Oh I absolutely could spend a lot of mental effort trying to explain “marxism bad” (It would actually be Vanguardism bad, marxism ancient) but I just don’t care enough. I have no interest in being antagonistic (except maybe for a couple of quips), cause it’s not going to change anything.
Production and distribution (henceforth economy) is necessary there isn’t a magical grace period where people stop needing food. For any anarchist system to work they need to have an economy. The anarchist systems that exist right now solve this by relying on donations and members having jobs. As more and more anarchist systems start popping up (although this is probably never going to happen) this would transform to a more independent/self-sustaining system. But what that system looks like doesn’t really matter, because whatever it is will be determined by the ones who make it.
This is the ultimate difference between anarchism and everything else, and the reason why I think so many people bounce off it. Anarchism requires belief in people. That whatever system they come up with will work and compliment others who will be able to build their own systems: Economic, social or political.
Anarchy is a process of creating social structures that defy oppression, control and manipulation, and believing that these structures will be able to solve the problems they face. It’s not just about economy but about the connections people form. When I look at communists I see only economic analysis: Class, Production, Ownership. Concepts which are secondary to the thing that actually matters: eliminating oppression and exploitation, not just economic, but also social and political.
This sounds like utopianism, and i don’t know if it’s whether you didn’t do a thorough job of explaining anarchism or that this is actually what anarchism is.
Technically utopianism refers to the practice of imagining a better society and thinking you can implement it through fiat, ie by convincing everyone to agree with you. It’s like theorycrafting a society and thinking that you just need to convince everyone it’s the way.
Examples include the Owenites and Saint-Simone, both of which tried their own little isolated societies that they tried to get others to copy, but they fizzled and died. Marxism advanced upon this by looking at socialism not as something to create in a vacuum, but as the logical next step in class struggle, ie feudalism gave way to capitalism which gives way to socialism which gives way to communism due to the unfolding of dialectical processes and relationships (in example, the centralization of production into monopoly in capitalism kills competition, increases the proletariat with ratio to capitalists, and paves the way for central planning and collectivization of production and distribution).
Utopianism is unrealistic, but it isn’t defined by that.
That’s a strict Engelsian application of the term. Maybe i should’ve used idealistic. Particularly in reference to this portion of their comment:
Anarchism requires belief in people. That whatever system they come up with will work and compliment others who will be able to build their own systems: Economic, social or political.
Also i think it’s best if Marxists abandon this framing:
feudalism gave way to capitalism which gives way to socialism which gives way to communism due to the unfolding of dialectical processes and relationships
It sounds teleological and gave rise to the many erroneous anarchist critiques we’re now dealing with. You can say that the internal contradictions that capitalism present create the possibility for socialism, but that by no means guarantees it
That’s not what anarchism is. It’s just what I currently think of when discussing anarchism. Anarchism is nothing more than opposition to authority. And while there are common beliefs there is no single understanding of what exactly that means or looks like.
The reason it seems utopian is because our current society rewards selfishness and greed, so it feels like a society that doesn’t seem to regulate them is missing something. Anarchism regulates them by using social pressure.
Anarchism regulates them by using social pressure.
That’s what all post-capitalist forms of socioeconomic organization aim to do anyways, so it is a necessary step
I was referring to this part of your comment:
As more and more anarchist systems start popping up (although this is probably never going to happen) this would transform to a more independent/self-sustaining system. But what that system looks like doesn’t really matter, because whatever it is will be determined by the ones who make it.
I don’t want to speak on whether anarchism as a concept is possible or not—it can be depending on material realities—I’m more speaking to your concept of “that system will be established if and when more anarchies pop up (which you’re skeptical of yourself)”. So my question is this:
What’s to be done in the interim? You’ve acknowledged that multiple anarchic communes are highly unlikely to spring up anytime soon, so how do you get there?
Getting people involved. Creating spaces where anarchic relations are the norm, and letting these spaces naturally grow, split and transform. What I’m talking about isn’t a single political system that people follow but rather a different way to approach everyday interactions with each other. It’s not “we need to take over factories and farms and start establishing collective production and ownership”. It’s “we need to create anarchic connections with the people who work in the farms and factories and build relationships to exchange resources among ourselves without money”. I don’t advocate for the destruction of the state because the path I want to take to anarchism ignores the state entirely. (or at least until they start shooting at me).
Ignoring the bit on “vanguardism bad and Marxism ancient” for now, though I disagree vehemontly with both. One thing that you bring up is that a lot of the currently or formerly existing anarchist societies depend on outside production and donation. It simply isn’t feasible to produce, say, a smartphone horizontally. You need rare earths, highly trained individuals for circuit manufacturing, incredible amounts of previous capital and continuous organization of labor and logistics to make it all come together. The anarchists can either concede that smartphones are unnecessary (along with anything else that takes such huge production scales to create), or concede that they depend on outside production that can do so.
Marxists do focus on class, the mode of production, the base. Marxists focus on the liberation of all peoples, not just those within our immediate communities. And to be fair, most anarchists also tend to care about liberation for everyone, not just their immediate communities, but the key difference is that Marxism does not depend on everyone believing the same thing, or rely on production from the outside. Marxism focuses on the liberation of all oppressed peoples and the satisfaction of everyone’s needs, forever.
Social relations are core to Marxism. The economy is just one such social relation, but there’s also culture, hegemony, art, and class itself. You cannot have Marxism without analysis of social relations.
Oh I absolutely could spend a lot of mental effort trying to explain “marxism bad” (It would actually be Vanguardism bad, marxism ancient) but I just don’t care enough. I have no interest in being antagonistic (except maybe for a couple of quips), cause it’s not going to change anything.
Production and distribution (henceforth economy) is necessary there isn’t a magical grace period where people stop needing food. For any anarchist system to work they need to have an economy. The anarchist systems that exist right now solve this by relying on donations and members having jobs. As more and more anarchist systems start popping up (although this is probably never going to happen) this would transform to a more independent/self-sustaining system. But what that system looks like doesn’t really matter, because whatever it is will be determined by the ones who make it.
This is the ultimate difference between anarchism and everything else, and the reason why I think so many people bounce off it. Anarchism requires belief in people. That whatever system they come up with will work and compliment others who will be able to build their own systems: Economic, social or political.
Anarchy is a process of creating social structures that defy oppression, control and manipulation, and believing that these structures will be able to solve the problems they face. It’s not just about economy but about the connections people form. When I look at communists I see only economic analysis: Class, Production, Ownership. Concepts which are secondary to the thing that actually matters: eliminating oppression and exploitation, not just economic, but also social and political.
This sounds like utopianism, and i don’t know if it’s whether you didn’t do a thorough job of explaining anarchism or that this is actually what anarchism is.
anarchism, marxism, feminism, egalitarianism, anti-racism. these are all deeply interrelated utopianist movements.
Utopian here meaning unrealistic, not what’s ideal
Technically utopianism refers to the practice of imagining a better society and thinking you can implement it through fiat, ie by convincing everyone to agree with you. It’s like theorycrafting a society and thinking that you just need to convince everyone it’s the way.
Examples include the Owenites and Saint-Simone, both of which tried their own little isolated societies that they tried to get others to copy, but they fizzled and died. Marxism advanced upon this by looking at socialism not as something to create in a vacuum, but as the logical next step in class struggle, ie feudalism gave way to capitalism which gives way to socialism which gives way to communism due to the unfolding of dialectical processes and relationships (in example, the centralization of production into monopoly in capitalism kills competition, increases the proletariat with ratio to capitalists, and paves the way for central planning and collectivization of production and distribution).
Utopianism is unrealistic, but it isn’t defined by that.
That’s a strict Engelsian application of the term. Maybe i should’ve used idealistic. Particularly in reference to this portion of their comment:
Also i think it’s best if Marxists abandon this framing:
It sounds teleological and gave rise to the many erroneous anarchist critiques we’re now dealing with. You can say that the internal contradictions that capitalism present create the possibility for socialism, but that by no means guarantees it
That’s not what anarchism is. It’s just what I currently think of when discussing anarchism. Anarchism is nothing more than opposition to authority. And while there are common beliefs there is no single understanding of what exactly that means or looks like.
The reason it seems utopian is because our current society rewards selfishness and greed, so it feels like a society that doesn’t seem to regulate them is missing something. Anarchism regulates them by using social pressure.
That’s what all post-capitalist forms of socioeconomic organization aim to do anyways, so it is a necessary step
I was referring to this part of your comment:
I don’t want to speak on whether anarchism as a concept is possible or not—it can be depending on material realities—I’m more speaking to your concept of “that system will be established if and when more anarchies pop up (which you’re skeptical of yourself)”. So my question is this:
What’s to be done in the interim? You’ve acknowledged that multiple anarchic communes are highly unlikely to spring up anytime soon, so how do you get there?
What exactly are you advocating for really?
Getting people involved. Creating spaces where anarchic relations are the norm, and letting these spaces naturally grow, split and transform. What I’m talking about isn’t a single political system that people follow but rather a different way to approach everyday interactions with each other. It’s not “we need to take over factories and farms and start establishing collective production and ownership”. It’s “we need to create anarchic connections with the people who work in the farms and factories and build relationships to exchange resources among ourselves without money”. I don’t advocate for the destruction of the state because the path I want to take to anarchism ignores the state entirely. (or at least until they start shooting at me).
Ignoring the bit on “vanguardism bad and Marxism ancient” for now, though I disagree vehemontly with both. One thing that you bring up is that a lot of the currently or formerly existing anarchist societies depend on outside production and donation. It simply isn’t feasible to produce, say, a smartphone horizontally. You need rare earths, highly trained individuals for circuit manufacturing, incredible amounts of previous capital and continuous organization of labor and logistics to make it all come together. The anarchists can either concede that smartphones are unnecessary (along with anything else that takes such huge production scales to create), or concede that they depend on outside production that can do so.
Marxists do focus on class, the mode of production, the base. Marxists focus on the liberation of all peoples, not just those within our immediate communities. And to be fair, most anarchists also tend to care about liberation for everyone, not just their immediate communities, but the key difference is that Marxism does not depend on everyone believing the same thing, or rely on production from the outside. Marxism focuses on the liberation of all oppressed peoples and the satisfaction of everyone’s needs, forever.
Social relations are core to Marxism. The economy is just one such social relation, but there’s also culture, hegemony, art, and class itself. You cannot have Marxism without analysis of social relations.
You sound cool and seem to have enough patience to counter ML-propaganda. Hope you stick around :)