Does anyone think that there is a possibility of an ideological unification between MLs and Anarchists? And not like the left unity meme, but an actual new ideology that unifies both ML and AnCom into one ideology. Is such a thing even possible? Has there ever been an effort in history to unify ideologies? Or do I just not understand communist theory?
A Unified Communist Ideology
Other urls found in this thread:
The First International.
You don't know its history.
Yes, it's called Marxist-Leninism. Because when you remove non-internationalist obsession over an Anarch Free State on some irrelevant spit of land, or the idealism and self-conceit that Right and Might interact at all, which causes the shit praxis, MLs are all that's left.
M-L is the best broad ideology. If you're not an anarcho-imperialist you should support all genuine M-L movements.
Not a chance. States are a natural part of human civilization, especially when technology comes into play. Anarchists are just good at destroying shit.
The only possible synthesis I can think of is "cyborg nomadism", and this isn't even between ML and Anarchism, but Anarchism and Equality.
Remember him posting something like what you are asking for a few years ago.
you don't know shit
the thing is, there are so many different kinds of anarchism, and that means that if you were to make one that’s a “fusion” with marxism leninism, all that would result in is yet another kind of anarchist/libertarian socialist ideology that, rather than unifying, would just make another divide in the left
Fusing ideologies? Lol this board is so fucking braindead. KILL every sect. We ought to be calling ourselves communists, Marxists, and NOTHING more. Any communist who calls himself anything else is just indoctrinated into a personality cult or ideology-shopping and will change between "Mutualism" and "Syndicalism" within a week's time.
Communism is stateless.
Democracy of the proletariat.
So prolecracy ?
you call yourself whatever you want, but don’t try and label a very diverse group of ideologies under one specific theory
Neither the anarchists nor MLs understand communist theory. That's why they're not unified under it.
ML democratic centralism
- one party rule (honest about it)
- every prole can join party and influence power
- decentralises wealth
- one party rule with multi-party spectacle (neo-liberalism with different coats of paint )
- joining the ranks of people with influence is prohibited to everybody except capital owners
- centralises wealth
hypothetical systems with decentralised political power and decentralised wealth
- lacks theoretical solution to long term prevention of re-centralisation
- actually existing examples were extremely short lived
- lacks theory for organizing effective defence
- lacks theory for organizing economies of scale
the subtext of this is a neither-nor-middle-ground fallacy. One side can be entirely correct and the other entirely false , and this too would produce the effect of not being unified. You could also have unity of both sides while still having incorrect theory, simply because unity doesn't necessarily correlate with correctness of theory.
So summing this up you are attempting use a rhetorical cheat to promote yourself as judge of theory, this makes you the clerical reactionary. In contrast to the clerical revolutionary who would seek to find the common ground of both sides.
All multiple parties are ever gonna do is waffle and fight for influence instead of tackling real problems until crypto porkies win and bring the whole thing down, parties are only useful before the revolution.
What theoretical solution is there to stop centralisation causing exponential consolidation of power to a few people?
Worked great for Yugoslavia, ye?
It's literally a proven method we don't live in 1819. the Soviet Union existed and was functionaly socialist for most of it's history.
the proposed solution to avoid abuse is to rotate the "power-few", by for example using statistically representative sortition democracy, to periodically get a new batch of random representatives, combined with direct democracy features. This still needs a administrative group that has to maintain discipline and repel attempts to be overthrown by sell-outs etc. But given how little attack surface this has it is orders of magnitudes easier then for example what the Soviets attempted, and hence the expected level of repression against counter revolution is extremely small. As for corruption and despotism, consider that you don't know who follows your reign because of the random selection process, so if you decide to victimize a group of people, they might follow your reign at some point in the future and would probably execute a ferocious revenge on you. And consider that the administrative group has no incentive to not produce scientifically accurate and empirically verified reports on what you did during your reign, because that is how they protect them self. This system has closely match power-responsibility-consequence ratio, while still maintaining effective higher order decision making capabilities.
Would the selection process be like jury duty? What if those selected didn't want to serve?
Not sure how Jury selection works.
What I'm describing here is a statistically representative sample of the population, so depending on the size and composition of the population it's going to be significantly more then 12 people, in most cases probably a few hundred or thousand people.
In principle you cannot opt out of this, if you get summoned. If this were on a voluntary basis, then it could be hacked by attempting to bully or trick a group of society to opt out. But realistically you do have to allow for some exemptions.