So, more propaganda that Biden is a Communist? Really, that's how you make that point and comparison? Tired of the Dems are Communist trope when it's not true. Sure Biden is for the worker - THE WORKER IS THE MIDDLE CLASS!!
Which by Trump has been shrunk, and not in a good way, making it harder for middle class workers. Biden, whether I agree with him or not, clearly thinks MORE about the middle class and worker protections than Trump ever has done.
Anti-communists thinking that by doing blanket condemnations of past mistakes instead of historical and material analysis of why it happened, how much was necessary, and how much was the excess, they can totally avoid them in the future and bring down capitalism with the power of love.
How many times does the same mistake have to repeat? Communists didn't invent revolutions you know. Peasant rebellions were a thing in medieval Europe, and many different kinds of uprisings were tried during the centuries. And there's the same pattern repeating again and again - it either fails in bloodshed, or succeeds only for the winners to establish a new tyrannical system.
The only exception was started by rich landowners because they didn't want to pay taxes to the king. (American)
Note that I'm talking about violent revolutions - there were quite a few examples of non-violent or semi-violent revolts/uprisings that didn't end up catastrophically. India, South Africa, Portugal, post-communist Eastern Europe come to mind.
The only exception was started by rich landowners because they didn't want to pay taxes to the king. (American)
You really think the US is the only American colony that seceded from its colonial authority by means of violence? And are you implying that the current US government isn't tyrannical?
or succeeds only for the winners to establish a new tyrannical system
You're just making that up. You're tautologically defining any successful violent revolution as failed because it didn't eliminate every single hierarchy overnight. Even if I'm a Marxist-Leninist I can conceive why you'd make that argument about the USSR (though I'd disagree with you), but if you make that argument about Cuba too you're just wrong. Cuba is a state much more democratic and much less oppressive by every metric than its predecessor. You're just falling into that mentality that "the only acceptable revolutions are those which failed".
Additionally, you're failing to acknowledge that non-violent revolutions, such as Allende's Chile and the Spanish Second Republic, can end up in bloodshed and a more authoritarian and repressive form of government not as a consequence of violent revolution, but as a consequence of the lack of it. As a Spanish myself, I'd have much rather seen a version of my country where there was an armed socialist repression against fascism (for example by the CNT or some Bolshevik party), than the history we lived, where a democratically elected, non-violent leftist government was nevertheless couped, plunged into civil war, and eventually turned into fascism. An armed revolution could have actually possibly prevented that. (Funny historical note: the only country that really supported the struggle against fascism in Spain was the USSR, despite the Italian and German fascists helping their Spanish counterpart.)
What's the alternative? Ending up like Allende, or the Spanish second republic, or Rosa Luxembourg? "The only good socialist movements are those who fail"
You need to take power in a way that doesn't make a majority of the population hate your guts. Democracy is the worst system of government, except for all the others.
You say that as if communists don't want democracy. I want the highest degree of democracy possible, I just understand that the material conditions that allow revolutions don't always allow for extremely high democracy at the beginning, and how a vanguard party of communist intellectuals can initially serve well to guide an uneducated populace or, worse, educated against communism as we are now.
The way to such a system can't be through a violent uprising, you'll be seen as illegitimate and opportunists. Revolutions themselves are very volatile points in history, and it can be very easy for the wrong person or set of people to take the reigns of power. We don't want another Stalin or Mao.
You're insulting all the people who suffered even more oppressive regimes than Stalin or Mao as a consequence of NOT arming themselves. Chileans suffered Pinochet as a consequence of lack of oppression of the fascist opposition during Allende. Spanish suffered Franco as a consequence of lack of oppression of the fascists during the Spanish Second Republic. Oppression is sadly a tool that must be used, as sparingly as possible that's true, to prevent reactionary elements from maintaining or reinstating even more oppressive structures.
People everyday in post-colonial countries suffer immeasurable despair as a consequence of lack of revolution. If you criticise Stalin or Mao and consider them undesirable and illegitimate, you should be even more convinced of the illegitimacy of current western governments that impose imperialism on the global south. Every day that we delay or refuse these armed revolutions, we're perpetuating this system which is even more harmful than the USSR or communist China by any metric possible.
So we just need super smart authoritarian communist to lead a bloody revolution backed by the uneducated masses that will then be handed over peacefully to the uneducated masses once communism is firmly established?
I support communism, I want revolutionary change, and I'm an idealist. But I don't understand how that's realistically possible. Theoretically possible, but the number of complications that would arise, the number of variables that could go wrong and destroy the entire movement, how easy it would be to corrupt... It's never happened before for a reason, and having violent, bloody revolutions every few decades in the hopes it finally works perfectly this time doesn't seem constructive or intelligent to me. There has to be a better way to balance how fast the change happens and how fragile and volatile the system will be during the change
Have you read Marxist theory? Marxists don't typically identify themselves as idealists, preferring instead Materialism, specifically Historical and Dialectical Materialism.
Reading theory may help you better engage with leftists online.
Right, sorry for the confusion. I was referring to the definition of idealist "One whose conduct or thinking is influenced by ideals that often conflict with practical considerations. "
Not that I necessarily am "An adherent of any system of philosophical idealism."
But yes, I'll read more Marxist theory specifically. I don't have trouble interacting with leftists online very much, it's just when I see leftists who are strictly authoritarian. The "by any means necessary" just ain't it for me
I understand what you meant, it's just that Marxists don't take on that mantle whatsoever. Same with your notion that we rely on some "super smart authoritarian," that goes against revolutionary theory.
That's why I suggested reading theory. You seem to have an idea of what you want your end to be, and why current Capitalism is bad, but you lack organizational and Dialectical Materialist theory.
There's a reason we have realism in political science though. Theory isnt the truth of how things play out in real life, especially when it comes to the social sciences. We need descriptions just as much, if not moreso, than prescriptions.
We need, as commies, to establish grassroots movements that will improve things locally, create safety nets, organize labor to get progressively better victories through strike and if necessary through other means, and to have a growing sector of workers that are class-conscious. When the material conditions arrive, we need to have a critical mass of class-conscious workers so that we can organise as best as possible, and help to educate the rest of people, and to discuss the wants and needs of the workers and translate those needs to the vanguard party. But we also need the vanguard party.
You talk about how things can "go wrong and corrupt the entire thing", but by doing so you're forgetting that that's already the case, that we live in a corrupt, bloody and oppressive system, which kills millions every year worldwide through violent and less-violent means. You say it's never happened, but I disagree with you. Ask an anarchist and they'll tell you about Zapatista and Rohinya movements. Ask a Marxist-Leninist like me and we'll tell you about Cuba and the USSR and why we believe they're inherently more democratic and less oppressive than the current system, although admittedly not perfect. Our best tool to prevent the system from being corrupt, is to have as many class-conscious workers as possible. So let's organise labor, let's create communities and activist organizations, and let's improve things on a local level, so that people's material conditions start to improve and as a bonus we can draw more people to the movement that actively improves their lives.
That's a bit goofy, but then I will amend the original statement with clarity: revolutionaries do not necessarily support random individual movements, but mass revolutionary action among the workers.
You're contradicting yourself little buddy, just earlier you were claiming that mass popular support is democracy. But apparently an uprising of the oppressed is just a coup. 🤡
Have these gentlemen ever seen a revolution? A revolution is certainly the most authoritarian thing there is. It is the act by which one part of the population imposes its will on the other part by means of rifles, bayonets and cannons — by the most authoritarian means possible; and the victors, if they do not want to have fought in vain, must maintain this rule by means of the terror which their arms inspire in the reactionaries. Would the Paris Commune have lasted a single day if the communards had not used the authority of the armed people against the bourgeoisie? Should we not, on the contrary, reproach them for not having used it enough?
Therefore, we must conclude one of two things: either the anti-authoritarians don’t know what they’re talking about, in which case they are only sowing confusion; or they do know, in which case they are betraying the proletarian movement. In either case, they serve reaction.
An anticommunist breadtuber (but I repeat myself) debunks Engels 😂 Anarchism, unlike Marxism-Leninism, has yet to succeed in the real world for more than a few months. We will welcome anarchists’ lectures once they’ve proven their theory in praxis.
Anarchism’s lack of success to date is historical fact, and I think that’s reason enough not to take the time to engage with some Burgerland anarchist’s video essay.
The laws or nature impose required forms of organization upon human society to function. The "double slavery" idea is not some obscure idea. When humans enslave nature to use it for their benefit, nature enslaved humans and imposes specific forms of organisation in turn. The specific form of organization imposed upon a society of large scale industrial producers is large scale centralized organization, in which the will of singular individuals is drowned out.
Ok, I've read it and I'm not impressed. The post on hexbear tries to act as if they were seriously considering the anarchist point of view, they are constantly being disingenuous.
The biggest point of critique againstEngels is that he is effectively strawmanning anti-authoritarians, by using a definition of authority that differs from the anarchist definition in a fundamental way. While the hexbear author acknowledges that fact in the beginning and seems to take the (IMHO flawed) definition of the anarchist's critique at face value, he repeats the same mistake that Engels did and takes Engels' definition as the only logical one.
Authority as indirect or direct force (essentially the engels) argument is the only logical way of definition authority, as the hexbear post argues using the example of the armed mugger. The definition of authority as blind obedience (as defined by the anarchist) is completely flawed in that it doesn't account for the source of the blind obidelience and isn't easy to measure.
The post on hexbear tries to act as if they were seriously considering the anarchist point of view, they are constantly being disingenuous.
I think you're confusing dismissing your viewpoint after engaging with it in a serious way with being disingenuous
The biggest point of critique againstEngels is that he is effectively strawmanning anti-authoritarians, by using a definition of authority that differs from the anarchist definition in a fundamental way.
You mean the definition of authority that the video you linked as a rebuttal is based on? Because that is the one that is being critiqued in a Marxist Response
he repeats the same mistake that Engels did and takes Engels’ definition as the only logical one
The argument is that the alternate definition that the anarchist proposes is incoherent.
They aren't engaging with the definition in a serious way. That is my point.
I follow a different definition, that's more complete, IMHO: Authority is the monopolization of power from the hands of the many to the hands of the few. With that definition, which is compatible with the bulk of anarchist theory, "On authority" is nothing, but the incoherent ramblings of someone with too much personal beef.
The hexbear author not once seriously engages with any of the two viewpoints given in the anarchist rebuttal. They give this example of a robbery, where they try to reach a point with the anarchist's definition and call it absurd. The only reason, they do so, is begause in the middle of their argument, they switch definitions back to Engels' definition. If I change the preconditions in the middle of my logical chain, shit will get goofy. Duh.
You mean the definition of authority that the video you linked as a rebuttal is based on? Because that is the one that is being critiqued.
No. The video and the essay huse different definitions. You didn't watch the -ideo, or didn't listen to it, properly.
The argument is that the alternate definition that the anarchist proposes is incoherent.
The hexbear author fails to do so and doesn't properly represent the anarchist's essay's point of view.
Engels created a straw-man. No anti-authoritarian thinks that necessity, or self-defense is authority. Therefore, they don't argue against necessity, or self-defense.
I follow a different definition, that’s more complete, IMHO: Authority is the monopolization of power from the hands of the many to the hands of the few.
Okay:
then don't link a video to defend your point that you don't agree with
then Marxist Leninist projects meet your definition of anti-authoritarian?
They give this example of a robbery, where they try to reach a point with the anarchist’s definition and call it absurd. The only reason, they do so, is begause in the middle of their argument, they switch definitions back to Engels’ definition.
The robber example rebuts the claim by the most popular anarchist rebuttal that authority is established by unquestioning obedience. Did you not read the anarchist rebuttal?
This feels like a basic misreading of the text.
No. The video and the essay huse different definitions. You didn’t watch the -ideo, or didn’t listen to it, properly.
No, you don't get to claim this after your failure to read, I spent 45 minutes that I will never get back listening to inane shit like him claiming "steam isn't authority" without understanding how the circumstances of prime mover operation is socially created and influences downstream production processes, or "delegates and representatives are different actually, silly Engels" It was the same inane failures of reading along similar thrusts to the article.
The hexbear author fails to do so and doesn’t properly represent the anarchist’s essay’s point of view.
How would you know? You didn't fucking read it, if you didn't source the argument of "authority is created through unquestioning obedience"!
Engels created a straw-man. No anti-authoritarian thinks that necessity, or self-defense is authority.
There are literally those who think self defense is authority but justifiable authority, did you read the "Problems with "On Authority""? No?
The video used the same definition. I never claimed it was congruent with the essay on the anarchist library.
Lol, no. Power was incredibly monopolized by the bolsheviki and their Komisars.
I read the anarchist rebuttal. It made clear that force and authority are different things. The robbery example would not be authority, but force, according to the anarchist essay. The hexbear author didn't understand that, or misrepresented the anarchist.
It's ok, if you didn't get the video. How is steam a monopolization of power?
Do you know the difference between a free and an imperative mandate? If not, then you don't understand the anarchist's critique.
How would you know? You didn't fucking read it, if you didn't source the argument of "authority is created through unquestioning obedience"!
I did read both the anarchist's rebuttal and the hexbear comment (as far as I could stomach). I don't completely agree with the anarchist's rebuttal, which is why I didn't share it. The hexbear bloke didn't genuinely take the anarchist's proposal seriously, as I've explained several times now.
There are literally those who think self defense is authority but justifiable authority, did you read the "Problems with "On Authority""? No?
That's not what the essay's author claims. The essay's author doesn't view self-defense as "blind obedience", hence they don't think it is authority. Please stop misrepresenting stuff, it's getting exhausting.
It's no use arguing, if we both don't accept each other's definition of authority. You claim that the anarchist definition is incomplete, which you try to prove with Engels' definition. I say that no anti-authoritarian uses the same definition as Engels and the cycle continues.
Just admit that you don't want to consider anarchist perspectives. It would save you a lot of time.
Lol, no. Power was incredibly monopolized by the bolsheviki and their Komisars.
Okay so the first problem is that you're basing your ideas around the soviet union on popular western media and not an actual understanding of how the system worked.
Here is a fun rabbit hole to go down.. how did too much horizontalism lead to a failure to cyberize the planned economy ala cybersyn?
The video used the same definition. I never claimed it was congruent with the essay on the anarchist library.
Timestamp.
It’s ok, if you didn’t get the video. How is steam a monopolization of power?
The decisions made regarding the nature and circumstances of operation impose restrictions on all operatives in the system, ergo decisions made on a local level affect everyone. It is the monopolization of the use of literal power (and torque) unless you reject specialization, it is the imposition of authority. And rejecting specialization on a practical societal level requires a massive imposition of authority.
Do you know the difference between a free and an imperative mandate?
Yes, are you asking a ML if they don't understand the difference between strong and weak delegates? Y'all know democratic centralism is our thing right? Which is a much more thorough application of the principle.
The robbery example would not be authority, but force, according to the anarchist essay.
LOL. Someone pointing a gun at you and giving you instructions isn't authority? It isn't the monopolization of violence in this context?
The essay’s author doesn’t view self-defense as “blind obedience”, hence they don’t think it is authority.
The essays author establishes that some anarchists define self defense as a justifiable exercise in authority.
You claim that the anarchist definition is incomplete, which you try to prove with Engels’ definition.
No, the argument is that the anarchist definition isn't grounded in materialism.
I say that no anti-authoritarian uses the same definition as Engels and the cycle continues.
That is because Engels is a dialectical materialist and convinced that definitions grounded in dialectical materialism are superior- his problem is that anarchists are being idealist in their definition, and that they should embrace a more coherent definition of it.
Just admit that you don’t want to consider anarchist perspectives.
I spent a couple years reading anarchist literature, and turned to reading marxist lit when the anarchists started giving unsatisfactory explanations.
This might be your pipeline. But I would suggest avoiding wasting time on YouTube.
I agree, post-radicalization Anarchism is a comforting and easy position to adopt, because western Anarchists tend to rail against Marxism, which fits with liberal anticommunism.
On authority is used to justify the fact that many communist movements of the past turned into brutal dictatorships and that "it's fine actually that mao starved half of China because you can't have a revolution without being authoritarian".
The actual paper is short and kind of stupid. What Engels was arguing in that short essay with a ridiculously outsized influence was that he was technically correct (the best kind) that anarchists are silly because any type of government someone could propose inevitably involves one person imposing their will on another like your quote says.
Really what Engels (who was a prominent communist thinker) was doing was fucking up any attempts at communist organization because now 1/3 of communists think that brutal authoritarianism is based and necessary for a revolution.
This is the kind of analysis you get when you have no understanding how organizations work. Mao was not some lone actor who miraculously acquired supreme power, and then starved "half of China" for shits and giggles apparently.
Anyone familiar with the way that Mao operated knows that he made frequent use of the mass line and mass mobilisation. He also made use of the collective leadership of the party, and was often frustrated by their lack of cooperation with him (at one point even threatening to launch a revolution against the party). Even anti-communists who have at least studied China in detail know that the lone dictator nonsense is well, nonsense. It is just great man theory of history. A society is made of many moving parts.
As to the failures of the glf, they were entirely technical. The rush to industrialise in a decentralised manner left agricultural production vulnerable to poor weather conditions. This was compounded with the fact that much of the country at the time had poor transportation and communications, and ruled by corrupt cardie, leading to a disastrous lack of effective coordination across the nation. It is only with higher level organization today that countries can mount effective disaster responses. The glf proves the opposite of your point.
He mostly explained how he actually didn't really have a proper grasp of what authority actually means. He conflated them with a lot of things without actually making sense. I'm surprised why "On authority" is so widely known.
He has a great grasp on how often Anarchists operate mainly on vibes, even if in practice when they get into power they still implement some form of authoritarianism, such as the labor camps in Revolutionary Catalonia.
Sorry, but claiming that just shows that someone didn't engage at all with anarchist theory.
Edit - addendum: even if this wasn't true back then in Engel's days: Still quoting him today ignores all that anarchist theory on power that happened since then.
I have, I used to lean more Anarchist, until I read more Marxist theory. Concepts like ParEcon were extremely interesting, and could be applied to both an Anarchist system or a Worker State. I am aware of Anarchist principles of horizontal organization, and I think they are quite beautiful, but I am also aware that Anarchist critique of Marxism falls flat almost all of the time.
How exactly would Marx denounce Lenin? Or Mao? That's a supremely goofy statement.
Bakunin was not correct in analyzing power. If saying "states have issues" counts as being "correct" enough to only approve a system that has only ever lasted a few years at a time, you're intentionally missing the forest for the trees. The USSR was by no means perfect, but it was history's first true Socialist state and managed to prove that Socialism does work.
While he didn't specifically denounce Lenin or Mao, he himself exclaimed once, reacting to self-appointed Marxists: "All I know is that I'm not a marxist." That's what I was referencing.
Are you sure you read anarchist theory? Bakunin didn't claim that states "had issues". Here's a quote, for example:
That is because no state, not even the most republican and democratic, not even the pseudo-popular state contemplated by Marx, in essence represents anything but government of the masses from above downward, by an educated and thereby privileged minority which supposedly understands the real interests of the people better than the people themselves.
The USSR was a state-capitalist state, where the bourgeoisy was replaced with bureaucrats - as predicted by Bakunin. If it were truly socialist, it wouldn't have taken away power from the soviets and Lenin wouldn't have abolished unions in favour of his high-modernist ideas.
That's a bit ridiculous, with respect to the Marx claim. Marx was attacking Dogmatism, not his own ideas. Post-Marx's death, people following his ideas understandably called themselves Marxists not because they worshipped Marx, but because they were working with his ideas!
As for Bakunin, he's a pure idealist here. His rejection of the state is based on the notion that the elected cannot represent the will of the people because they are not the people. This, of course, is wrong, as it assumes the people do not want someone managing higher-order decisions! Letting vast improvements in material conditions be held back because workers had representatives is why Anarchism has failed to last very long.
As for the USSR being "State Capitalist," that referred to the NEP. Judging Leftist movements by their structure as compared to perfect Marxism in a vacuum without considering the historical context is deeply silly idealism. You would have to do some heavy justification for why you believe a worker state to form a new class that isn't just vibes.
I'm not claiming he denounced his own ideas, but rather the people claiming to represent marxism. I'm not claiming that anyone worshipped Marx, but that they misunderstood his work.
No, sorry. Claiming that a state can work to not enslave the masses, just because "the right people" are in charge is the actual idealism.
Your claim about representation is wrong, too. Sorry. Anarchist regions have collapsed due to external military pressure. You should read a book on how well the material conditions improved in Catalonia. Sorry, your claims about anarghist regions failing to improve their material condition runs counter to reality and to the actual Marxist theory (that only the people can free themselves, etc.)
The whole planned economy was bogus. What do you think a class is?
Again, you claim that you know anything about anarchist theory and show time and time again that you don't have the slightest of an idea.
Yes, all of the Marxists have failed to understand Marx, it is in fact Prunebutt who resurrected Marx and got him to denounce everyone who used his ideas.
That's a deeply silly statement, please explain why you think Lenin misunderstood Marx.
I believe that elected representatives can represent those that elect them if you don't have Capitalism. Saying you can't have that and just saying "no, you're the idealist" is unproductive and goes nowhere.
Material Conditions did improve in Catalonia! Never said they didn't, that's a claim you lied about me saying, though I'll let it slide this time. A lot did work, but a lack of proper organization led to losing to outside pressure.
Again, you claim that you know anything about anarchist and Marxist theory and show time and time again that you don't have the slightest of an idea.
Yes, all of the Marxists have failed to understand Marx, it is in fact *Prunebutt* who resurrected Marx and got him to denounce everyone who used his ideas.
Am I not allowed to make a joke? Your point was that since Marx dissavowed some self-proclaimed Marxists during his lifetime, that those that followed him and took on the moniker must also not understand his ideas. You have to admit this is silly and not logically supported, right? That's like saying burgers are chicken sandwiches, because both have meat in buns.
The role of money in soviet society was always subordinate to material production. Money was necessary only due to the technical limitations of planning a vast economy without sufficient computing power. The sphere of commodity exchange was supressed as much as possible. Much of the soviet citizen's consumption was either heavily subsidised or free. This went all the way from food, transportation to even fancy entertainment (like spas and theatres). In fact, the heavy distortion of prices in soviet society is often cited as a reason for its eventual collapse.
Therefore, calling the soviet union state capitalist is absurd. Capitalism requires a dominant bourgeois class, the operation of the law of value and the anarchy of production. None of these elements were present in the soviet union.
The problem with anarchist theory is that it demonstrably doesn't work. A theory that can't be put into practice is not worth the paper its written on.
Aww somebody's projecting. I love how you deny the reality of socialism that has been achieved in the real world while accusing me of idealism. Peak anarchist logic right there. 🤡
That's right, being a foul tankie, I'm completely incapable of independent thought and simply do what my betters tell me like an automaton that I am. Only enlightened dronies are capable of truly independent thinking.
Hey, I stepped into an anarchist space to read the most popular critique of on authority, you can step into a non-sectarian left space to read a critique of the critique.
If the critique was well founded we'd see it applied in practice in the real world. The fact that anarchists aren't able to put their ideas into practice shows that they can be safely binned.
Seriously. I might not be a great "Marx Scholar" and I don't think the revolution will just be a peaceful process "whished into existence" but I don't think Marx was Dunkin g on anti authoritarians here and to presume the "dictatorship of the proletariat" is the long term free society of Marx ideals is utter garbage.
Communism will be anti-authoritarian or it will not be.
The thing is that anarchism fundamentally doesn't scale. There's a reason we see central authority arise in every functioning society regardless of its political system. It's the same reason complex animals evolve things like nervous systems and brains. Large organism need a way to coordinate actions towards a common purpose, and a human society is no different. This is why we see anarchist style societies at small scales, and then as they grow they develop central coordination mechanisms. The fact that anarchist can't wrap their heads around this simple concept is frankly depressing.
Anarchists tend to fall for idealism, and see only Anarchism as "good" and therefore acceptable. That's really the key point, they feel like they must unify means and ends, and that the microscopic chance that one day Anarchism may be established is worth fighting for.
It's idealism to the core and puts the individual over the well-being of the group.
Indeed, and this is why anarchism is really just an offshoot of the liberal ideology at the end of the day. Idealism holds that existence is inseparable from human perception and that reality stems from the mind. This leads them to think that they can just will reality into existence through sheer force of will. The general premise most anarchists seem to believe is that the state is responsible for all the problems in society, and if it was somehow abolished then people would just naturally act in cooperative and enlightened way. This appears to be premised on the assumption that most people think the way anarchists do.
You claim to know with great detail and certainty what anarchists believe without citing any anarchist thinkers. All you are doing is constructing a strawman of anarchists based on vibes hoping that none will be here to refute it. Anarchy is more than the absence of the state, and none who are knowledgeable posit that anarchy will materialize without effort. Anarchists are idealists not out of naivete, but necessity. It has been born out of history that when means and ends are not unified, the means become the ends. This was true of the Russian revolution when "all power to the Soviets" became hollow words and "war communism" became the new oppressor of the people.
Nah, I'm going by the actual tangible achievements, or lack of thereof as the case may be, of anarchists based on the teachings of their thinkers.
This was true of the Russian revolution when “all power to the Soviets” became hollow words and “war communism” became the new oppressor of the people.
Having actually grown up in USSR, I can tell you that listening to anarchists regurgitate this nonsense is incredibly offensive. It completely discredits your argument and shows that it is you who's opining on a subject you have no understanding of. All people like you accomplish is enable capitalist oppression by rejecting real world solutions.
Nah, I'm going by the actual tangible achievements, or lack of thereof as the case may be, of anarchists based on the teachings of their thinkers.
The Bolsheviks discount anarchist achievements by claiming them as their own. Anarchists fought alongside the Bolsheviks because they promised to realize the anarchists' goal of all power to the Soviets. When it became clear the Bolsheviks lied in order to selfishly establish themselves as the intelligentsia, a privileged class, the anarchists resisted and were violently repressed by their former brothers and sisters in arms.
I would like to hear about your experiences growing up in the USSR as I know there were many positive aspects, but by betraying the values for which many of the revolutionaries fought they created a society with an unstable foundation, as evidenced by its' eventual collapse. Anarchists did not reject real world solutions, they defended them with their lives and lost. The Bolsheviks have themselves to blame for the collapse.
This clearly illustrates that anarchists are not capable of organizing in effective ways that can protect their ideology. The same way anarchists ended up losing to Bolsheviks, they end up losing to capitalists, and fascists. What Bolsheviks achieved was to build a socialist state that was able to defend itself and greatly improve the lives of the working majority. Anarchists simply aren't capable of doing that as the past century has shown beyond all doubt.
USSR was the first ever attempt at building socialism at scale, and while it may have collapsed, other socialist projects live on today and continue to improve lives of over a billion people on this planet.
You're using the same argument capitalists use to dismiss socialism, namely that socialism clearly doesn't work because all socialist projects ended in collapse or continue in a state of poverty. This is, in essence, victim-blaming. Just as socialism struggles under the oppression of capitalist hegemony, anarchism struggles under the oppression of both capitalists and statists.
What Bolsheviks achieved was the betrayal of all who fought for the liberation of the proletariat. If power had gone to the Soviets as the Bolsheviks promised then the USSR would not have collapsed under the weight of its' contradictions. You speak as if the USSR only repressed the forces of reaction, but it also repressed the very same workers it claimed to support when they tried to claim the worker control of the means of production they were promised.
What I'm pointing out is that all ideologies compete with others. That's the reality of the world. If Anarchists are not able to defend the way they want to organize society then their ideology ends up being trampled by others. That's the world we live in. Calling this victim blaming doesn't change the material reality of the world.
The difference between anarchists and communists is that the latter actually managed to build functional societies, and to effectively resist capitalism. Anarchists failed to do that, and the reasons for why anarchist approach fails time and again are well understood now.
What Bolsheviks achieved was the betrayal of all who fought for the liberation of the proletariat.
Repeating nonsense over and over will not make it true.
You speak as if the USSR only repressed the forces of reaction, but it also repressed the very same workers it claimed to support when they tried to claim the worker control of the means of production they were promised.
This is an idealist position that's divorced from realities of the world. USSR existed under siege from global capitalism throughout its whole existence, and that was the reason it was organized the way it was.
What I'm pointing out is that all ideologies compete with others. That's the reality of the world. If Anarchists are not able to defend the way they want to organize society then their ideology ends up being trampled by others. That's the world we live in. Calling this victim blaming doesn't change the material reality of the world.
The Bolsheviks' had the ill-gotten might to push their agenda, but might does not make right. The Bolsheviks lied to and used the anarchists to achieve what they did, but anarchists have learned from their past mistakes and will prove you wrong.
USSR existed under siege from global capitalism throughout its whole existence, and that was the reason it was organized the way it was.
Capitalist aggression did not make necessary the regressive views on social issues and science the USSR had (which resulted in famine), nor the widespread corruption and bureaucratic inefficiency of state officials. You cannot simply excuse all flaws of the USSR by blaming global capitalism.
The Bolsheviks’ had the ill-gotten might to push their agenda, but might does not make right. The Bolsheviks lied to and used the anarchists to achieve what they did, but anarchists have learned from their past mistakes and will prove you wrong.
No amount of moralizing will change the fact that anarchists fail to organize effectively time and again. If anarchists actually learned anything then we'd see that put into practice. The lack of any actual achievements is the elephant in the room here.
Capitalist aggression did not make necessary the regressive views on social issues and science the USSR had (which resulted in famine), nor the widespread corruption and bureaucratic inefficiency of state officials. You cannot simply excuse all flaws of the USSR by blaming global capitalism.
Yes, it absolutely did as anybody with even minimal historical knowledge would know.
This is getting repetitive and we're just talking past each other so let's just agree to disagree about the USSR. I just want to make the point - which I hope we can agree on - that the revolution wouldn't have been successful without political pluralism within the ranks, and no future revolution will either. Dismissing the contributions of anarchists will only harm your cause.
Revolutions require a critical mass of people to come together, and sometimes people who have different vision for the end goal find opportunities to work together as Bolsheviks and anarchists did. Lenin wrote extensively on the subject of when alliances should be formed. MLs don't have a problem working with anarchists, recognizing that there are common interests and that a time may come where such alliances may need to be rethought. The hate largely comes from the side of anarchists who refuse to work with MLs and spend their time trying to discredit the accomplishments of existing socialist states.
It's also worth noting that the reality in the west today is that both MLs and anarchists are an insignificant political minority. If the current system does end up collapsing in the near future, then fascism is the most likely outcome. While the left bickers, the right is rapidly growing in power in vast majority of western countries.
The hate largely comes from the side of anarchists who refuse to work with MLs and spend their time trying to discredit the accomplishments of existing socialist states.
You have been discrediting the accomplishments of anarchists while I have been acknowledging the accomplishments of marxists.
While the left bickers, the right is rapidly growing in power in vast majority of western countries.
I agree, but remember this conversation was started because you were insinuating that anarchists never accomplished anything.
You have been discrediting the accomplishments of anarchists while I have been acknowledging the accomplishments of marxists.
I've been pointing out that anarchists have not managed to put their ideas into practice on any appreciable scale while Marxists have done this. Ultimately, what I'm telling you is that anarchists need to show how they can actually make their ideas work and withstand the challenges that they face in the real world. This is a problem that anarchists have not been able to solve in my view.
You say that it's the fault of Bolsheviks that anarchists didn't get their way in USSR, but there's no reason to believe that anarchists would've fared any better against the capitalist invasion that followed in 1918, or against the nazis a couple of decades later. In fact, the centralization of power that you decried was ultimately what allowed USSR to rapidly industrialize and come out victorious in WW2.
Meanwhile, I completely agree that the socialist projects that Marxists managed to build are not without their own problems. Yet, I think they are a strict improvement over capitalism as imperfect as they may be. My view is that the threat of fascism is very real and that it grows by the day, and in face of that the left should focus on using tools that have been proven to defeat fascism in the past.
The dictatorship of the proletariat literally just means that the bourgeoisie are suppressed politically until they can be integrated into the rest of society, it doesn't mean a dictatorship, it means a democracy where the former oppressors don't get a seat at the table.
Mark Twain Two Reigns of Terror Quote never gets old. People are blind to all the normalized terror around them that happens soley because one class seeks to maintain its dominance over the class they exploit to make thier lifestyles possible.
I like how the reactionary communities post shit that isn't thought out. Then you got a couple of... Left communities where they post thought out essays. Too long to read but probably mostly true
the meme is referencing a quote from marx that is greatly useful for dunking on idealist leftists who believe that the revolution can simply be wished into existence without all the dirty work.
Obviously they do, they are dunking on armchair leftists that judge every leftist movement on how perfect it is, but judge all liberal structures with supreme nuance.
we have no compassion and we ask no compassion from you. When our turn comes, we shall not make excuses for the terror. but the royal terrorists, the terrorists by the grace of god and the law, are in practice brutal, disdainful, and mean, in theory cowardly, secretive, and deceitful, and in both respects disreputable.
Typical Stalinism/Maoism: Anyone who opposes my implementation of Marxism is an enemy of the proletariat and can be persecuted to any extent. These people agree with the mainstream idea that communism can't be implemented democratically, but come to the conclusion that democracy must be abolished.
This meme is an open dogwhistle to tankies and thankfully meaningless to anyone who hasn't fallen into or interacted with this small subsection of the far-left.
The kind that rails on "anti authoritarianism"? Or do you have a charitable interpretation of "authoritarianism" that is somehow compatible with democracy?
I also fail to see what any of that has to do with capitalism, which I have neither defended nor mentioned yet you brought up.
Goddam arguing with tankies and their endless litany of non-sequiturs is such a pointless exercise.
Do you have evidence of Marx and Engels, both who railed against so-called "anti-authoritarians," saying that "Democracy must be abolished?" Do you have evidence of Marxists who followed them saying "Democracy must be abolished" either? I do not believe you will.
What I do see is Communists advocating for the destruction of Capitalism and the structures that support it, replacing them with proletarian democracy.
It isn't a non-sequitor, your point itself was a strawman that doesn't exist.
I love how being unable to make a coherent argument you go on bleating about tankies. If you admit that capitalism is not a democracy for the majority, then what democracy is being abolished?
Being against "anti-authoritarians" is not the same thing as being "authoritarian" as these categories are not useful in the first place. No marxist considers themselves to be either category.
