If Marx and lenin didn't want a bureocratic state,
Why the anarchist still dislike his work? I mean, they try to fight the problems that the anarchists complain about
If Marx and lenin didn't want a bureocratic state
Tyler Brown
Zachary Nguyen
Why don't you grow up?
Landon Harris
That's because Anarchists are just the lackeys of the state and are just as susceptible to corporate-bureaucratic subversion.
A defining trait of Anarchism is anti-politics. Because anarchists are anti-political, they narrow their horizons to the purely social and don't realize the necessity of the political struggle. Social Democrats can be posited as the opposite of Anarchists insofar that they inhibit the struggle for liberation to the purely political, which cannot fundamentally address the underlying social contradictions that are expressed politically. To be a Marxist, contrary to both Anarchism and Social-Democracy, is to understand the need of translating the social struggle into a political struggle, to understand that the struggle of the proletariat must realize itself through a violent seizure of state power.
Anarchism is pure social and Social-Democracy is pure politics, which seem to be opposites, but are in truth representations of the same essential unity - revisionism. Revisionism is the capitulation of the "Left" to liberal pressure, of tailing behind the logic of capitalism and not seeking in that logic and through it its own destruction. What classical liberalism posits is the division of society into public and private, political and social, state and civil society. Anarchism and Social-Democracy end up capitulating to neoliberalism through their emphasis on one over the other; on the side of Social-Democracy, the existing social order is assumed through its emphasis on the state as the representation of society, and on the side of Anarchism, civil society social organization cannot challenge the forms in which class society's social relations are reproduced and represented politically. In either case, the dictatorship of capital, the bourgeois state and bourgeois political power, are reaffirmed and not fundamentally challenged.
If you were to go to any civil society "NGO" organization with a strong "Left" presence, you'd find that their members (read: bureaucrats) are Social-Democrats, Anarchists, or some confused "Libertarian Socialist" mix of the two.
Nathaniel Gutierrez
nice unfounded opinion you liberal fag.
Confirmed Lenintards for worst posters, do your reading: en.wikipedia.org
Anarchism is its own political theory. Marxism came after Anarchism. Marx got his ideas from Proudhon you stupid fucking smug illiterate imbecile.
Source: Your ass
Anyway OP ignored the retard I just refuted, so anyway;
It's not necessarily Marxism as a whole, but Marx was kinda a prick and that puts people off.
Juan Lee
Political - Polis - State. To assert something as political is to establish that thing as relating to the state. The political struggle is a struggle for state power, which anarchism rejects, dumbass. Anarchist "politics" is by definition an anti-political "politics". The rejection of the political seizure of power by the Anarchists was the very rift that tore apart the First Internationale. I shouldn't have to explain this to a fucking Anarchist, because the rejection of the state and state power is the edifice of your system of belief.
You're the illiterate you fucking moron. What I am illustrating is that the prevailing mode of thinking of the so-called Left, that of "Libertarian Socialism" come from the reconciliation of the seemingly contradictory positions of Anarchism (anti-politics) and Social-Democracy (pure politics), through establishing that their relation is that of an essential unity of revisionism; revisionism defined through the tailing of liberalism. There is a reason why despite the appearance of incompatibility why a general tendency of "Libertarian Democratic Socialism" has become predominant.
Also,
It's not an opinion, it's a fact. The rise of Anarchism in the late 20th century signified the historical defeat of the Left through its capitulation to the corporate state's bureaucratic elitism via the "Left's" capitulation to civil society. Neoliberalism represented the resurrection of classical liberalism through its emphasis on civil society through mass privatization; of a strong "private" (civil) over "public" (political) life. The Left's so-called March through the Institutions (read: the quasi-Gramscian emphasis on civil society) was marked by its rejection of Leninism - of its rejection of the translation of Marxist principles into practice (which Leninism represents), and its embrace of the revisionism of "Libertarian Socialism". The fact of the matter is that these quasi-Left NGOs and the so-called Academic Left represent the capitulation of the Left to the dictatorship of capital, because "purely social" organizations are never purely social, they are always connected somehow to politics, but the rejection of political power through the establishment of organs of political control mean the subordination of these organizations to the political organs of capital.
To quote Lenin, "very often Anarchism is the punishment for the opportunist sins of the labor movement". The reason why such a reactionary tendency arose is because of the historical failure of the Marxist Left to connect socialism with the labor movement, of translating the struggle for socialism into a political struggle.
Thomas Thompson
Marx himself wanted in theory something very similar to the anarchists, although men like Bakunin accused Marx of defending authoritarianism or being secretly supportive of it. Again, in theory the end result of socialism / communism was a classless & stateless society. But Marx was accused of being a closet authoritarian for writing in the manifesto of wanting to centralize finance, credit, banking, and other economic controls in the hands of the state. Which Bakunin and other anarchists said would lead to some kind of dictatorship.
IMO Marx & Engels were sort of equivocal on these things because on the one hand they (like Bakunin) said the Paris Commune was basically their idea of the dictatorship of the proletariat but they also wrote in defense of things like authority, one-man management in industry, and so on. Lenin did the same. Unfortunately, Marxist attempts at organizing resulted in police-states which was not in theory what was supposed to happen.
This link seems fairly accurate if you want an in-depth look at these differences:
libcom.org
Wyatt Martin
This is actually 100% accurate. Many anarchists I know start with "fuck the state" (non)politics: making a blog, printing leaflets, doing graffiti, trying to insert their idiocy to democratic (read: bourgeois) protests, spending a few months in a squat, then finally, after getting older, looking back and realizing that nothing was achieved and that they need a fucking job to eat, joining a Soros founded NGO, since it fits their CV. They justify their whole (non)political career with blatant moralism and the itching "I MUST DO SOMETHING – ANYTHING!" idiocy of your usual activist. If you try to talk sense to them, talk about the experience and lessons of radical tactics and strategy that the working class accumulated through 200 years, they respond with "muh statism" or "muh trillions" or "muh murderous bolsheviks"…
Honestly, when I meet a "leftist" and if he tells me he's an "anarchist" all I hear is "complete and useless idiot", when he tells me he's a "socdem" all I hear is "traitor coward".
Carter Diaz
talk about being a walking stereotype
Evan Wilson
Let's not forget the whole picture: Bakunin (and all of his followers since, like Ketchup from OWS) accuses Marx and Engels, adherents of the party form with its formal rules and democratically decided upon structures, while maintaining himself a secretive "nonchierarchical" cult that basically is a tyranny of one or a few "nonleaders".
It did, and *gasp!* it was a one person dictatorship.
Joseph Evans
I think the soviet union throwing in the towel and basicaly saying "you where right, we where wrong", may be a better signifier of that. The rise of anarchism is just a symptom of the historical failures of Marxism in the 20th century.
But good post non the less.
Isaac Jackson
What does "bureaucratic state" mean? If you are saying Marx and Lenin didn't want Centrally Planned economy, I have bad news for you.
No, he didn't. Do you even know the difference between Anarchism and Marxism?
Not that I'm aware of.
Also, this. Only in my experience, Anarchists often are actively disruptive.
Jeremiah Brooks
I mean a state controlled only by a phew and a state where the workers dont have control
Mason Stewart
Easton Ross
No ML or Leninist (at least before Stalin) will admit the workers did not have control in the USSR.
If you're OP you're wasting your time here.
Nathan Turner
etymological fallacy, retard. Also abolishing the state IS a political issue as it relateds to ABOLISHING the state. Faggot.
N-N-NO WHAT I REALLY MEANT-
Damage control
No it didnt, read Bakunin
How's the USSR these days?
Fuck Lenin, read Marx you revisionist little shit.
its common knowledge Marx studied under Proudhon. At least in lefty circles.
No, it wasn't. Do your reading.
Evan Reed
Delusional.
Carson Rogers
Have you actually read anything by Marx? Like, I don't know, the Poverty of Philosophy?
John Taylor
If Marx had a "master" it was Feuerbach, and he completely abandoned his system in his later period. Also, obviously, this:
Daniel Russell
Because reading is authoritarian
Alexander Perry
Marx was popular with anarchists before the Russian Revolution. Lucy Parsons basically said he was a great anarchist thinker.
Jack Stewart
Some admit that the USSR turned into a burocratic shit hole after Lenin
Landon Nelson
It wasnt popular with Bakunin I guess
Hunter Parker
because the bolsheviks fucked over FT Ukraine, and did the bare fucking minimum for spain.
Liam Butler
hmm
Easton Smith
Bakunin translated Capital into Russian. Calling him a Marxist would be as ridiculous as calling Marx an Anarchust.
Isaiah Barnes
...
Alexander Roberts
1. The Soviet Union sent to Kekalonia:
Jack Ortiz
explain the difference.
Cool, then I guess you need to read a book?
Jonathan Green
Not in the long term they didn't
becuz it kept ending up that way
Anarchists keep calling out one thing that they're sort of correct about but their alternative sucks more
Joseph Garcia
Words have meanings. When I say political I am referring to the state. The fact that the term "political" can extend beyond the state is reflective of the fact that political phenomena are not purely "political", merely reducible to government policy, but implies an entire constellation of forms of social organization that the state, as an alienated body above these forms, is supposed to represent. In effect, the state really is the representation of society, but this representation is an abstraction, but contrary to the Anarchists, this illusory representation is not unreal, some mistake in belief, but a real abstraction that arises from the aforementioned specific social forms that underly the state. The fact you accuse me of etymological fallacy despite my understanding of the usage of the term is arises from a reflection of a materialist dialectic shows the underlying idealist presuppositions of your accusation.
The Anarchist position on political organization is inconsistently applied because they cannot comprehend the materialist dialectic between state and society. The fact of the matter is that Anarchism rejects the political struggle, and therefore cannot in a clear fashion connect the struggle within civil society to political ends, and end up doing nothing more than tailing behind the political leadership of liberalism and end up reinforcing the dictatorship of capital through its refusal to establish political organs of proletarian power.
No, that's what I mean from the very beginning, you just can't read.
Alexander Nelson
Jack Sanchez
Hmm. Threads like this really make me want to form the united front guys, I am so ready. Fuck, I'm glad most MLs I meet irl aren't like internet MLs.
Parker Johnson
...
Jose Jones
They don't read
Blake Jones
honestly not sure. anarchists are kinda stupid in my experience that might be why. then again marxists are often stupid in their own ways, which might also be why.
haha, u a dumbass, chief
Jaxson Ross
this is a pretty bad post but it's less bad than most of the shit here. nice work user
bro…
Nicholas Hill
You mean Trots. And not "admit", but "claim".
Mein Gott.
Cool.
Asher Butler
Tbh this leftist shit flinging is what Zig Forums was created for.
Ian Thomas
you could try class struggles in the ussr by charles bettelheim or some ticktin.
in any case anarchism is a much less clearly defined school of thought than marxism and marxism already has a good amount of diversity of views so i think it's fair to say there isn't one single difference that separates the two camps. you can make rough generalizations but these will always turn out inadequate.
Jordan Nguyen
No, pretty much the entire Soviet leadership admitted that bureaucracy was a big problem in the USSR in the 1920s.
"So far, one of the evils which we have not yet overcome in our Slate apparatus is the bureaucracy, a feature particularly emphasised by Lenin in some of his last articles. There can be no idea of breaking up this vast machine which had arisen on the basis of great cultural backwardness. It must be systematically repaired and simplified, whilst the civil service must be, from a political point of view, improved."
marxists.org
Explain the difference.
Literally read any book about the Stalin-era USSR that isn't written by Grover Furr. J. Arch Getty's The Road to Terror is pretty good.
Ian Harris
we don't, we just disagree with it lmao
Kevin Brown
...
Nathan Barnes
Jason Williams
I was thinking about this the other day. Capitalism is easy to organize because there are no ideas behind, not really. Us, the left, have a huge trouble organizing because we care so much about so many things. We need to find a way to unite anyway, is the only way
Leo Martinez
You obviously never been to any place that has anarchism traits. I invite you to visit Valparaiso, Chile. If it were not attached to Chile it would be perfect.
David Adams
I get the criticism anarchism gets. Its implementation is really tricky. But how is it that building a super huge state and expect it to just dissolve after there are no more classes not an Utopia?
Leo Cooper
There is one single difference. I strongly suggest reading up on Anarchism and Marxism. Preferably, from non-meme sources (like tl;drs "helpfully" written by Liberals).
>> Some admit that the USSR turned into a burocratic shit hole after Lenin
You can't even keep the dates straight.
Moreover, you don't seem to understand what "bureaucratic shithole after Lenin" supposed to mean - it is used as an argument against Central Planning (first Five-Year plan) and for decentralized "planning" (i.e. market "socialism").
Isaiah Brown
Nobody objects to authoritarian measures against people literally literally trying to kill you for being diametrically opposed to you and that quote is stupid at best and deliberate bad faith at worst.
The question of authority is a question of how things should be run under a stabilized society, not one in the middle of a war with itself.
Josiah Clark
because they don't read him 8)
Jason Campbell
That's a dumb meme. Anarchists often remain Anarchist after reading Marx, since that objectively is in their class interests. Which is Petite-Bourgeoisie, btw.
They have nothing to gain from Communist society.
Also this.
It's really tiresome to repeat again and again (since some people seem to think - or pretend to think - that there is a need to hide goals of Communists, there is overabundance of "aKshually, Communism and Anarchism are the same"), but the real difference between Communism and Anarchism is the one between the goals, not the methods. While the general idea is the same (abolition of wage labour), the way future society is envisioned is cardinally different.
There is no "unity", no reconciliation, and there cannot be either. By Anarchist standards Communism society is no different from Capitalist society. And by standards of reality, Anarchist society with industrial production is no different from pipe dream.
This is easily seen if you take a look at how the economy supposed to function under Anarchism and under Marxism (provided you don't trust Wolff, obviously).
Nolan Watson
the point i'm making is not that marxists and anarchists are the same, my dude, I'm saying there's a lot of disagreement within these two traditions and so it is not the case that every anarchist and every marxist will disagree with each other for the exact same reasons. different marxists have different views on what a state is/to what extent there will be a state post-revolution/etc and may to varying degrees disagree with marx's expressed views on this topic. And generally anarchists have a very different (usually a lot less developed) idea of what a state is from most marxists. I am not defending anarchists here I am saying similarities in language between anarchists will often disguise a very wide range of views. Every anarchist I have spoken to about the state has had extremely stupid views on the subject but their usually stupid for widely varying reasons.
not every objection to the Five-Year Plans is an objection to central planning in general this is pretty obviously disingenuous.
William Rogers
Chase Collins
okay this is epic
Gavin Scott
It would be nice if you could actually back up anything you say with evidence instead of non-sequiturs.
You're quoting two different people. The first person said the bureaucratic deformation happened after Lenin. I would argue it began during Lenin's life and became worse after he died. The Bukharin quote sums up the common attitude around the time of Lenin's death. (He died less than a year later.)
good posts
Brandon Thompson
Nah.
You are absolutely correct. The words "Anarchism" and "Communism" don't mean anything at all. I was mistaken.
Isn't summer over?
Ryder Powell
anarchists are either politically naive uneducated burdens to socialism or they're proimperialist apologist scum