The funny parts is that a lot of anarchists hate MLs with a passion. Meanwhile, most MLs are sympathetic to what anarchists want, but just think that they’re misguided in terms of their methods.
I’m not even sure we have the same intended long-term goal as them tbh. At least, a lot I’ve come across really seem to think ‘stateless’ means no government, no large scale infrastructure, the old ‘someone will make insulin as a hobby’ meme.
I find it’s more meaningful to talks about specific flavors of anarchism, such as anarcho-syndicalism. I can definitely see the appeal of what they want such as structuring businesses as worker owned coops. I just don’t think they have an actual workable plan of how to get there. A lot of anarchists I’ve talked to though, do have infantile notion of society where they basically just expect everyone to just get along and be nice to each other.
Anarcho-syndicalism seems pretty compatible with MLism, like they’re just missing the complete picture and focusing on one specific part. The flavor of anarchism that’s basically “we will abolish all hierarchies, governments, exploitation, wage labor, and currency in one fell stroke and create a post-scarcity society without a vanguard party or any transition period” seems wholly at odds with Marxism or even common sense.
Indeed, the strains that want something slightly more realistic (like worker co-ops) are a lot easier to speak to. As you say they tend to lack a practical means of implementing their desired society, or if they have ideas, they seem to just ‘reinvent’ MLism with different terminology (cue the Engels quote).
businesses as worker owned coops
I mean isn’t that a soviet, or am I missing something?
I think there is definitely a difference between anarchists who want the same generally better world that we do and anarchists who want Mad Max style civilizational collapse
Wait, if stateless doesn’t mean ‘no government’, what exactly does it mean?
In Marxist terms, the state is a tool of class oppression, it is the machinery by which one class imposes its will on all others. Under capitalism (or rather, under a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie (DotB), like e.g. the US, UK, France, Brazil, etc.) it is the bourgeois class who controls the state and uses it to oppress the proletariat (and any remnants of prior classes like the peasantry). In a dictatorship of the proletariat (DotP), that structure is inverted and the proletariat uses the state to oppress the bourgeoisie (and any remnants of say, aristocracy or whatever).
The idea is that in a DotP, the bourgeoisie will eventually become proletarianized and, after a long enough period when there are no more bourgeoisie, there will be no more proletariat (as classes are defined in terms of the conflict between them). Without a class system, there will be no longer any reason for the state - as that tool of class oppression to exist. All that will be left in terms of governance, will be the administration of things. You still need to manage healthcare, housing, transport, etc.
I take a very literal approach to “the state.” The state is the status quo. The way things currently are. The totality of social relations. The state is what keeps Haskell programmers awake at night. Nothing more, nothing less.
A hippie commune, an Anarchist book club, a Syndicalist federation, and a dictatorship of the proletariat helmed by a Communist party are all states. It isn’t very useful to argue about what is and isn’t a state. It is much more interesting to explore how these various forms of social organization differ in composition and outcome. To learn from effective practice, incorporate the triumphs of past movements, while avoiding the mistakes. Differing conditions call for differing tactics, and it doesn’t behoove anybody to be too dogmatic.
I don’t think it’s just that they are misguided. It’s that they raise guns against the revolutionary state.
That’s why we need to educate people on the necessity of the revolutionary state. :)
*maybe
Saying this as someone who constantly sees the local anarchist groups and CPUSA/ML groups working together at rallies and picketlines.
If your anarchism starts and stops at your screen you’re just a liberal. Same for Marxist Leninism.
local anarchist groups and CPUSA/ML groups working together at rallies and picketlines.
True, but try putting that into a meme :P
If your anarchism starts and stops at your screen you’re just a liberal. Same for Marxist Leninism.
Yeah maybe liberal and activist woud’ve been more accurate.
i mean if we only disagree on whether a hypothetical communists society in the future could actually abolish authority altogether, then whatever i welcome them they are still wrong but i dont mind. But generally anarchist on the anglosphere internet means radlib who buys into all the western propaganda about socialist countries but still want to be leftists and these types can fuck off, to somewhere where they can read a book.
There are 5 questions on the Lemmygrad signup to make you explain why you want to be there. I thought it would be funny to answer “I’m too much of an anarchist to submit to a hierarchy and answer this.”
I never heard back on my application. 🤷♂️
I’ve always seen anarchism to be more liberal than socialist. Like the end goal of liberalism where everyone cares about him/herself and fuck everyone else. Maybe that’s just me.
