can marxism and anarchism ever be reconciled?
Can marxism and anarchism ever be reconciled?
Technically that already are sort of in the form of Libertarian Marxism.
I think the real question you are asking is:
Can Leninist Marxism and Anarchism be reconciled?
Despite the fact that I identify as an anarchist, I think the anarchist idea of abolishing the state is just semantics. As an anarchist would still retain some sort of governing body or bodies with a monopoly of legitimate violence in a region; whether it be called a militia, a union, or council, or commune. Anarchists, however, use a different specialist definition of the word "state". I think this is redundant and only serves to increase confusion where is already tremendous propaganda distorting the public picture of anarchism. When, I've brought this up, I've always gotten a pretty disappointing answer.
Leninist on the other hand, underestimate the dangers of authoritarianism and the concentration of power.
The biggest internal threat to a Leninist state is the vanguard party itself. Power corrupts and attracts careerists, and nobody thinks it will happen to them, making them more vulnerable.
I think Leninist should take a little pause about how accurate Bakunin's predictions about the Soviet Union were.
Anarchism faces the problem that it's so principled its too vulnerable and Leninism faces the problem that it's so pragmatic that it's liable to internal corruption. The optimal arrangement, it would seem, is a balance between the two qualities that has the maximum amount of pragmatism without going authoritarian.
The historical antagonism definitely doesn't help.
"Achieving socialism in the long-term" scorecard: Anarchists 0 vs Marxists 0
PS. Fuck tankies. Also, Trots are sectarian against everyone including themselves.
i hope so
i know lots of anarchists and they're all really good people
No. Marxists will never recongnize that power corrupts and they will for ever believe in heroes.
i wish i knew you user
We dont really need to reconcilate. Cooperation on specific moments for specific objectives is possible and beneficial -after all we all want the same objective and coincidental tactics and strategies might, and do appear, i've seen it myself- and I always welcome it, but the fact is that Anarchists and Marxists have a philosfical divergence that its impossible to overcome unless one of the two groups defeats ideologically the other.
The Anarchist philosophy is deeply rooted in Idealism, their original analysis doesnt come from a Materialist POV, even thought it tries to be like it. This question appears a lot on the kind of topics Anarchists focus right now, like peripherical opressions and/or opressed groups that have no revolutionary potential, even thought their struggles ask for a immediate action to stop them (refugees and migrants for example). Sometimes this tendency goes as far as declaring fat people as "opressed", which is as unscientific and biased you can get, its plain ridiculous and the theory behind it doesnt even deserves that name.
Dont get me wrong, I agree these people -migrants, refugees, the homeless…- suffer a horrible situation, but this is not about feeling pity, this about creating a powerful, functional revolutionary movement, and tbh refugees arent the group with the revolutionary potential.
No. They see the root of the problem in two fundamentally different things. All they have in common (if truly always), is a disdain for an economic system based on production for exchange.
I consider myself a Marxist and an anarchist but I have no patience for most who describe themselves as such. Hopefully the movements will just die out so something less ridden with logical fallacies can take their place. As it stands I doubt there will ever be reconciliation and I might have to reluctantly side with Marxists in the future as they're likely to be more numerous.
Impressive that you realize this. Marxists could be using that point against anarchists but unfortunately most of them are naive enough to think of a "state" as some kind of absolute entity as well in spite of the fact that it's supposed to gradually wither away. As if we'll all just wake up one day and enough institutions will be gone to qualify the new society as objectively stateless.
I have more than a few problems with Leninism but this charge is not one of them. Lenin would have preferred a more democratic form of government but considering how low support for communism and the Bolshevik party was in Russia aristocracy was absolutely the only option on the table. Anarcho-moralists just like to claim democracy is always the best revolutionary tactic to give the impression you're the people's true champions. It's such a blatant logical absurdity I'm not sure how you can keep repeating this while taking yourselves seriously. Democracy is a good tactic for maintaining communism in a nation where the majority of citizens are communists. This was obviously not even close to being the case in 1917 Russia. Granted, this was the case by the end of the 30's but it was of course politically difficult to build a more democratic system by that point.
Pathetic and endlessly-recycled arguments. Anarchists have their own set of leaders whose adherents naturally see as having a near-ideal political philosophy and worldview. But supposedly this is different because your leadership never utilized a "state."
I like your style.
In regards to your argument about Russia 1917 and democracy.
You support democracy only so long as it results in communism. What you're really after is communism/socialism. This is an interesting viewpoint because, from how I see it, the central feature of socialism is democracy. You want to put the means of production under the control of the workers and it is implicit that this would require worker support and is democratic. Given the proles are suppose to be the majority, they'd vote to keep it. If they don't, you don't have socialism.
The fact that it wasn't possible in Russia is part of the general Marxian argument that the revolution must take place in the most advanced industrialized societies. So socialism wouldn't work in the same way democracy wouldn't work.
Perhaps I'm wrong but I was under the impression that socialism = economic democracy; that we are radical democrats seeking to expand democracy from its presently limited domain and thus empower the people.
Socialism is the negation of capitalism in every form. This means that it's not merely running a firm democratically; it means socializing production to meet the function of producting for USE, as opposed to EXCHANGE. This involves the abolishment of money, wage labor and property. This recent trend of defining socialism as 'workplace democracy' is absolutely retarded. It does not break down the contradictions of capital like SNLT, use vs. exchange, TRPF, reserve labor, etc.
I see no reason you can't take most of Marx's economic ideas and ignore his proposed solutions.
You folks are always waiting for heroes…
Tankies love purging anarchists, so no
Because anarchists seem to have a problem with the fact that you can't just implement full communism the day after socialists seize control of the state which causes them to threaten civil war or withhold much needed supplies.
Lenin and Trotsky didn't have any problem crushing Kronstadt
leftist minarchism is the answer
The sailors deserved it
I think of it chiefly as the abolition of capital accumulation with production carried out primarily for use. Though I also have no problem with indulging governments who describe themselves as socialist/communist so long as enough of their industry is nationalized for my tastes.
There is no objective definition of any word.
I just want to destroy capitalism and nationalism because they're only sustained by ignorance and defended with fallacies. I have no reason to care about empowering "the people" save to be weaponized against capitalists. You can do whatever the fuck you want though.
If Anarchism is about Kronstadt, I would consider it everyone's duty to ''stab in the back" - or wherever else - every single Anarchist - every single genocidal fanatic who considers it acceptable to starve population into "True Freedom".
The only thing they deserve is slow, painful death.
This is "homo economicus" argument. Humans aren't rational, nor are they omniscient.
Of course. Through Stirnerism, everything is a spook, and one only engages with spooks one enjoys. I rather like Marxism, so even though I enjoy fierce individualism, I can set aside my anarcho-seclusionism to help with the revolution.
what a surprise
I love this mental gymnastics.
Tell me how dying from lack of food is a personal choice.
How are we supposed to do that under the pressures of counter-revolution, espionage, external intervention (not just of the military kind), and the generalized turmoil that characterizes a revolution?
If you look to Rojava they're not even considering socialism so much as "social economy", where most property is held in common and cooperatives are producing most of what is needed (with the rest sold on the market). They still have money, wage labor, and a limited amount of private property.
Despite that, they're the most effective revolutionary force the 21st century has yet seen. From my point of view, it's because they know their limits – and those are many, even down to a lack of potable water. Many of the people organizing it have participated in the PKK/PYD for the better part of 30 years, and it shows; they know how far they can go along the road of socialism and go no further.
All this talk of the complete negation of capitalism as an absolute requirement of socialism is nothing more than hot air. It's never been done; and it won't be done until the majority of the world is socialist. To argue otherwise is to argue, nonsensically, that every socialist revolution is an inadvertent bourgeois revolution, including Rojava. In which case, why bother?
That was a situation that could have been avoided, but hindsight is 20/20. The sailors were right to revolt while Lenin and Trotsky were right to see it as a threat to the revolution. Why the latter? Once the ice melted it would have been virtually impregnable – except to the imperialists. And the sailors of Kronstadt would have fared badly against imperialist marines supported by heavy guns. The implications of that for Petrograd should be obvious. In my opinion, it was a chance the Lenin and Trotsky should have taken, even if I can understand why they did not. Bringing the sailors around peacefully would have spared a lot of headaches.
Careful with that edge.
Why? They were getting twice as much food as workers - contributing to the food crisis in Petrograd themselves with their previous demands.
What right did they have to demand - by themselves! alone! - that Bolsheviks should be prohibited from taking part in Soviets? Who gave them the right to issue ultimatum to the whole of Russia to abandon rationing - the only thing that kept cities somewhat alive?
They had no support, no intentions to cooperate with anyone. Only ultimatum. It was a terrorism on a grand scale.
Also, they were mostly soldiers who recently joined Red Army, not actual sailors.
Both England and France were pooling reserves to send food and supplies to Kronstadt. And not only them. Every single counter-revolutionary faction of Russia (except for Royalists, IIRC) did this too. Fascist Finland actually begun supplying Kronstadt.
Why should anyone want to hug it out with those wannabe mass-murders? They are a Bane-level caricature of the Revolution. Except it's not funny.
Off topic, but I can't for the life of me find the original version of that meme no matter what I search. Help pls?
Well Dietzgen and Deleon both tried to create syntheses.
Seriously, what would that be like?
I'm hardly going to argue with you on this matter.
I'm thinking strategically. Lenin and Trotsky of course denounced it as a White/Imperialist conspiracy and that it wasn't the original sailors and so on, and then crushed it. Fact is, once the ice melted they would have to wait it out while, as you said, Kronstadt was supplied from without; perhaps "corrupted" further so that imperialists could reinforce it; perhaps crushed externally in order to gain a foothold near Petrograd. Both are very unlikely, but Lenin and Trotsky were hard-nosed revolutionaries. They weren't going to take any chances after the last few years.
You are though :^)
This is it, I think: sovietart.me
Strategically speaking, invasion Kronstadt was unlikely in the extreme. As for the alliance with the counter-revolutionaries - as I've already told - it had already happened. Finland was supplying Kronstadt.
And I repeat: the question is not about the foothold counter-revolution might've gotten, but the blockade of the main route through which Russia was receiving bread (both trade and help - Quakers and the like were sending). And lack of bread would've meant not only hundreds of thousands dead (direct consequence of blockade), but the fall of Bolshevik regime - at least in some areas - and continuation of the Russian Civil War for several more years, if not decades (like China had) - and that would be millions of dead.
I'm glad that you are amused. Personally, I don't have the stomach for gore from Mexico, Africa, or Syria.
Not true comrade. I love everyone except stalinists and so do all my 'Trotskyist' friends
Did either Lenin or Trotsky speak of the possibility of a blockade?
Good shit my dude, I'm glad you could put my beliefs into words.
Officially? Not that I'm aware of.
Judging by Lenin's interview Bolsheviks were presenting a strong image of Soviet Russia so as to discourage any potential invasion:
That said, despite Lenin's words, the very position of Kronstadt automatically means that nothing enters, nor leaves Petrograd without passing through the fortifications.
I thought as much, since I hadn't heard of it either. I prefer my speculation to yours, but really, what it comes down to is that Kronstadt was a mistake. I'll say as much even if you won't.
I'm sorry, but what did you expect? It's not like Bolsheviks were the most reliable and unbiased when it came to informing people about real situation.
What speculation? Do you doubt the ability of Kronstadt to prevent ships from reaching Petrograd? Or that rebels would've done it?
Explain the alternative. If it was mistake, there should've been the "right" solution (besides not having Trotsky's flunky in charge).
Voluntary communes or councils
Duplicity from a Bolshevik? Say it isn't so! No really, I'm surprised you'd say that.
Of course not. They were not simple idiots and sociopaths with a desire to kill people just to destabilize the government.
Wait them out. A period of isolation and relative hardship until the ice refreezes would have done a lot to calm nerves on either side. Perhaps then Lenin could have had more time to think and provide a solution, while putting a leash on Trotsky.
I do not consider war propaganda to be BETRAYAL OF THE REVOLUTION.
They tried to murder over 400 people who didn't support them by putting them in the ship and blowing it up. Only intervention of actual sailors and advancement of Red Army prevented this.
I have yet to see anything to support this. Everything points to the opposite.
Where are you going to get food from? Poland? Baltics? Romania? Finland? They are all anti-Soviet.
And you need lots and lots of food. Both Petrograd and Moscow have enough only for 2-3 days - and it is ration already low enough to cause unrest and strikes. Without international trade you are going to have massive uprisings everywhere - as was the case IRL, except more.
For Soviet Russia. Only northern port (Murmansk) was semi-active, but even it was small and very remote. Black Sea ports were effectively controlled by the Turkey (all traffic goes through Istanbul).
On the other hand, Kronstadt had access to Estonia, Finland, and the whole world.
What solution? The only solution you offered is "I'll sit on my ass and hope for something to happen". This is the attitude that gets everyone killed.
ya' lost me at "monopoly of legitimate violence"
couldn't have said it better myself, my dude :^)
I thought LeftCom and Anarchists were quite close.
Only if marxists drop their sense of morality
marxism is a theory not a political system such as communism, so anarcho-marxism would be a theory as well.
This fucking faggot again
I was talking about the stalinists
But I was talking about wannabe mass-murderers. Stalinists clearly have a very high bodycount of Nazies.
I need to amend this statement. Apparently, even Archangel wasn't working at the time. Petrograd was the only northern seaport of Soviet Russia at the time.
Additionally, a sufficiently correct (i.e. predictably biased; for example, no mentions about Soviets being blackmailed during spring-summer) documentary about 1921-1922 famine (that actually happened without Kronstadt) to give general idea about situation and possible consequences of "waiting it out":
Well this is one of the core properties in the common definition of the word "state".
If your implicit point is that anarchists use a different definition of the word state, I hear you. However, my argument is that this is redundant and undermines outreach among those who don't know this. Most people are very superficial and don't understand that words have different meanings in different contexts.
I've argued with liberals who argue that anarchism is stupid on that line alone. If you run through all the features of what anarchists advocate, they agree as though it is self-evidently correct, but then "You can have society without state… herp derp". They think you are pulling a trick on them when you put out that anarchists have a different conception of the state.
I'm a believer in the "elimination method" - If the argument is all about a word, use a different one.