Are Marxism and anarchism mutually exclusive?

Yes, marxists are traitors

The state in the anarchist definition is, and I'm using a rough definition I threw out in an earlier thread, is the totality of centralized self-legitimizing (as in they claim legitimacy through the act of existence or some derivative of that logic) institutions that enforce hierarchical control over individual action through the monopoly of violence. The Marxist definition is simply an apparatus of domination of one class over another. Neither of those definitions are in regards to every individual nor every institution in a given society, but rather specific tools for control of one group over another.
Additionally, most of the functions that we often attribute to the modern state have historically not been under the authority of the state: they were functions that were absorbed to gain greater control over those under its control. Those functions can be again taken in abstraction from the current state apparatus and indeed must be if the proletariat is to truly gain control over those functions rather than have them be beholden to a framework of law and power organization built around and for the bourgeoisie.

I have more to say in regards to OP's post specifically, but it's late. I'll get to it tomorrow.

Nope. Libcom & Left(council)com BFF!

Under any state I can use violence when attacked by someone. so I used violence when I determined it to be "legitimate" so who do you want to decide when violence is legitimate? a legal system or a mob or each individual? I only see one viable option here, although i'd like it largely directly democratic

Marxism isn't an ideology so no.

Not the person you're responding to, but each individual and the people/communities directly involved.

i don't mind anarkiddies if they don't say liberal shit like: we don't need leaders or hierarchies.
Durruti was a leader, CNT had hierarchies.
Face it. The only decent anarchist movements had leaders.

I'm for federalism all the way, we just have to be reasonable to the possibility of applying local direct democracy in the short term.

...

...

...

...

...

Marxists and Anarchists need a fucking NAP to keep them working in parallel to dismantle capitalism, and not sabotage each other.

My activist group has a healthy mix of anarchists and Marxists, and in the syndicalist youth wing Capital is considered near mandatory reading - so it's fully workable.

It's actually rather in the theory that they are opposed, within Marxism capitalism brings forth the necessary social conciousness that makes communism possible (the proletariat as the class that abolishes itself) - within anarchism communism was always an possibility. This is based on the clearly anti-humanist writings of late Marx, versus the commonly quite humanist perspectives of anarchism.

An example is how Marxists generally traced themselves back to the French Revolution (the first class war), while anarchists talk of the English Diggers or even older communities. I've planned to expand on this some more in a blog post but never gotten around to it.

What kind of fucking leftist would unironically write this?
nvm

Marxism focuses from the majority, inward, crushing the individual. Anarchism focuses from the individual outward, nullifying tyranny of the majority.

Some strands of Anarchism and Marxism are mutually exclusive.

For example, ML argues for Vanguard overthrowing Capitalism first and having election as an epilogue of Revolution. Anarchists tend to (there are exceptions) demand the opposite - elections first, revolution later; often going full SocDem (as one user did here) or even Fascist (as some Ukrainian groups did in 2014 even after Odessa murders) in their attempts to defend the state from "unjustified takeover".

You really need to explain this part of your plan.

That's the question of practice, not theory.

As I've pointed out: only those Anarchists that support destruction of state by Vanguard (and, consequently, Vanguard) will even consider cooperation.

Then we have a problem of figuring out the question of "transition state", since orthodox Anarchists eschew it and - as a rule - violently resist Marxist attempts to establish DotP, as they view it as a new state.

Moreover, most non-revisionist ML share the idea of continued class struggle within (transitioning) Socialist state. I.e. they might support extralegal measures of ensuring Socialist character of state - something that Anarchists of SocDem variety will not like.

What do you mean? Did "young" Marx support immediate transition to Communism?

For example, Engels in 1847:

Jacobins, to be specific.

I'd hypothetically go along with a statist revolution as long as we get workers coops and not be Kronstadted.

Let me get this straight.

You want the freedom to start uprisings in military bases in key locations during Civil War?

How is this at all even related to the question?

I mean Marx has been clearly of a mind that conditions for Communism are necessary even before becoming "late Marx".

Oh ok, then. Then it's just a question of semantics. Thanks for the explanation. I'm going to update my definition of state, i really identify with your post

Ok thought you were talking about the DotP.

Young Marx was much more humanistic ofc, but if this would mean he believed capitalism to not be a necessary historical stage I really cannot say. I've not well read in Young Marx - but to me it seems that his conception of history and his views on the human subject was in a contradiction that he later sought to resolve - abandoning humanism in the process.

But you should not take my opinion as fact on this matter.

This. Ideally we'd be allowed to form our own autonomous anarchist bubbles inside, but I'd take this. It would be vastly preferable to capitalism. What we really need is revolution happening on a global scale, so that we can form a confederacy of the various states/lands that are getting rid of capitalism who will stand in solidarity regardless of their methods. This way we can effectively defend against capitalist imperialism and we let reality sort out which leftist theories work the best in practice.

This will never, ever happen. Not when you have a shit ton of "1st world countries", of which i am to blame as well, where most people live inside bubbles and they don't have lack of basic needs.
Then you also have to remember the entertainment culture that perpetuates the illusion that you can be rich or famous, or both.
The only way a revolution might happen, will be when the global capitalist market collapses, far worst scenario than 2008, making millions unemployed and with hunger.

woops my shitposting flag

I didn't say it would happen, just it's what we need (eventually).
In the US at least we are heading in that direction. It's harder and harder to find a job that pays a living wage, even with a college degree, which means student loan debt isn't getting paid back. Not to mention all the other problems like collapsing infrastructure. If the US has problems so does the rest of the world since we're the capital capital of the world.

Well even Bakunin argued for a shadow government, and Makhno had a secret police.

My gut feeling is that there needs to be a compromise. The state will never wither away if it can avoid it, but the complete lack of a state is a contradiction in terms, so we should settle on a state that's as diffused and participatory as possible, and be strictly kept to very specific areas. A rump state, if you will.

The "Anarchist" state needs a socialist one to leech off to survive. Anarchism is retarded.

Would it be that difficult to allow for autonomous anarchist zones within a socialist state, so long as they do not directly demand for the return of capitalism or the regression of the socialist cause? The motivations for the Soviet repression of anarchist movements always seem to be to regain control of land, transportation or resources necessary to feed and protect itself. It seems like that wouldn't be a problem given the abundance of modern industry and agriculture.

You forgot organized crime (Black Guards) and actual self-defence (Makhno actively attacked Soviets).

How would those zones look like? Arguably, most of Russia during NEP was "autonomous anarchist zones".

And - yes. It is difficult.

Any treaty requires both sides to be exist. If Anarchists are disorganized, Marxists can't gain anything from providing Anarchists with zones. If Anarchists are organized, it makes more sense to incorporate them into the Vanguard and make the whole nation into an alliance of "autonomous zones".

Either way, it makes little to no sense to have geographic division.

Geographic division makes less sense generally as time goes on. So much is connected via technology now that people often interact more with people far away than close by. That's not to say it's irrelevant but its importance is diminishing for sure.

Well historically speaking anarchists and LibSocs tend to do pretty well when there's no managerial class of 'professional revolutionaries' nearby intending to crush all traces of real socialism.

This was idealistic to begin with, and if history has shown us anything, wrong. Read Bookchin.

nice non existing argument you got there :^)

Tell me how a social movement can act and have a cohesive praxis without someone delegating some sort of action? How was Durruti not a leader, same for Rosa Luxemburg, same for the PKK + YPG, and how were CNT hierarchies not hierachies?

The failure of occupy, indignados and the arab spring just shows how the horizontal hierarchical meme is the product of ideology. The post-left anarkiddie ideas have failed for decades, from the punk movement to today. Facts must hurt your bubble feels, but it's the truth.

pro-tip: I've actually been a part of a trot party for 3 years, and tried to organize anarchists for 2 years before realizing how useless and liberal bourgeois they all were.
double pro-tip: read Gramsci :^)

Yes, even if the goal may be the same for some anarchists, the means are different. We're not in some Sonic game where the bad guys and the good guys must ally against the very bad guys. Just pick a side, unity without a common cause is retarded.

Anarchists aren't against delegates, they just want them to be recallable.

Unlike the USSR. Oh wait, it's gone.

trips don't lie

...

do you think that the people who delegated the CNT ministers in the spanish second republic had any power over them? nigga please. read "we the anarchists!" cnt was even more shit than any party.
anarchism has all the vices of power and domination of any other social movement. You just don't want to believe in them.

Just watch HyperNormalisation, i guess Adam Curtis can make a better argument for how the non hierarchical non organized left failed.

is this irony?
USSR economy wasn't great and power relations gave too much power to incompetent people, but at least we had one of the most progressive societies in human history, while you break stuff and think that that has any political meaning. Nice, must feel good to be an anarkiddie.

Lol

read Weber

listen buddy I understand why you'd be hesitant to trust the marxists and their "state withering away." Especially marxist-tankieists, but you really oughta read more because your comment is really meme-y.

The state cannot just be abolished without first changing the conditions which brought the state about. In the meantime a state will be necessary in one form or another to enforce proletarian interests. A "libertarian revolution" is a contradiction in terms.

...

...

Then lets make a plausible form of socialism that has a non-oppressive state where everyone is reasonably equal and go with that.

...

what in there contradicts him?