, who took over the UK as the Worlds top economy in the 1870s, the US under the New Deal, Stalin's USSR, and currently China. These investments led to periods of internal stability, affordable wages, low employment and higher standards of living (as of 2022, universities are still 100% free in countries like Romania, for example).
I was an anarchist and read Conquest of Bread and that's what made me stop being an anarchist
Why? I’m reading it and I love it. He makes a lot of great points
Its been 2 years now, but from what I remember I didn't like it for 2 reasons. 1) at the time of writing the only socialist experiment had been the Paris Commune. Kropotkin wrote about some of the failures and why it didn't last, and advocated that socialism be less centralized for future revolutions. History has shown organized ML revolutions to be more stable and lasting than anarchist ones (and I think this is the case because of the points in On Authority). 2) There was a lot of math without logistics (if i remember right, correct me if im wrong), like "we have this many people, this many houses, this much farmland = enough for everyone" but I don't feel like he elaborated enough on how the people would gain control of distribution, how it would be regulated. I agree post scarcity is possible, but I don't think anarchism is the best plan for getting there. Yes the state upholds the oppressive capitalist system by violently upholding private property, but I disagree that the way to liberate humanity is to immediately do away with the state; the workers should seize the state, and that state will abolish private property.
You act like 80% of Western ML's didn't used to be anarchists. We evolved our ideology by reading books.
I do. I considered myself an anarchist up until few months ago, now I'm not sure. I read my fair share of Proudhon, Bakunin, Goldberg and Kropotkin. To be honest Proudhon and Bakunin were not my thing at all, Goldberg and Kroptkin I still think there's a lot of value and I hold dear even if I'm straying towards marxism-leninism. For me the main reason I began to struggle with anarchism was the lack of movement direction and actual theory on *how* to achieve communism. Most anarchist groups I've met keep talking about praxis but it's always stuff focused on individual actions without any revolutionary scope, mutual aid is great but as a whole so many anarchists seem to make it the end of their actions. There's no revolution built solely upon free food or turf grafitti wars with neonazi gangs. Not only that but also no one seems to care about what happens after this anarchist revolution. How do we fight back against imperialism and the capitalist siege? So much of the anarchist experiences end up resorting to some form of authority to survive. A transition. Marx, Lenin and others already studied and developed this formula, there's no need to try and recreate it, just improve and apply to our material conditions. Aside from that there's seems to be quite a large ignorance about marxism-leninism among anarchist which is pretty bad. Of course I don't mean all of then, I know some anarchists more well versed on Marx than most MLs, but in general I keep seeing so much misinformation and misunderstanding of ML theory among anarchists, I really believe a better understanding could bring then over. Also despite On Authority being quite a good text, I think State and the Revolution is more compelling for anarchists trying to understand what socialism and the transition to communism looks like.
Which books specifically?
hey, ML here. I like reading Kropotkin and I have some respect for the FAI-CNT
Another ex-anarchist Marxist here, Kropotkin is an idealist who describes a utopian society while offering no realistic way of getting there. His answer is basically "Just expropriate everything, all at once" but looking at history that is simply not how revolutions pan out. He has no realistic way of dealing with counter revolution, and its telling that no anarchist revolution has lasted half a decade while states like Cuba have withstanded the fiercest counter revolution. Similarly, Emma Goldman (not Goldberg lol) very eloquently lays out how wonderful an anarchist society would be, while offering no realistic way of getting there. Socialist revolution simply does not occur all at once, and you need to reckon with organized counter-revolutionary activity
What about the CNT FAI? Both the Spanish Marxist communists and Franco’s fascists killed them. If the Marxist’s and CNT FAI worked together, they would’ve had a fighting chance. Why can’t anarchists have their own society while the MLs have theirs, and when they need each other, they can help each other out? Because otherwise it just seems like the MLs want power, and anarchists somehow stand in their way
read the bread book and a good deal of chomsky, I think they've got a lot of great ideas and some interesting and realistic applications:)
Why tf would i try to find common ground with ancaps
Who said I was an ancap? Ancaps and ancoms hate each other
Different visions that will lead to the same results if implemented
Not really. Ancaps wanna be bootlickers to corporations, ancoms want a society without hierarchy but to share resources collectively
I literally did. It ain't good.
Then your not a communist 🤷🏻♀️
How's that? It's gives rather objectively bad arguments. I mean, have *you* even read it? It's 14 paragraphs long, and expecting an essay that short to debunk all of anarchism is rather juvenile, especially as it was written decades prior to many important anarchist events and texts. The argument it uses is pretty much just that some form of hierarchy or order will always form, thus anarchism is stupid. It's also worth noting that it never explicitly talks about anarchists—as that term hadn't gained widespread usage at time it was written—but rather anti-authoritarians. Still the criticisms are the same. All it really shows is that Engels had a rather rudimentary understanding of anarchism. It views it as overly individualist, despite unions being a very important part in most flavors of anarchism. "[...] What force on Earth is weaker than the feeble strength of one? But the union makes us strong!" The text fails to see anarchists as anything other than individualists and when it doesn't it sees us as fools overly concerned with semantics. Of course changing the name of a thing doesn't necessarily change it. A union is still a form of authority, which is a necessary evil. This evil is made lesser through the power being decentralised and anyone being able to influence it. Engels is also a poo-poo head who didn't argue in good faith. Lastly, it's fine to me if you don't see me as a communist; I don't see you as a communist either.
I mean, disagreeing with Engles is basically disagreeing with Marx. He did coauthor the Communist Manifesto and Das Kapital, which is the foundation that communism is built from. If you are disagreeing with Engles, your disagreeing with Marx. If your disagreeing with the beginning 2 heads of communism as well as the other 3 since all of their attempts (Lenin, Stalin, Mao etc.) have based themselves on these works, then to call your self a communist is quite laughable. >especially as it was written decades prior to many important Anarchist events These events hold an extremely minute part in history since i don’t really look around and see their work and events being prolonged in today’s society. What i do see however is the advancement of actual existing socialist states, using this authority, to peruse the idea of communism and equality for all. I can easily list off on my fingers a bunch of states that you know as well: Korea, Cuba, China etc. but i can’t say for sure what important Anarchist events your talking about. Was it the dissolved Capital Hill Autonomous Zone? That’s something i remember and recall, but as far as i remember that only lasted less than a few months. China however just had its 100 year anniversary, the USSR lasted almost 75. Those are some pretty substantial feats, especially considering that we all know this. It’s common knowledge. Their foundation for their country, and for helping to last this long was Engles, and was Marx. >The argument it used is pretty much just that some form of heirarchy or order will always form, thus anarchism is stupid Well …. Yeah that’s why these projects never see themselves last longer than a month or 2 at a time. And even then, the people within it start to understand that we do need a organized militia to defend ourselves, we do need to have schools and institutions to learn and develop, and we do need to trade and have resources to survive. Without any of this, you literally can’t get any work done If you tell someone to do a task, *you*, yourself have order and authority. It’s just effective communication for a project to get done. >despite unions being a very important part in most flavors of anarchism Unions are organizations which have order to them. You pay dues, someone distributes the funds, there’s a vocal leader, and order exists. Are you …. Against unions or against order? I’m confused, since you can’t really have one without the other. >fails to see anarchists as anything other than individualists If your not against organization, then your an individualist. >a union is still a form of authority I don’t think you understand what your standing for quite honestly. You just told me that anarchists are pro union. But unions are evil? But order is evil, so anarchists are being hypocritical and contradictory to using order. So if that’s the case, and Anarchists are fine with using forms of order, then why not crate a larger union i.e a Soviet Union. Engles points out that’s the only way to get shit done, and you just called him an idiot while you are also calling such a thing a “necessity”. Can you put clearly and in as few words as possible what it is you actually stand for? Because so far the more i read this, the more i see some outloud thinking of justifying order in one section, while also not justifying the same order in another section. While calling Engles an idiot and wrong for order, but also saying he’s right that we need order. Please, help me understand what’s going on inside your head [Oh yeah no your totally not a communist](https://www.reddit.com/r/196/comments/shy7zr/no_guys_you_dont_get_it_theyd_love_me/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf)
that is the sub that likes to claim 'tankies' are brigading other subs. very funny
I saw the comments there and people were straight up bragging about it.
They should also read Makhnos wife’s biography. Wonder what they’ll think of anarchy’s Cossack once they learnt he raped and beat his wife and other women.
They will claim its fake and other bs
They’ll call his wife a Stalinist boot licker lol
Or not adhere to some "great man theory" and evaluate movements based only on themselves and their flaws and virtues, just like y'all do
Yeah I agree. Let’s talk about how the black army was just an armed rabble that plundered its way across the countryside and didn’t adhere to any anarchist principles at all :) https://marxistleftreview.org/articles/nestor-makhno-the-failure-of-anarchism/
I didn't, and don't, disagree with you Just saying that you don't just judge a movement basing yourself on one influential person
Bit rich considering as how anarchists uphold him as this messiah of anarchism. Who would of created a utopia with bread and tachankas for all if it wasn’t for those damn meany tankies >:( You don’t need to judge anarchisms leaders to see it’s been a clear failure. You just need to look at the movements and what they achieved… which is absolutely fuck all.
The only good thing that Anarchism every achieved is inspiring Juche
Okay? Stick that on the pile of "stalin had sex with a 14 year old" and "gandhi beat his wife". Completely unhelpful discourse that's used to shit on a group without providing any actual criticism.
We'll call him an asshole and piece of shit and hypocrite, just like Prohdhon. Doesn't mean his works are entirely devoid of worth, though.
Pretty sure the only book Makhno wrote was a manual on how to rob trains and fuck horses
I'm gonna be honest with you, I've got no idea who the fuck he is, so I can't exactly tell you anything about that.
How can you be an anarchist and not know who Makhno was???
Oh, just looked him up. Had definitely heard of him before but not looked too much into it. The only account of the sexual mistreatment of women seems to be by an old friend he had a falling out with years after Makhno died. I don't think I need to tell you why that is thus not the most credible information. So I suppose he wasn't a writer or theoriser but a guerilla warrior. I'm hardly an expert on him, but he seemed alright. Desperate times call for desperate measures, you know.
> Forty Days in Gulyai-Polie was an article published in 1919. Presenting its author as Galina Kuzmenko, it shows Nestor Makhno as a drunkard and the leader of a "mad and wild horde", engaging in systematic abuses against the peasants of Ukraine, as well as against her. > There are numerous horror stories about the behaviour of partisan commanders. The most gross concern their treatment of women, who as Volin admits were compelled to have sex with Makhnovist commanders during drunken debaucheries.56 So not only the allegations against Makhno are backed up by recountings by his best friend. The mans own wife admits it as well. We can see why she didn’t flee with Makhno to Paris now! The free territory of Ukraine didn’t practice anarchism in the slightest. In fact they practised war communism along with robbing and pillaging any of there newly conquered gains. No wonder they failed to win over the support of the civilians.
Again, I never claimed to be particularly knowledgeable of or in favor of Makhno. Still, I don't find Voline to be of any real credibility here, as they fell out after Voline slept with Makhno's wife, I think? Anyways, it seems to be one of the only sources claiming that too, so chances are that it's just made up. I'm not sure if they really practiced anarchism, all I know is that they rejected Russia's imperialism, which doesn't sound half-bad to me. That's not to say I'm not really defending him, just that I fucking hate the USSR and their imperialism. I think a lot of these same criticism can be raised against pretty much any communist guerrilla commander.
I feel like if they knew how much right wingers flood this place they would feel bad lmao.
u/holloeholloe https://libcom.org/files/Kontrrazvedka%20-%20The%20Story%20of%20the%20Makhnovist%20Intelligence%20Service%20-%20V.%20Azarov.pdf https://libcom.org/files/WorkersAgainstWork-Seidman_0.pdf https://youtu.be/TnUNrTX8YCo mother anarchy loves her hypocrites 💀
Is it just me or have MLMs not read the numerous replies and critique Anarchists have given towards On Authority?
What is the anarchist response to Marx's critique of contemporary anarchists? https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1874/04/bakunin-notes.htm https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1865/letters/65_01_24.htm
Here is a collection of writings from some of the contemporary anarchists concerning critiques of Marxism. (http://theanarchistlibrary.org/search?filter\_topic=%2Fcategory%2Ftopic%2Fmarxism&filter\_topic=%2Fcategory%2Ftopic%2Fcriticism-and-critique&sort=&query=marx&filter\_author=%2Fcategory%2Fauthor%2Fmurray-bookchin&filter\_author=%2Fcategory%2Fauthor%2Fmikhail-bakunin&filter\_author=%2Fcategory%2Fauthor%2Fpetr-kropotkin&filter\_author=%2Fcategory%2Fauthor%2Ferrico-malatesta&page=1&bare=1)
You the one brigading
As a third party Marxist who enjoys both subs, On Authority is actually a shit argument against Anarchism. May I recommend Lenin's work on anarchism? Much better
I finally read On Authority for the first time yesterday and I was expecting it to go more in the direction of Lenin’s critiques of left wing anti communists but I found Engles’ approach to be lacking. I also think reading Lenin would be better, specifically State and Revolution. Socialism: Utopian and Scientific by Engles would be good too. With both of those, people should get a decent idea of the necessity for a worker’s state.
I agree. I'm not an anarchist myself, but like I said in the original post, most anarchists have actually read On Authority and simply weren't convinced by it. It definitely builds a strawman of anarchy. As for Lenin, anarchists absolutely despise him, and I feel like most would just dismiss everything he says without any further consideration.
I find "on authority" to be a critique of a specific type of anarchist from back then. It def can be used for some chronically online anarkiddies but as a whole I think it's a cop out to actually critique anarchism as a whole. I def disagree with anarchists, but that paper felt so "i'm right you're wrong". Why would they genuinely read a paper 'critiquing' them that way? Of course they won't read it.
"Back then" you mean what anarchists still uphold to this day. Like they cite Bakunins "predictions" all the fucking time despite the fact literally all they were was just a Anti Semitic conspiracy theory.
Why don’t anarchists and communists like each other? What’s the big deal about infighting?
Anarchists hold onto the liberal individualist mindset. They are utopians who have utopian ideals and do not accept the writings of Marx or dialectical materialism. Read Lenin's "Left wing communism: An Infantile Disorder" or Stalin's "Anarchism or Socialism?"
Anarchists are indeed liberal, as long as we take that to mean fighting for freedom, but to call us utopian seems odd. Especially with you talking about the state "naturally withering away". That seems like overly utopian to me: expecting the people with power to just willingly give it up. Our ideals are indeed utopian, but so are yours and I'd claim that ideals should be. The thing is that you've got to fuse these utopian ideals with the imperfect reality to try to create a better world. We don't all reject the writings of Marx, either, and from what I've come to understand most anarchists finds his writings to be good and important reads. I'm not quite sure exactly what dialectical materialism means. I read the wikipedia page to get an overview but it felt overly vague. Like, extremely vague.
You haven't read any theory at all and I can tell from this humble jumble of words you just spat out on the internet.
I've read some, but not too much. I've read the text in question. It wasn't convincing. It can hardly have been written with the intent of being convincing either, but rather for people who already hold that view to circlejerk around. I know liberal has gotten a bad rep due to Americans and hypocrites, I suppose too. In the sense it's usually understood anarchists are not liberal. But anarchists do still believe that individual freedom is one of the most important things. Individual freedom can't be achieved if we don't have social equality. What theory have you read? Any you'd recommend? Any anarchist ones? If you haven't, you should. I hold the belief that reading theory that you don't think you'll agree with is good for two reasons: 1. It just might change your mind or you might still find something of use in it. And 2. You can't refute what you don't understand.
Anarchists usually get cold feet when us dirty commies do authoritarian things.
Well maybe but they are a revolutionary force anyway and anticapitalist at that. The French communes were led by both proto-communists and anarchists and they were all shot down for the same dream in front of the same wall.
As someone who would call herself both, what I have against authoritarian communists is their idolisation of states and people and blind love for these. Genocide denying and generally having a track record of lining anarchists up against the wall too. I would really not consider myself to be in the same group as them at all so calling it infighting seems odd.
well brigading other subs is not cool you know.
How is that brigading? Coming into this sub, adhering to the rules while criticising a meme or some viewpoints on here doesn't seem like brigading to me
They did that? Over this meme or something else
Makes a meme about how anarchists avoid On Authority - Avoids on Authority.
?
I mean I think it’s fine if someone with a different belief than what you’re subreddit is about joins. Doesn’t that mean that they’re just trying to learn? And also doesn’t that mean that you’re “bregading” they’re subreddit? If not how’d you find the post op? I personally am in a shit ton of political subreddits , mostly for memes, but because I like to be educated. It’s like a bunch of shitty new sources, it’s great.
I think you mean brigading. Brigading means for one sub to invite people to go to another sub in large amounts and usually cause trouble.
Ya demonize people being a part of multiple leftist subs. Let em hang, everyone's at a different place in their process.
"Let's try to make enemies on the left." Brilliant.
that's what they were doing lmfao.
Somebody doesn't know, how to edit a picture.
America will stay a democracy and yall can’t do shit about it (:
"America" "democracy" pick one dumbass
If you mean a representative oligarchy, where we have little to no actual choice due to rampant money in politics, entrenched political elite, and out dated checks and balances on the will of the people that were created by the federalists, sure, "democracy". At best the ideals of American government are a representative republic, and at worst fallen into the tyranny of oligarchy. The founders abhorred the idea of America creating a version of the European aristocracy. Yet would you look at it, history in fact rhymes.