You must log in or register to comment.
Let’s focus on getting a majority in power that believe billionaires shouldn’t exist, then we can start getting into economic details more specific than “tax the rich”
Never going to happen, the system will not allow such a party into power.
“For the master’s tools will never dismantle the master’s house. They may allow us temporarily to beat him at his own game, but they will never enable us to bring about genuine change.” - Audre Lorde
Nah fuck that. Ill dream both big and small and try to make both happen. You miss 100% of the shots you dont take
Wasted energy and effort that could be applied elsewhere.
Step 1: Revolution
Step 2: Prop up Interim State to Dismantle the State
Step 3: Interim State becomes permanent and corrupted
I would argue only that currently liberalism is failing, fascism is rising and all leftist movements are too weak to beat fascism alone.
I think we can fight together in the same fight against fascism, and work together against the ever worsening climate disaster.
There will be time to fight eachother when we’re not beset by right wing enemies destroying civilization and the earth on all sides.
I’m worried that not fighting together when our goals are reasonably aligned means we’ll simply get defeated by fascism.
Malcom Harris in his recent book “What’s Left” lays out a great strategy to work together without giving up our socialist, communist, or anarchist essence and goals.
Right now, most leftist groups are so small that even if they all worked together it wouldn’t be militarily significant. So even if we threw out all our values and worked together with genocidal assholes, we would still lose. You’re asking people to sell out their entire ethical framework for a couple thousand untrustworthy allies. That just doesn’t make sense.
As for liberalism, by your own admission it is failing, so why on god’s green earth should we tie ourselves to that sinking ship as it goes under?
Luckily, there is a way out: You forgot that ideologies are made of people, and that it is those people changing their minds that cause the power balance between ideologies to shift. Liberalism is sinking because it has lost all credibility, and fascism is growing because it helps rich liberals preserve their power as the liberal economy contracts and because it gives the western working class a clear narrative of preserving some privileges in spite of that contraction by more violently extracting wealth from the less privileged.
So what we need to do is to have a clear narrative of how leftism will improve people’s lives, ideally one that reflects reality. If we cooperate with genocidal parties, that muddies the narrative. If we cooperate with the liberals who set the world on fire, that muddies the narrative. It is great for the narrative to support diversity of tactics and diversity of ideology, but then we need to weave that into the narrative by explaining the limits of tolerated diversity and the process through which better tactics and ideologies are cultivated.
If we want to have any chance of winning, we can’t team up with genocide supporters. Nobody could trust our promise of solidarity if we do. We might sometimes benefit from giving them resources or coordinating strikes with them, but they are a different faction.
The fascist threat is from both black and red. Rather than work with our enemies to fight our enemies, anarchists should focus on doing what they do and build our power independently from fascism.
And its always interesting, you never see people pressuring communists to work with liberals to help liberalism fight fascism but anarchists must always work with communists to do so.
And its always interesting, you never see people pressuring communists to work with liberals to help liberalism fight fascism but anarchists must always work with communists to do so.
Are you kidding? We see radicals of all kinds being pushed to vote for or support liberals, especially communists. This is very out of touch with reality.
I never see ML’s pushing other ML’s to support liberals.
I used to be part of a Trotskyist organisation a while ago and that’s pretty much exactly what we did. I believe it’s called entryism. Not only was it policy to vote Labour but to enter the party and try to push it further left.
I am sorry but you are just wrong here, and dangerously out of touch.
Entryism is not supporting, it’s subverting.
If you want anarchists to invade ML group, destabilise and flip them, I’m all for it, still not going to join in as a I think it’s futile, but I’ll support others doing it - but I highly suspect that’s not what they’re asking us to do.
While I understand what you are saying in practice it means voting for and backing up a liberal party even if it’s a means to an end. People push anarchists to work with MLs and with liberals for the same reasons. Mainly that it’s a form of harm reduction until an actual revolution can take place. The entryism into labour wasn’t done instead of a revolution. It was meant to get policies that support the working class in place until such a time as a real revolution could be enacted which obviously takes time.
That’s not the case. Malcom Harris (famously an anarchist) argues exactly for communists to work with liberals (social democrats). That’s exactly the framework he sets up: in so far as many of our goals are now aligned, we all work together, but without compromising our own goals and values.
I mean, there is value in improving the material conditions of the working class.
But you know they are gonna put you against the wall eventually.
And we can improve those conditions through anarchism.
Just distract them by saying “Tibet.” They’ll be too busy falling over themselves explaining how you’re wrong that you can make a hasty escape.
Fill in the blank:
Deng Xiaoping is ______
Careful: Comparing a single person to a cartoon bear is racist.
Not like subjecting minorities to forced sterilization and reeducation. That’s not racist at all.
That’s Xi Jinping.
Deng is the one who made China capitalist.
Don’t forget replacement of Tibets population.
I think when Fascism is about to have a cultural and military victory the globe over some concessions are in order, until the wave is beaten back and then it gets complicated again. But I am just really terrified at how close we are to global surveilance and nation states owned by corps. I actually see that as our most likely future rn.
Switching autocratic fascism to autocratic fascism but red isn’t an answer. If you want to promote human flourishing that is.
Thats not at all what I am saying. Both groups are such a tiny fraction of humanity up against the biggest military on the planet with orders of magnitude more nukes than anyone else. Plus, why are you assuming communists would come out on top and not anarchists? China isn’t getting out of WW3 unscathed and anarchists dont even ascribe to the notion of nations, we have no center to strike.
Edit: and China is also far more capitalistic than it likes to admit so how communist can you consider it when compared to Cuba or the DPRK?
Assuming the capitalist hegemony doesn’t co-op or crush either, there’s something to be said about state management of sewers and drinking water.
Private wells and septic systems can go a long ways but once population density reaches the size of an apartment complex or an industrial process needs treatment, you’re going to want some form of governance over those systems.
You don’t need a government or state for complex frameworks to exist and operate.
Sure, you don’t need them for such things to exist and operate. But until a stateless system is able to supplant this infrastructure, I think it makes sense to have a governing body to recognize how many parts per million of chlorine is okay after dosing the well or the amount of fecal coliform that’s acceptable to be released into the local waterway.
You do need one to make sure one complex network does not pollute the water of the other complex network though.
Removed by mod
It’s the opposite: anarchism will never be achieved without ML. Whatever method an “anarchist” society uses to defend against fascism and capitalism is by definition a state. Because any means of oppressing class interests (like capitalist class interests) is by definition a state. You can call it grassroots militias or community defense, but it’s still a state. Whatever we use to defend from reaction will only be needed until the threat is over.
A sufficiently advanced, socialist, ML state will then allow anarchist communes to grow and connect to facilitate the transition to full, stateless communism. Left unity is necessary not just before, but also after the revolution.
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!
Ah yes, the good ole “statelessness can only be achieved with a state, trust me bro” argument.
Did you get whiplash just now from contradicting yourself? Also, I just love the assertion that defending yourself needs a state. Every time I think communists can’t get any fucking stupider, you guys really go the extra mile to prove me wrong
No, that’s just a misunderstanding about the definition of a state. Anarchists often define it as a monopoly to violence in a territory. This definition has its flaws. Marxists define it differently as anything that can suppress a class.
Anarchism has real enemies. Marxists generally want to work together with Anarchists. Those enemies do not. Their interests are fundamentally opposed to anarchism and Marxism. They constitute a class, because they are defined by their control over exploitative production. Defending against them is suppressing their class interests. Many Marxists are open about an how this struggle is fought. Anarchists will have to fight it too and they will use their own strategies. Whatever those are, if they are effective, than they constitute a state in the eyes of marxists.
Every time I think communists can’t get any fucking stupider, you guys really go the extra mile to prove me wrong
Almost all real life Anarchists are communists too. Did you just insult basically all anarchists that aren’t terminally online?
You are one very confused communist.
Because I said most anarchists are communists? Anarchists want a stateless classless society. That’s the textbook definition of communism. Have you ever heard of the anarchists Bakunin, Kropotkin, Malatesta, Goldman, Makhno? None of them were marxists, but they were, all of them, communists. And they said so. You should try learning some basics about the movement you identify with.
Because I said most anarchists are communists?
nah, you’re confused because you’ve obviously read more theory than you actually understood.
Centralized power doesn’t give up its station and eventually those who dont respect said power become a “problem” which is why anarchists exist to begin with.
By your definition, practically everything is a state. Yours is a useless definition. Anarchists mean the current structures of states. I.e. Rigid, hierarchical authoritarian structures with monopoly of violence.
Well, I mean after all it’s not like Marxist Leninists, especially in Russia were particularly known for targeting and slaughtering anarchists or something. Oh wait, they were and they did.
All theory no praxis. Talk about lack of self awareness / willful ignorance.
I know, that’s a key theoretical difference between marxists and anarchists. However it is the definition that marxists actually use. And it is precisely what makes marxists want to work together together with Anarchists under many circumstances. So even if anarchists have a different one, they should still be aware of what marxists mean, when they talk about state for one simple reason: to not discard potential allies simply because of a misunderstand in terms. Because marxists believe in this definition, they see no fundamentals contradiction with Anarchists, no class antagonism, only differences in strategy.
Now there are good reasons to use this definition, because it’s rooted in material facts, class analysis, productive forces and ultimately in how a society reproduces itself. It’s a natural definition. The anarchists definition is vague, idealist and ahistorical.
Rigid, hierarchical authoritarian structures with monopoly of violence.
The only words that are not vague in this definition are “structures”, “with” and “of”. What is rigid? How much plasticity is need? What is hierarchical? What about the unspoken, inofficial, undemocratic hierarchies that dominate every anarchist project? What is authoritarian? Isn’t it authoritarian to defend against fascism? Aren’t anarchists who defend their projects violently forcing their own will on those reactionaries who would love to crush them and exploit them? What’s a monopoly of violence? Do the Zapatistas have a monopoly of violence in their territory? The “checks and balances” and “control instances” and all that bullshit of modern capitalists state are not enough to not speak of a monopoly of violence, right? What’s violence? Do you include structural violence? The threat of violence?
The Marxist definition is clear, simple, historically applicable across the ages, based in material facts and leads to clear conclusions for how to conduct struggle and who to ally with. Like anarchists for example.
Calling decentralized militias a state is a pretty big stretch of the definition.
Not if these decentralized militias are able to defend themselves against reactionaries. Then it precisely fits the definition that marxists use: they violently force their will (to survive and to defend the anarchist project) on to another class (usually fascist capitalists).
And the mediation of scarcity in a market society is still capitalism, regardless of how many linguistically inconvenient opponents you liquidate.
We seek material conditions compatible with the elimination of state hierarchy. Until then we seek harm reduction, and political outcomes which approach those conditions. Not trading one oppressor for another.
Sounds like you seek to be compatible with capitalist oppression while you wait for something that will never simply arise on it’s own without a fierce revolutionary struggle. I’m sure the material conditions will be right any decade now. Surely before the climate catastrophe becomes unbearable or the imperialist war machine steamrolls us all.
Bottom unity forever
Which is very different from the anarchist’s first priority, which is not self preservation but rather something more noble. That’s why anarchists don’t worry about how to protect themselves from being disrupted or exterminated before achieving their goals, because they’ve achieved their goals just by being themselves.
That’s idealist and defeatist. Prefiguring the future society in our organizing is only one of our goals and not an end in itself.
So you’re saying that anarchists also prioritize self-preservation?
Are you saying all anarchists are suicidal and want to die? Of course we fucking value self-preservation.
Right. So then the image is a little ridiculous no? The difference between MLs and anarchists has nothing to do with the MLs self-preservation practices and everything to do with using the state as its means. The reason MLs and anarchists cannot form an effective coalition is because MLs see the state as a tool and anarchists see the state as the problem and anarchists will always fight anyone who uses the state as a tool.
Yes, and actually achieving their main goal in real life: establishing a stateless classless society.
So then when MLs build their organizational structure, which is the state, and it engaged in self-preservation, what exactly is the critique? That because they focus on self-preservation they can’t be trusted? Because that’s what the text in the posted images seems to imply - you can’t work with MLs because they defend themselves.
Self-preservation in this instance means ML’s not dismantling the state and distributing power after they successfully gain control of the state.
They always preach this idea of them having control over the state is temporary, and that eventually they’ll give power to the workers, but in every case, they end up just being authoritarian dictators forever.
forever
The longest running ML project is China, at 75 years. Given capitalism has existed for 400 years and states have existed for 5000 years, I think saying that 75 years is forever is maybe a tad melodramatic.
MLs not dismantling the state is self-preservation because they use the state for self-preservation. They don’t believe they can preserve the movement without the state during the transitionary period where imperialism still dominates the majority of the world’s people, natural resources, and military force. Anarchists disagree with that and believe that they can preserve the movement without the use of the state and in fact strictly forbid the use of the state in self-preservation. So the problem is not that MLs are focused on self-preservation nor that states engage in self-preservation but rather that MLs use the state as a tool and anarchists forbid using the state as a tool.
This is a critical distinction to be made and the image makes it seem like self-defense is the problem instead of the anarchist position that any use of the state, for any reason, is illegitimate.
MLs hold the position that the state will disappear as it becomes useless, much like how paid wake-up calling jobs disappeared with the advent of the alarm clock and castle masonry as a structured guild and discipline disappeared when gunpowder-based weapons made them obsolete.
MLs believe this because the state didn’t exist at some point in human history, and then it, eventually, it did exist. That is to say, the state was created to solve some problem in human society. MLs believe that this problem still exists in human society and thus states still exist, and thus if you eliminate the state but do not eliminate the preconditions that the state will reemerge because the problem the state solves still remains. MLs believe that only by discovering what the problems are that give rise to the state, and then solving those problems, will we be able to move as a species to a stateless human society.
Anarchists believe that the state is illegitimate in its essence, and that no use of the state is ever legitimate, and therefore that to have a stateless society we must decide to have a stateless society and then enforce that decision by any means necessary, except hierarchical means. Anarchists believe that the state in its essence reasserts its own existence and creates the very problems that it purports to solve and so will never arrive at the point of obsolescence. Instead the state must be removed and the problems must become unresolved and then new solutions to those problems need to be built that don’t involve a state.
This difference has nothing to do with self-preservation, as the OP indicates
In all the time the USSR existed, and in all the time that China and North Korea have been Marxist-Leninist spinoffs, none of those countries ever gave workers control of the means of production.
Billionaire CEO’s own the factories in China, and the people still there still live under the boot of capitalism, doing work for the very capitalists who they supposedly are fighting against.
The critique is the state is a tool of oppression. We can’t work with MLs because they are authoritarians and thus part of the problem.
That’s a different statement than what the image says. Yes, anarchists cannot work with MLs because MLs use the state as a tool of their revolution and anarchists reject the use of that tool. The two groups are incommensurate on this topic. While they both share the goal of a stateless society, one group requires the use of the state to achieve that goal and the other group strictly forbids the use of the state to achieve that goal.
It has nothing to do with self-preservation.
Self-preservation of the state means exercising authority over the citizens. It means the state will never wither away, it will only maintain itself.
“Helping MLs rise” is not the same as fighting evil warmongering fascist billionaires.
Honestly, though, if I were an anarchist, I would fully support Trump. Him and his cronies are doing more to destroy civilization than any anarchist could ever hope to accomplish.
Anarchism isn’t about destroying civilization.
Sorry, should I have substituted with “traditional hierarchical government and quasi-governmental institutions”?
Because that’s a mouthful…
Ah, yes, because Trump and his cronies are all about destroying hierarchy, that’s right. A true populist selflessly serving the common people!
