Is this wrong or right?

Anarchists are against 100% forms of all hierarchy.
Communists believe that hierarchy is good but that only rightfully earned hierarchy should exist (ie hierarchy and authority/status earned free from exploitation or ridiculous notions of simply being born in a certain family)

Is this wrong or right?

Attached: red army.png (706x694, 497.55K)

Other urls found in this thread:

Anarchist are against unjust hierarchy which includes the state. Communist come in all sorts of shapes and sizes so the question of the state comes with different answers but they usually aren't against 100% forms of hierarchy.


Both, as far as I know, oppose all unearned hierarchy. The position on hierarchy is pretty much the same, the biggest difference is over the "dictatorship of the proletariat." That and there's some variety among anarchists on the issue of property and what should be recognized.

what if its not a state what if its just a group of community leaders who are respected and put in good labor and all that cool shit

why would anyone have an issue with all the proletariat being able to vote for whatever they want free from the exploitation and unjust power brought on by capital.

seems like anarchists just don't know what communism is

The dictatorship of the proletariat is the nationalization stage, not full communism. There's still state. IIRC, anarchists had an issue with it because they thought vesting that kind of power in (ultimately) the leaders of the revolution would result in their interests becoming aligned with preserving the state. And you've got to admit, not a whole lot of states have "withered away." Actually, the USSR did but it only gave way to another, (more) capitalist state.

There doesn't have to be a "state". state is just a boogey word you are using anyway. The dictatorship of the proletariat is just the proletariat of every city voting for hard working comrade leaders and those leaders voting for change.

it seriously seems like anarchists just have no idea what communism, if they did they would just be communists because they want the same thing anyway

Attached: 4791b2161eed46c53607e270a4836ad0dec94bdc875eb28f31dd633594233fe4.jpg (532x800, 123.94K)


All wrong. Anarchists are against going to bed at 11pm. Fuck you mom!

This is sex-pistols tier anarchism. No society can ever be organized without some form of hierarchy and no rational person is against any and all forms of hierarchy.

Communism is egalitarian in legal, political and economic terms, so the general secretary of the Supreme Soviet is as much of a citizen of the Soviet Republic as is the last peasant. However, hierarchy is needed so that institutions function properly. Take a museum for example. We can't have a meeting and cast votes to decide each little thing concerning how the museum is run in its day-to-day activities. What's more, the museum must be run in accordance to the mandate of the people, meaning that the museum's soviet can't run it however it wants. So a comission of specialists is appointed by the ministry of education to run the museum in cooperation with the representatives picked from the museum's own soviet.

1.once the privitazation of the means of production and land is illegal, workers all enhirt their own workplaces.
2. the people get so rich and content but want to plan out more development or vote for new revolutionary laws about something or someshit.
3. everyone in every city votes and elects the coolest most hardest working nice leader in that city (this is the dictatorship of the proletariat)
4. those dudes vote for the changes, and people who go to school for planning/planners help design the changes.
there is no unjust heirarchy, just just heirarchy. This is what communists all want, and it just seems like anarchists are throwing state around like a boogeyword

i know dude im just trying to picture how the ultimate society would function. there would obviously have to be EARNED hierarchy or peoples lives would suck

this dude gets it

Attached: dca897ef-8e82-4877-a263-675f4a02fbdb.jpg (1200x1600, 140.71K)

well stop thinking in these Objectivist terms. it rots your brain.
Anarchism by itself just means a stateless/classless society. Communism is just a political ideology that details how to achieve that. the majority of ideas in Communism are taken from Anarchism, the rest of them are based on Marx's personal critique of Capitalism and how it thwarts those ideals.


Except they typically work under "unofficial" hierarchies.

If the community leaders were give the position democratically, then its a justified hierarchy since the people consented to this (pic related). An unjustified hierarchy is when people aren't given a choice i.e. bosses and bureaucrats.

Attached: UKN9ree2usj90616-2TubessUwe.jpg (1440x1080, 256.63K)

But there is, though, no?

By its nature, the dictatorship of the proletariat is introduced as a transitional state. This is a part of Marx's theory, with the goal being that after relinquishing the monopoly on the use of force to this particular state and nationalizing industry, the state could be naturally dismantled as it would no longer be useful with the MoP in the hands of the workers.

The end result is supposed to be stateless, but the concept of the dictatorship of the proletariat decidedly is not.

This edit is sicker

Attached: tsar=epic cringe.jpg (719x707, 152.58K)

Also about this
Neither communists nor anarchists define the state as this. For all we know this "group of community leaders" is still a state. This definition alone isn't enough to know whether it's a state or not.
To commies, the state is a tool of the ruling class to oppress the working class. To anarkiddies it's an institution with a monopoly on violence against the working class which defends private property. To some I suppose these two definitions are very similar/identical but I think they're different enough to warrant mentioning both.

This isn't accurate. Marx and Engels were influenced by utopian socialists like Owen, Fourier and Saint-Simon as well as revolutionary figures like Babeuf and Buonarroti. As far as I know the only "anarchistic" figure whom Marx was partly influenced by was Proudhon.

If anything Anarchism is more influenced by Marxism than the reverse. Bakunin, when not claiming Marx was a dastardly Jew in cahoots with international bankers, praised his contribution to economics, acknowledged "there is a good deal of truth in the merciless critique he directed against Proudhon," and also translated the Communist Manifesto into Russian (and also made an attempt at translating Capital.)

its not a state thought its just the people all have power. the people rightfully elect officials to make their lives easier so they don't have to vote on every little thing.

there's no state there, just democracy.

i dunno why anarchists would be against this, it makes perfect sense to live in a democratic society with elected officials who aren't elected thanks to exploitation/capitalism/corruption ect.

it seems like anarchism and communism are the exact same thing anarchists are just so terrified of the ussr they use mental gymnastics to try and convince themselves communists want a society different from them or want to go about creating this society free from capitalism in a different matter.

Well, Lenin and Trotsky did in fact wipe out the black army, so I understand their fear.

Definitely not.

Anarchists rightfully point out that after marxists got control of the state, they are not leaving.

So anarchism will not happen and neither communism, and it will just be marxists saying any days now and killing any dissidents.

Anarchists worth engaging with usually describe themselves against institutional heirarchy, unearned heirarchy, crystallized heirarchy, etc. Something like that. Any of them with a half developed justification understand that heirarchy is a vague terminology and that even just people having more experience or knowledge in a subject does rightfully give them some authority in it. Personally I am very sympathetic to this understanding it is just very lacking as far as material analysis goes imo.

Hierarchy starts forming as soon as someone threatens you to do shit with violent repercussions.

And this is a good example of an extremely naive, completely undeveloped understanding of heirarchy.

Clean your fucking room, user.

It's true though.

Give me your house, user.

Say you are at dinner and a friend of yours is introducing you to a crowd of strangers. You know a good amount about a topic, let's say civil engineering for example. One of the strangers you're introduced to happens to have been a highly qualified civil engineer for 20 years. Automatically there is a heirarchy of experience and capability recognized by everyone there. You could either argue that this doesn't constitute real heirarchy or that somehow this is a situation in which violence, social or abstract etc is being threatened, and both would rightfully sound like ridiculous damage control. Heirarchy is a category as abstract as "oppression", and only a few degrees off from just saying "bad." Saying "we desire a society free from oppression" would just be a circular, hollow claim. They're idealist ways of understanding social formations, which can usefully supplement materialist understandings but only when our starting point is in those materialist understandings and we appropriately contextualize the idealisms in play.

that makes no fucking sense i just stated what the goal of communism is. Where do you see any communist or communist ideology that says "THEN WE AS A SELECT FEW GROUP OF PEOPLE NEVER GIVE UP CONTROL OF THE STATE".

Really seems like communists and anarchists both want the same thing but anarchists are just retarded and don't realize that dictatorship of the proletariat is something they want as well. They just use this weird boogey word like "state" as if Marxism has anything to do with states

I mean, Marxism *does* have a fair bit to do with states.

In an April 18, 1883 letter to American Socialist Van Patten, Engels wrote: "Marx and I, ever since 1845, have held the view that one of the final results of the future proletarian revolution will be the gradual dissolution and ultimate disappearance of that political organisation called the State. . . . The Anarchists reverse the matter. They say, that the Proletarian revolution has to begin by abolishing the political organisation of the State. But after the victory of the Proletariat, the only organisation the victorious working class finds ready-made for use, is that of the State. It may require adaptation to the new functions. But to destroy that at such a moment, would be to destroy the only organism by means of which the victorious working class can exert its newly conquered power, keep down its capitalist enemies and carry out that economical revolution of society without which the whole victory must end in a defeat and in a massacre of the working class like that after the Paris Commune."

Marxists and Anarchists have been feuding over this point ever since.

Good quote.

Hierarchy doesn't start until he orders what to do at the cost of my well-being.

If he starts to say, because I'm the engineer, you must do this or that, and if you don't you will be beaten up, that's hierachy.

How is being beaten up an abstract?

Again, so when anarchists demand that marxists give up the state, will marxists actually do it or they will just keep saying hurr enemies all around us, I gotta take control bro?

You are a fucking hypocrite.

Anarchism is a fucking joke, lmao. What are you gonna do, genocide the reactionary Amish so that you can have your utopia? I can't wait for the day to come when you fucking try.

I don't understand the point.

Marxists say to anarchists we are the same bro.

Anarchists have no state.

Marxists have a state and then they promise that they will no state (Source: Dude trust me).

Anarchists ask marxist, hey how about that no state? Marxists tell anarchists oh we aren't ready yet, just wait any days now bro.

Repeat for 50 years.

The point is that anarchism is a fucking joke. I'm not a Marxist either, don't you see the Juche flag?

Wait, didn't Marxists say that juchefags follow Marxism?

I don't know what Marxists think, but this is what it says on Wikipedia:

"He further added that "Kimilsungism is an original idea that cannot be explained within the frameworks of Marxism–Leninism. The idea of Juche, which constitutes the quintessence of Kimilsungism, is an idea newly discovered in the history of mankind". Kim Jong-il went further, stating that Marxism–Leninism had become obsolete and must be replaced by Kimilsungism."

I'm don't adhere strictly to Juche anyway, but there was no NazBol flag, and this was the closest thing.

It's wrong if you think "Anarchists are against 100% forms of all hierarchy" means everyone is equal at all times. No, clearly there are experts, teachers etc. who need hierarchy. It's about minimizing unjust hierarchies.

The end goal is essentially the same. Where anarchists and Communists disagree is in the methods to get there.

Also, Marxism brings with it a lot of woo, like LTV. This metaphysical stuff is really unnecessary and if you don't have faith in it, then Marxists don't like you. Anarchists were kicked out of the First International by Marx, which goes to show his attitudes. Marxism was the original "de-platforming" culture.

The people who didn't vote for that leader didn't consent. Majoritarian democracy is mob rule, only consensus produces universal consent.

Besides, look at contemporary democratic elections. Why don't the masses just vote for socialist parties? They (almost!) never do, so they are subjugating us to capitalism. How is this fair to us?

That is an infantile bastardization of the Marxist interpretation of the state. The state doesn’t just vanish on its own, rather the conditions that make a state as we understand it necessary will cease to exist, and with it the state as a result. Nobody to my knowledge seriously imagined just dissolving the state the next day. It’ll be a gradual and long transition like any other historical process.

What would have happened if the Soviet state machinery was abolished in 1922, or 1936, or even the 1950s? Imagine the chaos.

The Soviet state never made any effort to whither away. They made zero effort to do so because the administrative class enjoyed the benefits of the state.

How long do we give it? 74 years is too long to make zero progress on this front.

Marxism is against class based society, they say that it basically is "against human nature" (aka anti hierarchy - which is realistically wrong. All human societies have classes, castes, hierarchies, etc). Marxists also believe human nature is not competitive but creative. While the latter is true, the former is also very true. So he was wrong imo. He believed that a class based society leads to revolution and instability. He's not entirely wrong, but not entirely right either. I think if there is enough percieved mobility to rise up in class, and enough of the population is at least in the middle class, then the society will remain stable for as long as those conditions persist. It's only when you have no middle class you are in trouble, and this is generally accepted today which Marxists don't agree with.

74 years is nothing, infant.

Vetos are antidemocratic and if those who vote against x but x has the majority can just ignore x there is no point to the decision making in the first place. This obsession withspooks like consent and volunatryism can only come from liberals.

Attached: dont_tread_on_me_AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAa.gif (560x372, 1.13M)

lmao and yet marxists call everyone else "utopian"

Actually read Kim Il Sung and Kim Jong Il before spreading this nonsense.
The Juche Idea is an idea which was established in the course of defending the gains of Marxism-Leninism and includes all of its principles while regarding it as the presupposition of Juche.

Attached: 25 december 1995 respecting the foreunners of the revolution is a noble moral obligation of revolutionaries.png (1080x1783 556.95 KB, 1.62M)

Monumentally dumb-assed post. Marxists hold that class is determined by one's relation to production, and that the class structure of a society changes with changes in production; Marxists understand that these classes, castes, and hierarchies all have a material basis in the real world rather than some imaginary absolute such as "human nature", which insofar as it exists is conditioned in the first place by the actual material circumstances in which people exist.

It took 70 years for racist liberal landlords in United States just to give the right to vote to all white men.

That isn't completely true. Under Khrushchev there was a push to promote "communist self-administration," in line with Khrushchev's absurd boast that the USSR would reach the prerequisites of communism by 1980.

I'll quote from a post I made on /marx/:
The most famous example of ["communist self-administration"] was in the field of law, where Khrushchev encouraged the growth of comrades' courts (which were set up by citizens to hear cases and reach verdicts.) State courts were encouraged to transfer mundane court cases to these comrades' courts.

The idea was that in this way citizens would learn to administer the law on their own, increasingly without the need for the state. To quote from the article "Soviet Comrades'

Courts in Retrospect" by Yoram Gorlizki:

On the other hand, the author notes that, "Many panels and audiences were made up of veterans of war and industrialization who adhered to a harsher prewar puritanical morality and who used the stand offered by comrades' courts to lecture younger offenders, often products of a softer and more liberal post-Stalin society, on traditional Soviet mores. At their worst comrades' courts attracted prigs and busybodies who imposed their own visions of domestic ethics and socially desirable lifestyles on non-comformist youths."

Another aspect of "communist self-administration" applied to law was the setting up of volunteer squads (druzhina) by local soviets, party, Komsomol and trade union branches to patrol the streets independently of the police. Most of these volunteers were young, and to quote one author, "The young druzhinnik, equipped with a red armband and a wide but ill-defined authority, may contribute to maintaining public order; but he may also terrorize his contemporaries." ("Law Enforcement, Social Control and the Withering of the State: Recent Soviet Experience" by Darrell P. Hammer)

The same author gives their competences: "The patrol's duty is to maintain order, and to do this it has the right to warn those who disturb the peace. Beyond this, the patrol may demand to see one's documents. In more serious cases the patrol may write a statement of the violation, naming names and giving the testimony of witnesses. . . to one's employer or to the police, and may eventually be taken up by a comrades' court. Technically the patrol does not have the right of arrest. It does, however, have the right, in 'cases of necessity', to detain a citizen at druzhina headquarters or turn him over to the police."

Many, especially the young, found the druzhina to be intrusive.

While comrades' courts and druzhina continued to exist after Khrushchev, their activities were reined in and given a more "formal" character, with Soviet authors pointing out that talk of the withering away of the state was obviously still premature.

Most retarded thing I've read this week and its painfully obvious you've never read Marx. Before you make comments on an analysis or idea, read the works they originated from first you pseud. Literally nothing you said is what Marxists believe.
There is no such thing as the "middle class", save for maybe the petit-bourgeoisie who's postion as such is not necessarily defined by income. Eveyone thinks they are "middle class", its a useless liberal term that's used to label anyone who isn't living in the street or in a ghetto because they must be "somewhere" in the middle between obvious abject poverty and multi-million dollar business owners and/or celebrities. It tells nothing of ones objective relation to the MoP.

Interesting, anything similar in the economic field? Any more efforts in that direction after that? Also do you have any sources about their reaction to the 1973 oil shock, and the impact of oil exports on planning?
Are accusations of Dutch Disease hindering socialist development based in fact or not? Because that would also disfigure society enough to make a withering away of the state pretty much impossible in other ways.

Khrushchev did try decentralizing the economy by abolishing industrial ministries and introducing the sovnarkhozy to promote management on a regional basis, but this wasn't justified in terms of "communist self-administration," just "hey let's try to improve the economy." It didn't work, and the dissatisfaction among managers and state officials contributed to Khrushchev's ouster.

As for the rest of what you wrote, I can't think of any sources off the top of my head.

Thanks. If you find any literature on Soviet planning's interaction with resource extraction and international trade, make a post in the book thread or somewhere. I argue with people irl who say the USSR was slowly getting integrated in the capitalist periphery through its international trade and that's where peaceful coexistence and the Helsinki Accords came from.
That can lead to saying that a NEP-type policy is counterproductive in the long term because capital outgrows the efforts to control it, and I can't find any definitive rebuttal to it.

is it basically correct to say that Anarchists see the state itself as a tool of the bourgeoisie, that needs to be done away outright before any kind of Communism/socialism can be achieved, while MLs (what people commonly think of when they think of communism) think the state is a necessary building block of socialism that needs to be seized and used for their benefit until full communism is achieved, or am I missing things?

Anarchists see the capitalist state as a tool of the bourgeoisie, but also Anarchists are opposed to the state in principle, viewing hierarchy as ultimately what permits exploitation to come about in the first place. Hence Bakunin arguing: "if the proletariat becomes the ruling class, over whom will it rule? It means that there will still remain another proletariat, which will be subject to this new domination, this new state."

Anarchists desire either a communist society (hence those who call themselves anarcho-communists), or argue for a specifically anarchist society (viewing communism as itself incompatible with anarchism.)

MLs (and Marxists in general) hold that the working-class must seize political power, creating a new state machinery in its own image and using the power of the state (known as the dictatorship of the proletariat) to suppress class enemies. The state will wither away as the material conditions for communism develop.

Thanks, Ismail

What if I want a Marxist Leninist state but don't think the state will "wither away"

Then you are neither a Marxist, Leninist or Stalinist.

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (427x240, 154.95K)

Do you really believe that the only way authority is enforced in any situation is with the threat of physical violence?

Attached: 1559523077006.png (382x390, 142.45K)

no I'm a realist

Attached: qBqtBDc.gif (500x280, 976.2K)

Then you don't adhere to the ML conception of what a state is, and possibly need to read more about HisMat to solidify your positions.
t. Not an ML, but agree with the Marxist conception of the State

That seems like a pretty convenient shorthand for "revisionist". Read Critique of Gotha, and then read State and Revolution. Please, it'll be good for you.

wow i wouldnt like working with you. do you really think an engineer has no business telling low skilled worker wat to do in work setting ? thats fucking retarded, how can you get anything done without recognizing some people skills are more adapted to certain task.

Marxism centers the idea around class based struggles involving the owners alienating their workers from ownership. It's only when too much power goes to the top (unironically the Marxist progression of capitalism > socialism > communism) when the system becomes unstable. That is because there is no such thing as "public" ownership, it is a deceptive word trick. It is more realistic to think of it as individual vs government ownership. When the government owns means of production, that just equates too much power at the top (decion makers in government) and will be enforced by law. Under individual ownership (captialism and to a lesser degree socialism), the government recognizes the ownership rights of individuals and groups of individuals as individual entities (corporations) and that will be enforced by law.

It's a testable, scientific theory for the way that capitalism functions with serious implications about planning for the future, including a constant reminder to organizers that the next crisis is always on the horizon, and, if they can use it to really understand the current economy, anticipate where that crisis will arise and gain enormous political capital when they're proven right. What is "woo" about it?

Almost all of that just sounds like dogma. Even understanding the legitemate gains of the DPRK I remain completely unimpressed with Juche, it seems theoretically hollow, just mythbuilding. And within the western left Jucheists are some of the worst socialists I've seen, social reactionary LARPers that occupy their time with arguing on the internet for bans of beer and sex and music instead of building proletarian institutions.

While we're on this, again, I do think a lot of marxists should probably review what they mean by a "state".
I really don't think it's actually possible to "capture the state" in the way that's often talked about, and their definition of "state" when talking to anarchists devolves into something terribly liberal.

Yeah muh dude, USSR should have dissolved the state as soon as the revolution was over maaaaaaaaaan. Hitler would respect the zeal of the anarchists in Russia and leave you be. Those 14 nations who invaded would have done the same.

Dude weed lmao.

Communists exist in zero, low, moderate, and highly hierarchical forms, though there do exist hierarchical forms too extreme to qualify as communistic (communists must never traffic in enslavement).

Anarchists exist in zero, low, and moderately hierarchical forms, strongly clustered around zero. Anarchists proclaiming true zero hierarchism are typically hypocrites, or else making a philosophical error; to destroy the last scrap of hierarchism is not possible in society, as we are inescapably influenced by one another. True minimal hierarchism among humans is merely very low, but cannot hit zero.

I don't wanna make you feel bad for being ignorant, but this is really seriously fucking ignorant.
The state must continue to exist as long as class struggle continues to exist, and class struggle transcends borders; World War II was also a class struggle. Only when the entire world has become socialist can states begin to wither away.

You didn't disprove anything with that flimsy trot argument though. You spout a truism but COMPLETELY bypass the context of the USSR at their historical moment. Redundant. The USSR had no ability to transform the entire world into being socialist in the period I mentioned so a state was necessary.

yeah… what?
I agree with that. I think we may have misunderstood each other a bit…

what are these numerical categories lmao

Marxists have predicted ten of the last five crises. If LTV has predictive power, then why don't you beat porky on the stock market?

Chinese porkies who have at least read Marx have been raping the US economy sideways, if you haven't noticed.

Chinese porkies do that because the international porkies let them.

So again, Marxists never intend to do it without the state.

No one can hold them account for that, not even marxists.

There will always be some enemies or problems to justify the state.

So quit the bullshit that anarchists and marxists want the the same thing.
Anarchists: no state.
Marxists: want a state.

Just say it, faggot. Da joos are using ching chongs to ruin the proud American bourgeois heroes.


Anarchism doesn't rely on one theory of value. I've never heard of a convincing theory, but you don't need one.

No they haven't

Go back to Zig Forums


Not the guy you're responding to but if you're just going to keep ascribing some secret malicious intent to all Marxists then why even bother? On the off-chance you're actually willing to seriously engage, though, the withering away of the state is a central part of Marxist theory; the idea isn't that one "abolishes" the state overnight but that its functions are gradually either abandoned when no longer necessary or subsumed into everyday life as the conditions that make them necessary disappear - this is obviously something that takes a bit of time, and "most of the world wants to fucking kill us lmao" is a pretty obvious barrier to getting rid of things such as a standing army. Obviously the development of the USSR - that is, isolated and backwards, without support from a wider revolution - is going to look different to the large-scale revolutions in advanced nations that were expected by Marx, Engels, and even Lenin.

Speaking of the withering away of the state, however, Engels even makes the point in a letter to Bebel discussing the Gotha program that the post-revolution "state" is no longer a state in the proper sense of the word:

In all I'd just recommend giving .pdf related a look over. TL;DR the state is ultimately a product of class conflict and attempting to "abolish" it or force it to wither away before the conditions that created it have first been "abolished" can result only in state power being captured by the class that is prepared to actually wield it. It's worth noting that even historical anarchist revolutions have ended up with the revolutionaries being forced into wielding state power, even if they didn't call it a state; the Ukrainian anarchists had everything from "voluntary" conscription up to their own version of the Cheka, for example.

It's catchy so it must be true! Neoliberals and Keynesians have predicted 0 of the last 5 crises.

No, eventually there will be no need for state. But we are talking after centuries of global socialism has created the right conditions for it. And then nobody will say "hey lets transition now into communism!" it will be more like, one day, someone will dust off an old book, read it, and say "hey, were communist now!"