Marxist/Ancom hate

IMO I don't really get it. Both strains of thought seem to be complementary and I think both have elements that are useful or necessary to eliminating capitalism and building socialism. I don't really care who betrayed who a million years ago or how this dogma or that theory is authoritarian or idealist or whatever.

To me what's important is that they want to destroy capitalism, not whether they believe in a vanguard party or spontaneous revolution or whatever. I'd rather take a chance on the tankiest tankie or the guru of anarcho-anarchism if it means having a shot at taking down the prevailing order.

TBH it seems like a lot of this sectarianism has been brought into Holla Forums from by dogmatists that failed to absorb the board's spirit of respectful disagreement. Maybe I'm just idealizing the past but it seemed like marxist/anarcho sides before disagreed vehemently but expressed this by taking good-natured potshots at each other rather than embracing ideological purism. Not that ideological content isn't important but being too rigid doesn't serve anyone.

Ultimately I think that the socialist project won't succeed without both. This isn't to say some mealy-mouthed, middle-of-the-road, "radical centrism," but regardless of your theory or how much you've read, the projections aren't going to universally match up with the social and material conditions everywhere, so obsession with and larping as ideological purists isn't going to get us anywhere.

Its not hate, its disagreement.

Maybe it's just my perception then but it seems to me like anarchist/marxist interaction lately has been especially acrimonious.

Its an image board, bound to happen, I sperg at leftcoms all the time but I consider them comrades.

Disagreements on the role of the state, DoP, organization. And not bothering to read the lit of what you're shitting on, which is most common among MLs but by no means exclusive. Communization theory is worth looking into for a "compromise", though it's far from a radical-centrist type of agreement.


We're on an image board where not being told to kill yourself is being courteous. What were you expecting?

left unity isnt a myth, its a necessity

about that…

for real this time

Where's the honesty.

Okay.

I'ma let that "education" meme slide but this nigga finna keep classes in a supposedly post-State, post-property and classless society.

We'll see about that.

Like, maybe sit back and put that Dialectical and Immortally Scientific noggin to work and think on this one and what it implies about the world.

Why are we pretending ML isn't as dead as disco in the context of any kind of future revolution?

The "real movement" probably won't even give itself a name.

This would all be great, if they were to actually do anything, beyond "re-managing" capitalism. And besides, most of the disputes are LARPing outdated praxis thought of in regards to long gone circumstances. People seems to have a problem with this, but it should be obvious that we are neither struggling with decaying feudal relations, nor do the workers have the ability to "simply" seize the MoP, anymore.

The answer isn't both, but neither.

The problem is that state socialism has repeatedly sabotaged or suppressed anarchist or ultraleftist attempts at organization, mostly because of geopolitical realpolitik and perceived threats to their maintenance to state power, which are inherent to any system which requires the preservation of the state.

...

yeah but lets just not do that this time


ok "once class society is abolished" you pedant


two ML countries exist literally right now


making everyone proletarian is tantamount to abolishing class society as such

They're doing well at the whole "state capitalism with bureaucratic characteristics in one country" thing but that's not so much my game.

Plus >in the context of any kind of future revolution

Fake quote made up with no attempt to even source it by a literal SocDem to accompany the made up fiction of left unity ever being a thing or ever becoming one. Literally the only way to believe in that is to be naive or not have taken any serious attempt at examing the nature of revolutionary politics and historical precedent.

Bolshevik-Makhnovschina / KPD-SPD / CNT-POUM-Republic / CPC-KMT / PCF-Republic cooperation worked out real bad for the bourgeoisie, right? lel.

How does Zizek put it? "To return to Lenin is not to repeat Lenin?"

Reminder that an anarchist skank killed lenin.

i mean lets be honest there's no way to abolish production for exchange that doesn't pass through some sort of democratized state capitalism

retards like you keep fucking it up

This is honestly a huge problem. There needs to be stricter moderation of this kind of thing. There are definitely a few depressed people browsing here, and the constant bullying could push them over the edge. The last thing we want is to kill fellow comrades.

There's the part where Stalin refused to support the legitimately revolutionary movements in Spain in favour of the bourgeois liberal government who wanted those movements to hand over more and more of the shit they'd collectivised and integrate their militias into the regular army leading to infighting and the fascist victory, but yeah it was all the non-ML's faults

no the ML's were responsible for ltiearlly most of it.

I somewhat agree.
It's not really a problem you can just moderate away. It's endemic to image board users that absorbed 4 chan shitposting "culture" and think that means that every other image board must or is only able to be used the same way.

Besides, I'd rather deal with assholes than put up with the fucking "reddiquette" straight jacket.

Anarchists in general are idealists and theoretically immature.

I am a proponent of left unity, but we have to face that most anarchists as soon as a socialist or even quasi-socialist state is established will abandon the revolution and turn against it. Most anarchists I have met are moral fanatics that oppose the state on principle, and cannot think of another way of government, other than autonomous direct democracy. They are completely unrealistic about how to achieve or maintain power since Anarchist movements seem to go to two directions, Anarcho-syndicalism (basically stuck in the Spanish civil war era time warp, as syndicates don't even exist today) or opportunistic activism in the form of agitation, propaganda of the deed, and hedonistic vandalism.

Capitalism will only be abolished when a better, more effective and stronger political system comes along, but anarchists don't accept that because they can't see the forest for the trees and engage in pett and insignificant moral arguments on historical contingencies (like Kornstadt).

Tbh i agree, although i feel that shitposting in that manner hurts discussion more than it hurts people in hard times.


Amen.

That is because autonomous direct democracy is objectively the best form of government.

Should have told them to google Bookchin tbh.

can you please kindly go fuck yourself?

you fucking redditors with your moralfaggotry I swear
can't take some banter and behave all paternalistic to ordinary posters
"think about children!"
"don't be rude or he may kill himself!"

fucking listen to this shit
old Holla Forums would've choked from laughter

Systems dont come along, they are build

Every single anarchist that I have met is more realistic and dedicated than every single ML, your impression of the adherents says almost nothing about the theory.

Some form of direct democracy is arguably the best tool we have. Politics needs to be revived and the Marxist insistence on thinking that statecraft is politics just makes you look stupid.

Ansyns and related unions are growing in Europe and still offer the best approach to unionism(although i personally disagree with them they are the best example of the real movement in the west right now)

Obviously engaging with that history is still necessary as many Marxists refuse to learn from history

tell that to leftcoms

how are they more dedicated than KKE for example?

you faggots can't get it into your stupid head that direct democracy can coexist with a centralized state

but no, state boogeyman triggers you so much that you're ready to destroy established supply chains and split up large firms into a billiard pieces because of your irrational fear of everything big

and you faggots call MLs idealists

oh we learned
we learned for example that anarchists are unreliable and would stir shit up while there's a major fascist offensive going on

"Old Holla Forums" was a containment board and the discussion boards didn't tolerate that bullshit, and actively started going to shit when Holla Forumstards brought that shit with them.

And why should I take you seriously? The liquidation of tankies and maoists will be first priority after the revolution, people this stupid but with such a drive to meddle in everything cant be allowed.

They're providing medical care to the poor instead of cheering on Golden Dawn.

And now it's filled with fascist, why would we want to follow their steps?

Oh hey, you're not as dumb ass I thought

yea, Holla Forums ruined imageboards

keep scapegoating maybe it will make you feel better

keep larping

this is what I talking about

funking lying worm

letting a member of the Golden Dawn speak because he was invited by the union and then debunking his points is apparently means that you're a nazi collaborator now

I recently noticed reddit-tier comment on lp

Call that shit out for being undialectical insertion of ego into discourse. We can self-police it if it is truly necessary.

Then again no matter how much we bully reddit spacing comes up time and time again.

Put it simply, political Marxism cannot coexist with Anarchism. It's not simply a slight disagreement in praxis, it's a radically different view what to do during and after the revolution. When Anarchists reject all authority, deeming it inevitably destructive and always illegitimate, how could they possibly work together with a group entirely built upon authority, and more often than not believing the more authority and control, the better? This is not simply a theoretical disagreement either, but one that has repeatedly appeared in history.

Vitriolic arguments isn't bullying, in fact personal bullying is practically impossible when you're anonymous, at the most you'll just be constantly shit on for your opinions, which might spur you on to question them. If someone kills themself because some faggot said "KYS", then they already had the exit bag around their head. Additional moderation is not a good thing, especially when it amounts to language and tone policing. Courteous behavior should be encouraged and self-policing should happen, but it should not be moderated.

As they should, since they're actually capable of looking at history and seeing what the "socialist states" really were.
You don't need to be a moral fanatic to realize the state is inherently destructive and oppressive and the entire concept of authority is built upon spooks.

Not in any meaningful way. Direct democracy has to be personal democracy, otherwise it'll just descend into a tyranny of the majority at the best. At the worst, and what's most likely, is the state will just create a new class of politicians and bureaucrats that will follow their own interests, namely to continue growing and protecting their positions of state power and muh privilege, over the interests of the people: wonder where I've seen that before.
Says the person whose ideology betrayed the Spanish Revolution (while they were fighting against Fascism) and fucked over the Black Army after they repeatedly helped the Red Army in the war.