Anarchism is pretty compatible with Marxism. Marx defined communism as a classless stateless society, which is also the idea of anarchism.
Now I would argue that Lenin didn’t act in the interest of Marx. He formed his vanguard party, that surpressed and killed political dissidents (anarchists for example), but curiously never gave the power back to the people. So he wasn’t really a Marxist, he may have believed that, but in the end he was pretty much just a dictator in my opinion.
This is straight up nonsense, while anarchism and communism broadly share the same goals, they fundamentally oppose one another fundamentally (such as on DOTP, economy, power, etc.). There’s an entire page of Marx & Engels texts attacking anarchism (which should indicate their compatibility), and I’d at least recommend reading The Poverty of Philosophy on the matter. There’s also Lessons from the Counter-Revolution, Spain 1936 which isn’t a critique of anarchism as a whole but does show how non-stalinist communists view anarchists in practice.
The entire second paragraph, though, completely misunderstands marxist theory. Too lazy to respond in detail myself rn, but Revolution Summed Up, specifically the 1917 part shows how Lenin and Bolsheviks were fully consistent with Marxism, and later parts make good arguments as to why counter-revolution took over (hint: it’s not due to some anarchistic notion of “no power to the people”).
This is such a classic tankie response. “I basically have no real arguments, but just read these 10 books about theory, trust me bro they agree with me”.
That’s exactly how my conspiracy minded friend argued with me back in the day: “Just trust me, I can’t explain why you’re wrong, but you have to watch this 2 hour Youtube video with me and then you’ll understand why the earth is flat”.
If you can’t even give me real arguments that support your position you either haven’t properly understood the literature you’re talking about or are knowingly lying.
Ah piss off, you literally wrote an opinion that’s just straight up wrong and directly contradicts Marx’s own writings, and now you’re getting angry that I didn’t spend 100x more effort than you writing up some wall of text that nobody is going to read.
Sorry for the absolutely unreasonable suggestion to actually read and learn before acting like an expert on the topic.
So communism is when council communism (understandable), anarchism (huh?) and german idealism (wtf)?
Lenin also has no right to be on the same side as people who took and bastardized his work…
Anarchism is pretty compatible with Marxism. Marx defined communism as a classless stateless society, which is also the idea of anarchism.
Now I would argue that Lenin didn’t act in the interest of Marx. He formed his vanguard party, that surpressed and killed political dissidents (anarchists for example), but curiously never gave the power back to the people. So he wasn’t really a Marxist, he may have believed that, but in the end he was pretty much just a dictator in my opinion.
This is straight up nonsense, while anarchism and communism broadly share the same goals, they fundamentally oppose one another fundamentally (such as on DOTP, economy, power, etc.). There’s an entire page of Marx & Engels texts attacking anarchism (which should indicate their compatibility), and I’d at least recommend reading The Poverty of Philosophy on the matter. There’s also Lessons from the Counter-Revolution, Spain 1936 which isn’t a critique of anarchism as a whole but does show how non-stalinist communists view anarchists in practice.
The entire second paragraph, though, completely misunderstands marxist theory. Too lazy to respond in detail myself rn, but Revolution Summed Up, specifically the 1917 part shows how Lenin and Bolsheviks were fully consistent with Marxism, and later parts make good arguments as to why counter-revolution took over (hint: it’s not due to some anarchistic notion of “no power to the people”).
This is such a classic tankie response. “I basically have no real arguments, but just read these 10 books about theory, trust me bro they agree with me”.
That’s exactly how my conspiracy minded friend argued with me back in the day: “Just trust me, I can’t explain why you’re wrong, but you have to watch this 2 hour Youtube video with me and then you’ll understand why the earth is flat”.
If you can’t even give me real arguments that support your position you either haven’t properly understood the literature you’re talking about or are knowingly lying.
Ah piss off, you literally wrote an opinion that’s just straight up wrong and directly contradicts Marx’s own writings, and now you’re getting angry that I didn’t spend 100x more effort than you writing up some wall of text that nobody is going to read.
Sorry for the absolutely unreasonable suggestion to actually read and learn before acting like an expert on the topic.