The Marxist-Leninist state bureaucrat class has class interests that oppose those of the workers. Critical Theory naturally predicts the outcome we historically observe of this bureaucracy becoming a new oppressive class that subjugates workers, violently suppresses anarchism, and fights any sort of political activity that threatens the power of the centralized state.
A Marxist-Leninist state voluntarily becoming stateless is as absurd as a capitalist state voluntarily becoming communist.
Anarchism doesn’t oppress class interests, it unmakes classes so that the people who used to constituted them have interests that align with others. Within an anarchist commune, there are no capitalists to oppress others for their greed, and there are no socialist bureaucrats to oppress others for their paternalism.
Just anarchist violence is defensive, stopping people from oppressing others. If there is a state that oppresses capital owners, then it is unjust by virtue of the “oppression”. You don’t need to oppress a “capital owner” to take the stuff that is in the building that used to be called “their property”, but if they go and assault people who take it then those people may defend themselves or get help to defend themselves.
And sure, people that volunteer a lot to defend others could become a class that can attempt oppression (whether as a junta, or just as demanding privileges for their noble task). But the same risk holds for any profession, and anarchy always works to subvert it. Typically, tasks are rotated so that the ability to do them is redundant so nobody has leverage to exploit others with them, and lots of more bespoke solutions are applied too.
In the end, looking at the people hanging out in the fort at the border with the nearby state today and calling them “the state” makes as much sense as looking at the people making dinner today and calling them “the state”. Both are doing jobs which, if nobody else did them, could be used to hold the community hostage and build a state; but which, if done anarchistically, do not centralize power.
Critical Theory naturally predicts the outcome we historically observe of this bureaucracy becoming a new oppressive class
That’s not what a class is and Critical Theory as a historical ideological project always functioned to defang dissenting voices and produce “compatible leftists”. The Frankfurt school was funded by the CIA.
A Marxist-Leninist state voluntarily becoming stateless is as absurd as a capitalist state voluntarily becoming communist.
It’s not absurd, it’s just hard to imagine in the current historical moment where the strength of reactionary forces means, that it is far off, but necessary in the future.
Anarchism doesn’t oppress class interests, it unmakes classes so that the people who used to constituted them have interests that align with others. Within an anarchist commune, there are no capitalists to oppress others
No, but they are right outside the commune loading up their cannons to crush it like the Paris commune. If the defence is successful, it will have forced their will violently on the attackers, who constitute a different class (capitalists). Yes, only on defence, yes that is a legitimate form of organized violence. That’s the point.
And sure, people that volunteer a lot to defend others could become a class that can attempt oppression (whether as a junta, or just as demanding privileges for their noble task). But the same risk holds for any profession, and anarchy always works to subvert it.
Take that sentence and replace anarchy with Marxism. It doesn’t always work. There were historical failures and mistakes, as has happened in almost every anarchist project.
For example the Spanish anarchists reversed their progress in woman’s liberation to appeal to liberals. It didn’t work. The kurdish anarchists sold out to the US empire and were betrayed by it again and again.
Marxists did wrong too. But because of Marxisms principled stance based on material class analysis, it’s much less likely to dissolve, succumb to error or become a tool to reactionary forces.
Anarchocommunists do better material analysis of communist revolutions and states than Marxist-Leninists do. That’s why they’re anarchists. Your “bureaucrats are not a class” spiel means that your “material class analysis” has a massive blind spot for bureaucrats as a material force that begets tyranny.
Boy I wonder why a tyrannical communist state ran by the bureacratic elite would propagandize a branch of communism that excludes the bureaucratic elite from material analysis.
Oh well, if only we had a form of material analysis to process this behavior. Maybe some kind of… state-skeptical communism? Anarchomarxism? Communo-anarchism?
Oh well a girl can dream…
That’s the point.
No, your point was that anarchist militias necessarily engage in oppression and are a state, neither of which you have yet demonstrated.
Take that sentence and replace anarchy with Marxism.
Okay. “Marxism always seeks to subvert one profession gaining power over another, such as a state bureaucrat having power over a farmer”. Oh wow, if you define Marxism as anarchocommunism then Marxism is good! I love destroying the state apparatus with my Marxist friends!
The Marxist-Leninist state bureaucrat class has class interests that oppose those of the workers. Critical Theory naturally predicts the outcome we historically observe of this bureaucracy becoming a new oppressive class that subjugates workers, violently suppresses anarchism, and fights any sort of political activity that threatens the power of the centralized state.
A Marxist-Leninist state voluntarily becoming stateless is as absurd as a capitalist state voluntarily becoming communist.
Anarchism doesn’t oppress class interests, it unmakes classes so that the people who used to constituted them have interests that align with others. Within an anarchist commune, there are no capitalists to oppress others for their greed, and there are no socialist bureaucrats to oppress others for their paternalism.
Just anarchist violence is defensive, stopping people from oppressing others. If there is a state that oppresses capital owners, then it is unjust by virtue of the “oppression”. You don’t need to oppress a “capital owner” to take the stuff that is in the building that used to be called “their property”, but if they go and assault people who take it then those people may defend themselves or get help to defend themselves.
And sure, people that volunteer a lot to defend others could become a class that can attempt oppression (whether as a junta, or just as demanding privileges for their noble task). But the same risk holds for any profession, and anarchy always works to subvert it. Typically, tasks are rotated so that the ability to do them is redundant so nobody has leverage to exploit others with them, and lots of more bespoke solutions are applied too.
In the end, looking at the people hanging out in the fort at the border with the nearby state today and calling them “the state” makes as much sense as looking at the people making dinner today and calling them “the state”. Both are doing jobs which, if nobody else did them, could be used to hold the community hostage and build a state; but which, if done anarchistically, do not centralize power.
That’s not what a class is and Critical Theory as a historical ideological project always functioned to defang dissenting voices and produce “compatible leftists”. The Frankfurt school was funded by the CIA.
It’s not absurd, it’s just hard to imagine in the current historical moment where the strength of reactionary forces means, that it is far off, but necessary in the future.
No, but they are right outside the commune loading up their cannons to crush it like the Paris commune. If the defence is successful, it will have forced their will violently on the attackers, who constitute a different class (capitalists). Yes, only on defence, yes that is a legitimate form of organized violence. That’s the point.
Take that sentence and replace anarchy with Marxism. It doesn’t always work. There were historical failures and mistakes, as has happened in almost every anarchist project. For example the Spanish anarchists reversed their progress in woman’s liberation to appeal to liberals. It didn’t work. The kurdish anarchists sold out to the US empire and were betrayed by it again and again. Marxists did wrong too. But because of Marxisms principled stance based on material class analysis, it’s much less likely to dissolve, succumb to error or become a tool to reactionary forces.
Anarchocommunists do better material analysis of communist revolutions and states than Marxist-Leninists do. That’s why they’re anarchists. Your “bureaucrats are not a class” spiel means that your “material class analysis” has a massive blind spot for bureaucrats as a material force that begets tyranny.
Boy I wonder why a tyrannical communist state ran by the bureacratic elite would propagandize a branch of communism that excludes the bureaucratic elite from material analysis.
Oh well, if only we had a form of material analysis to process this behavior. Maybe some kind of… state-skeptical communism? Anarchomarxism? Communo-anarchism?
Oh well a girl can dream…
No, your point was that anarchist militias necessarily engage in oppression and are a state, neither of which you have yet demonstrated.
Okay. “Marxism always seeks to subvert one profession gaining power over another, such as a state bureaucrat having power over a farmer”. Oh wow, if you define Marxism as anarchocommunism then Marxism is good! I love destroying the state apparatus with my Marxist friends!