What's the Marxist critique of Anarchism...

You sure?
marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1872/10/authority.htm

And yet they never have. Individualism splits off to do its own thing, but that's usually from a sense of betrayal of any revolutionary movement, not the cause.

A favorite critique of the bully statists. Historically, the chief saboteurs of the libertarian-socialist.

The revolution that succeeds inspires the mass majority to reject political solutions (states and their elected bodies) and press for the social revolution. When a statist "socialist" betrays them by seizing power and establishing a dictatorship, the revolution loses its whole point and momentum. Then the capitalists sail in and use this failure as propaganda.

Paris, the central seat of the old governmental power, and, at the same time, the social stronghold of the French working class, had risen in arms against the attempt of Thiers and the Rurals to restore and perpetuate that old governmental power bequeathed to them by the empire. Paris could resist only because, in consequence of the siege, it had got rid of the army, and replaced it by a National Guard, the bulk of which consisted of working men. This fact was now to be transformed into an institution. The first decree of the Commune, therefore, was the suppression of the standing army, and the substitution for it of the armed people.
t. marx
marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1871/civil-war-france/ch05.htm

Dictatorship of the Proletariat. Well and good, gentlemen, do you want to know what this dictatorship looks like? Look at the Paris Commune. That was the Dictatorship of the Proletariat.
t. engels
marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1871/civil-war-france/postscript.htm

::thinking emoji::

What did he mean by this?

Did you actually fucking read it? Take a look at this line towards the end:

The paris commune used a fucking workers militia you dipshit.

As for the OP: the biggest problem I have with anarchism is their tendency to fetishize automonous local organisation over large scale global organisation (both during the revolution and afterwards during communism). Localism renders a revolutionary movement to weak to spread and resist counterrevolution, and well as being utterly insufficient to organise production on a needs basis post-revolution. Separate automous will inevitably give rise to commodity production: society wide planning is necessary to overcome this, but unfortunately many anarchists tend to oppose this as they tend to believe this necessitates a state apparatus (it doesn't, but I can't fucked arguing this point for the N'th time).

Before some anarchist gets angry at me for saying this: yes, I'm aware this doesn't apply to all anarchists (the cybernetic planning threads are proof enough).

Read the Civil War in France and Engels’ postscript

Wew, good luck infiltrating and sabotaging the state apparatus when the fascists take over. You'll just get gulag'd and then you'll be no good to anyone.

Not a Marxist or an anarchist (more of a leftcomm) but this is what I get from most Marxists:

1. Marxism is dialectical, whereas anarchism is metaphysical.

2. Anarchism relies on a lot of heavy assumptions whereas Marxism, as a science, can better prepare itself to be put into practice given the material conditions.

3. Anarchism is absolutist, whereas Marxism never deals in absolutes but in dialectics.

4. Anarchists have a different definition of the state than Marxists.

5. Most arguments for anarchism are based on appeals to emotion, rather than logic.

6. Marxism-Leninism has a much stronger history of bettering living standards and liberating people from colonialism, imperialism, etc.

7. Marxists understand revolution is a process whereas anarchists demand everything at once.

I don't know how you can be a marxist and still support the "withering away of the State" tbh (which has never been done as marxists theorists have theorized either). I wonder if marxists keep supporting it out of spite towards anarkiddies.

Attached: mpv-shot0005.jpg (1280x720, 58.92K)

That's your logic right now comrade.

Attached: galtsev.gif (480x348, 2.87M)

Yeah when an experiment fails you try something else, that's what scientific socialism is about.

The sensible solution is to use the state to hand over the means of productions to the workers and then instating labor vouchers that are destroyed upon use.
What's that called?

Attached: images (4).jpg (249x202, 7.95K)

No. No it's not you dingus. The "withering away of the State" is reserved for when the highest stage of socialism has been achieved, and as the necessity of one to protect the revolution/proletarian interest is no longer needed due to material conditions. I am assuming you are new, because that's the only way that explains this ignorance.

Attached: Nope.png (316x388, 48.39K)

The founder of the current swedish royal family, one of Napoleon's Marshals, had a tattoo that said "death to kings".

Seven strawmen.

There is no such thing as a "Marxist critique of Anarchism" it's just arguments from ignorance, lazyness and patreon opportunism by flux marxist tendencies that only exist online.

marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1874/04/bakunin-notes.htm

???????????????????????????

...

I don't understand what this is supposed to mean at all. Most anarchists do, in fact, apply some kind of DiaMat or HistMat.

Wow, we've got a real galaxy brain here.

Marxist-Leninist here

Anarchism is stupid and dumb.

'tl;dr version: Marxism uses existing conditions as the basis of reasoning and deduces what Socialism is possible, while Anarchists begin with desired Socialism as the basis and try to deduce the way to get to it. I.e. pragmatism versus wishful thinking.

Modern (industrial) economy requires centralized management. Without it, economy can only be exchange-based (market) which would inevitably deteriorate into Capitalism. Hence there is an objective necessity of Communism in industrial economy.

Anarchism does not recognize this necessity, instead, as you correctly noted, going ultra-Liberal: by blaming State for everything bad, it aspires to solve problems through giving more freedom to individuals (i.e. trying to use goal as a method). However, problems are already caused by "individual" "freedoms" of Liberalism (as they mandate collective slavery in our interconnected society). I.e. giving more freedom from state does not solve the problem of existing economic dependence (which is the leverage Capitalists would use).

Consequently, Anarchism is incapable of creating any lasting change (existing socio-economic relations have to be replaced; simply abolishing them would cause collapse of infrastructure necessary for survival). Hence, in practice (as opposed to theory) it "isn't truly socialist or revolutionary".

NB: there is also lack of centralized organization during Revolution (which is often pointed out as a flaw of Anarchism), but it is primarily tactical problem (though, no less deadly), rather than something Marxism as ideology has against Anarchism.

Well, it's more of an observation than an actual critique.

For example, today we can see Anarchists (yes, I know; not real Anarchists; but the rhetoric is the same - anti-State) aligning themselves with Fascists (Venezuela, Ukraine). It was not uncommon to see similar patterns in Spain and Italy during interbellum period.

Are you post-modernist?
The basis of all Anarchism (the defining feature) is the same - hence critique is also the same. If critique doesn't apply, then you have some kind of Communism, not Anarchism.

For fucks sake … Can you bury this retarded meme?

Anarchists do not understand Marxist concept of withering away of the State, as the meaning of the State (the term) is different in Marxism.

Anarchism expect abolition of regulations, while Marxists - change of class character of regulations: "governance of people" becomes "administration of things".

Attached: p-happy fall.jpg (736x736, 63.92K)

Not that user but these are my definitions.

Democratic centralism is a kind of decision making in which decisions are made within the vanguard party democratically and through consensus building, and when the decision is made the party agrees to unite behind the consensus and not publicly go against it.

Centralised planned economy is when there is a planning authority that is located at the center of administration and which plans the national economy, leaving little.economical authority to the local institutions. Think the Gosplan in the USSR.

Because there is NO reason to be an Anarchist. The entire question of what to do with the state is INCESSANTLLY answered by Lenin, and Marx makes it clear too. You seize it with revolutionary force, and it is no longer a state because it no longer opressess the proletariat so that they can be exploited by the bourgeois. It is no longer a bourgeois state by the Marxist definition of a state, outside of its new function of exerting the proletariat's wants over the wants of the bourgeois. It is a proletarian state, and it will stop existing once there are no more bourgeois, i.e, when Capitalism has been done away with. This is because a state is only a state when it is an apparatus used by one class to exploit/oppress another class. Without classes, the state's function no longer exists, and thusly it does not exist.
With this knowledge of how the state works, the Anarchist shows themselves to be a literal enemy of Communism. They will fight against it as they are trying to implement a flawed plan that will NEVER succeed. They will, forever with no recourse, create "totally not a state" and be taken over by other states/ destroyed by their own "totally not a state"''s malfunctioning. They do not understand state power, and REFUSE to wield it. Furthermore, non-anarchist theory is airtight, so there is no reason to want to become an Anarchist anyways. The State is just one example of airtight Socialist theory that Anarchists don't or refuse to understand, and thusly they will fight against anyone who does understand it.
I would go on but it would just be ranting at this point about how the sort of "enlightened socialists"(like Anarchists) are consistently the most antagonistic towards any successful socialist effort. They are revolutionary black holes.

Anarchism is alright if you want to transform a single region. A country or a continent, though? Obviously you want a union of socialist states unless you're an idiot.
Cockshott posed this question, which is obvious but rarely seriously addressed - say you have a group of anarchist communes, each is left alone to be democratically self-managd by the population and all that. How does trading work? Do they use a universal medium of exchange? A separate currency? Now you've got yourself afuture market very probably. Realistically, abolishing money requires administrative socialist planning along a country.

Oh no no no.

ITT:

The critique is that anarchism is idealist and utopian. Most of their discourse is around vague abstractions and details of wonderful anarchist utopias without much in the way of any plan from getting from here to there. More often than not, they seem to think that if they destroy the state, communism will simply spring into reality, rather than the more likely case that the bourgeoisie will simply form a new state (or new states) in its place. They have no plan for suppressing remaining bourgeois elements within their society, nor any real plan for rooting out counter-revolutionaries. There's also relatively little acknowledgement of what a successful revolution would mean. A large socialist successful socialist revolution over a piece of territory that actually mattered would be little more than a beachhead for a greater global proletarian revolution, and would immediately come under attack from every direction, and most anarchists have basically no plan for the inevitable NATO invasion, sanctions etc.

The other critique you see these days, and is perhaps the greater reason why you they're often called radlibs, is that they often take the imperialist line on geopolitics. Maduro and Ortega are dictators, everyone in Pyongyang is an actor, etc.

...

this
anarkiddies will never listen if it is insinuated that le ebin vanguard meme is the only "realistic" alternative

Is that seriously all you can say? So tell me, if the zapatistas and the mexican army went to war with each other, who would have higher chances of winning?

marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1873/bakunin/index.htm

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (1508x639, 200.71K)

Anarkiddie small-brains strike again.

He's not an ancom anymore. Watch the beginning of this video: youtube.com/watch?v=XaBf2tOocWs

That's sad.

Under what conditions? What are you trying to set up?

I am unmoved. I do agree the masses need to learn to organize and use the tool of democracy, to the point of their whole being like an opposing government, but one that functions like a swarm. Abortive and disorganized sections of anarchist and pocket groups won't work. How small a movement was there in Spain in 1873? It grew large enough by the 1930s. Too bad it couldn't withstand a one sided embargo and murderous traitors. The political representation for Barcelona for the Republic were fairly useless. They urged the people to fall in line with the traitors and accept authoritarian-socialism

All that squirming and nervous laughing. Did he not google bookchin?

Anarchists aren't simply anti-state. Anarchists are against unjustified hierarchies, the state being one such unjustified hierarchy. Reducing anarchism to be simply "anti-statism" is missing the point.
Saying ancaps and anarchists are the same because they are "anti-state" is like saying communists and liberals are the same because they are "anti-oppression".

All anarchists are communists, not all communists are anarchists.

In both spain and russia the bolsheviks turned against the anarchists, not the other way around.

Attached: 1.png (1280x1440, 1.3M)

for bad mouse I think it was pic related

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (960x1200, 2.31M)

Everyone needs a hot piece of ass to start making them appreciate Stalin.

Anarcho-communism could become a viable "next stage" when we have a stable worldwide socialist system for some time. Until then it is basically useless outside of fantasy literature and should be discarded in favor of a thorough development of Marxism.

Bullshit meme.
Guy in the suit has always been M-L

My god Mexie is fucking gorgeous, she should just become Stalinist-Vegan Gang.

You don't know the difference between Communism and Anarchism, do you?

TBH her views don't strike me as all that radical. SocDems talk about the things she talks about.

There's more to communism than just ML you know

Okay.

Okay.
Why don't you explain what you mean instead?

I meant she should go Stalinist/more radical, not that she is right now.

> no, I'm not going to explain how did I make this discovery, but you need to explain why I'm wrong
Go fuck yourself, retard.

It's not a discovery per se, just an extrapolation of the basic tendencies of anarchism and communism.
Anarchists seek a communist (stateless, moneyless, classless) society, the main disagreements being about how to get there, and how it's organized in detail (syndicates/communes/etc).
Non-anarchist communists share this goal, but because they are not principally opposed to unjustified hierarchies in the same way (or view the hierarchies as justified) they might use means anarchists would be opposed to (eg. the state).
If you want to simplify it as much as possible anarchists are communist who don't view using the state or similar institutions as legitimate - a subgroup of all communists. Therefore; All anarchists are communists, not all communists are anarchists.
If this all sounds very basic it's because it is.

Why does he has a tattoo of three arrows? These idiots led to the rise of hitler and nazism. The blew a chance for a communism in the 1920's. Anglo's can't be that bad, can they?

Which you are not aware of.

That is not the defining feature of Communism.

Why don't you explain in what way I'm wrong? I'm happy to learn.

As far as I know communism is widely defined as a classless, moneyless, stateless society wherein which the means of production are commonly owned, and private property has been abolished.
Is this wrong? What is your definition?

The entirety of the anglo-saxon population conforms the body of the Antichrist.

Then why didn't you read any books before posting?

How can you call yourself any kind of Socialist, if you are literally unaware of what Socialists had been arguing throughout the whole 19th century and what's the difference two main Socialist schools of thought?

Communist society is described as such, because it is the result of implementing Communism. But the result is not the method.

The defining feature of Communist society is that it is a commune.

I.e. property (produced goods) is social (belong to society as a whole). This is why producers do not exchange goods - they do not have personal ownership of them, society does. And this quality is in direct opposition to anarchist ideas, as it mandates existence of central authority that distributes produced goods.

Let me quote Proudhon to hammer it down:

This is the position of Anarchists when it comes to Communism. Granted, it was primarily against neo-Babouvist Communism (which was kinda dumb), but the main point stands.
This is why Communists had been called "Authoritarian" Socialists by Anti-Authoritarian "Socialists".

Please, note: Communism does not suggest that Commune will be gone once Socialism is created. This is not what "withering away of the state" means. It is not a tool that will be used to create Socialism and then discarded. It is expected to be a permanent quality of society (at least, until industry changes qualitatively).

Also, read this:

Attached: vodka.png (768x768, 447.61K)

Is it a real tattoo? It looks weird, I feel like it might have been a joke

But in the section you quoted I talked about the goal, not the method.
I suppose I should have said "communist society" instead of "communism", but I think the distinction is not very important since communism is just "the movement towards a communist society", no?

I disagree. Goods do not have to pass through a central authority to be social.

Judging by the quote Proudhon is talking about some specific attempt at communism rather than the broader definition I used earlier, it's hard to tell without further context. It's also important to keep in mind definitions change, and that text is rather old.

So you are a troll. Got it.

Take your meds, please.

Yes, my friend. All the anarchist revolutions have been undermined by Marxists. Whenever anarchists "did a thing" this "doing" was never in effect translated to the outcome of the movement.

Only the jews Marxists lead anarchist revolutions to decay!

Attached: 11.jpg (408x431, 12.18K)

this is advanced autism

ur a dumb dumb lol

Attached: IMG_20170813_164210.jpg (564x558, 18.1K)

Lucky for him that's an anti-communist tattoo, so he'll probably be spared.

Attached: 1361685252549.png (1659x960, 2.83M)

Attached: 08b3e753383ee3b47c4ea899d763da557b0e772416c0eae04fe6004b88bdfd86.png (543x443, 23.52K)