How come Marxism is so highly regarded in academia but anarchism is not? And why is in actual practice it's the opposite? Is it only because of the Eastern Block institutionalizing Marxism or something else?
How come Marxism is so highly regarded in academia but anarchism is not...
Other urls found in this thread:
Because most intelligent people grow out of anarchism when they turn 20.
Because marxism is hip and hegelian and anarchism is edgy and unacademic.
Bakunin was pretty Hegelian.
Because it's scientific (based on facts and coherent reasoning), while anarchism is wishful thinking.
What practice? Where Anarchists actually do any practice (beyond helping Capitalists to demolish any pieces of state they don't like)?
It's because Marxism contains many large words that can be used to pad academic papers for the purpose of making authors look smarter, the arch-Anarcho-Liberal Chomsky talks about this somewhat. The Eastern Bloc had very little to do with this, and considering that the Marxists involved with academia are rarely MLs, or at least active in ML parties, that becomes clear. The academic Marxists aren't really involved with parties or organizing, Zizek for instance says the 20th century needs to be abandoned and urges not to repeat Lenin yet offers no advice on to what exactly that means in practical terms and even reccomends voting for Sanders and Corbyn instead of some ML(M) or Trot party. Meanwhile the most notable Anarchist in academia is David Graeber who authored the excellent Debt: the First 5000 years and he has been effectively exiled from burgerland, while Chomsky has said many times that he isn't an Anarchist.
I'm not sure what you mean by this, if you're asking why actions anarchists take are more highly regarded than it's because smashie shit, FnB, or killing some fascists is more visible than some party that gets .2% of the vote or a strike that gets taken over by Golden Dawn.
Outside of quotes about jews no one on this board has read Bakunin or even his wikipedia article.
Well according to David Graeber it's because anarchists are more action oriented than theory oriented.
Ironically, Graeber got himself into the exact kind of trouble he predicted for being an anarchist as
for the same reason marxism-leninism isn't highly regarded in academia, because there's no theory actually backing it and usually only exists to cause more deaths of workers fighting for a pointless unachievable cause see free territory, the cnt-fai during the Spanish civil war and the arditi del popolo.
Scientific huh, wow please point me to your experiments that reproduced the results your thesis stated.
Also a ton of research has shown that’s letting people be free without authority produces better results.
This is the real reason, acedemia is there’s to enforce the status quo primarily.
Another leftcom post, another proof that they've lost all touch with reality.
Because the coherence and theoretical depth of Marxism has been unmatched, pretty much except by social ecology.
Yeah but Bakunin's negational dialectics were no where near as sophisticated as the materialist conception of history.
I haven't lost touch with reality you people literally parade Joseph Stalin portraits and soviet flags
or you smash up random property making yourself and your "movement" look like children
Bakunin's dialectics were actually better than Marx's.
Marxism was a product of bourgeois society, produced by an onlooker of the struggles of the time. All sorts of political theories and -isms have this sort of a problem, if we accept that the proletariat is the revolutionary subject etc. The reason we at leftypol care about Marx and Marxism is that Marx correctly identified the proletariat as I said. It has interest to academia insofar as it must be taken in and recuperated and Marx's own errors. I think Marxism is more susceptible to deteriorating into reformism while anarchism is quite explicitly hostile to it and to civil society as a whole. I hope it's not too banal to say that a general problem we have that those who would practice 'emancipatory politics' tend to come from the dominant class and retain many dominant ideas in their practice.
Marx wasn't the only or even the first to claim the proletariat to be revolutionary.
Because Marxism is an actual respected science and though based on facts, reality and is dialectical, while anarchism is utopian and unacademic.
my fuckingh sides oh my god
Well, if you want to make an actual statement, there is no point parading Bordiga or Pannekoek, is there?
Someone took Popper too seriously.
Science begins with method (which we have - DiaMat) and proper definitions (which we also have - Capital and other books). And before you start asking about "experiments" like as 12-year old kid, go and read up on Bayesian probability to come back and ask for "strong evidence".
Well, then you will not have problem providing this ton of research.
So far, I've seen the evidence to the opposite: rise of crime, formation of gangs, and so on.
Because leftist modes of action (anarchism, m-l) aren't profitable, and universities are for profit institutions
Marx provided analysis, and his works teach us how capitalism functions, and anything that actually challenges the capitalist status quo instead of just analyzes it isn't taught anyway.
Also if you think Marxism is some great force within academia you're a fucking idiot
How about some reproducible results. What does probability have to do with anything, correlation is causality. Just because DiaMat starts with something quantifiable and observable doesn’t make it scientific. This is why science has produced a bunch of useful stuff like medicines and Marxism has produced a bunch of failed states.
So far, I've seen the evidence to the opposite: rise of crime, formation of gangs, and so on.
Hahahahahaha the rate of violent crime has been declining for several decades, mostly in industrialized nations but in 3rd world counties as well
But here’s evidence that non hierarchical structures are better
Coops, while not completely non hierarchical are far less then traditional corps
Linux, deveopled in a Bizaare non hierarchical environment has near 100%addoption rate in the server market and is consider more stable and more secure by the vast majority of IT professionals
And let’s not forget the stupid amounts of wars and oppression inflected by hierarchical organizations. I can tell you’ve never been in the military, it’s not natural to kill people for vauge political ideals, militaries very much rely on hierarchy to effectively coerce soilders into doing something they wouldn’t do freely.
Over two centuries of economic history is not enough?
If you want Socialism specifically: history of USSR has ~55 years (from 1930-1934 to 1986-1990) filled with results being repeated again and again. Additionally, Cuba and DDR. Arguably, Albania and non-occupied Korea, but there are some big questions there.
Additionally, degeneration of post-Soviet states serves as proof by contradiction: every single went down. Over a dozen of results got reproduced independently.
I'm sorry, would your scientific greatness mind explaining to the unworthy your opinion on how exactly experiments work?
AFAIK: you make a prediction (or several), and then see if results of experiment conform to this prediction. I.e. if there is correlation between expectation and result. That's what you are demanding with your thinly-veiled Popper-speak, isn't it?
While both violently anti-Marxist continents (Africa and South America, is case you are wondering) are filled with success stories? And, please, don't go calling Vagras a Communist because he supported Fascists. That's Mises-logic.
because academia is composed of adults
All history is filled with hierarchical organizations. It's like saying "stupid amounts of wars and oppression inflected by people who ate bread".
Welcome to 21st century, retard: youtube.com
AFAIK: you make a prediction (or several), and then see if results of experiment conform to this prediction. I.e. if there is correlation between expectation and result. That's what you are demanding with your thinly-veiled Popper-speak, isn't it?
You make an experiment, let’s say dropping a ball. Then the experiment proves your hypothesis,THEN if your hypothesis is true ANYONE should be able to reproduce your results using the same controls.
No those successes you cited aren’t scientific proof since there was no control group. Without a control group you’ve proved nothing. I can say a rooster makes the sun rise, and give you billions of case studies where that very thing happened (rooster crowed, sun came up)without a control group (remove rooster and see if sun come up or not) it scientifically proves nothing. Who the fuck is popper.
The falsification boogeyman.
No it’s not, weak chains of commands have produced military diasters. Also military training, desensitizing to human suffering etc are based on scientific studies not theory.
USSR collapsed and became the most capitalist country probably ever. Cuba is an economic basket case that moving to *gasp* more decentralized economic control to address its problems.. If anything these case studies prove anarchists, and no I’m not an anarchists, just a STEM person laugh at your abuse of the scientific method.
By whom, was it the CIA that kept the Poliburo from adopting networking technologies?
How does it prove hypothesis, if not through correlation between predicted outcome and actual?
I.e. a lot of correlations.
Also, that's not how science works (that's how experiments work; and even that is simplistic approach), but that's irrelevant.
Which proves what? Nobody said "it would be impossible to roll back Socialism". What was said is that it would lead to clusterfuck - which is exactly what has happened.
The opposite of.
Again: so what?
Given your inability to present your case, I'm not sure if you actually know anything about scientific method.
Think I said the results are reproducable using the same controls. For instance using the same ball. If there’s no control and I drop a feather, a feather doesn’t disprove that gravity’s rate of acceleration isn’t constant, but in your dumbass theory view of the world it would.
Poliburo did adopt networking technologies? They didn’t colonize Eastern Europe? They didn’t repeat the mistakes of Vietnam in Afghanistan? I guess your right, every Soviet had an equal say in those blunders that ultimately lead to the USSRs downfall.
Which is a repetition of an experiment. Which is about correlation. Which makes Bayes theory relevant (to understand how many experiments you need to get some certainty and what results actually mean).
STEM, my ass. Are you 14 year old "STEM"?
Wtf are you even trying to prove here?
OP mentioned anarchists, do you know what their favorite topic is?
Sounds like another way to say: "your theory is shit"
What did you expect? The fact is that uneducated anons are constantly faced with the necessity to debate Marxism, but don't want to do any actual reading. So they take the easy way out: claim that some event disproves Marxism, which means they don't need to read anything.
Win-win scenario: they can simultaneously win every argument forever and be lazy
Only if you can't read past the headline.
True, if you don't count lifestylism, squatting and voting for the dems as reformism.
also >what are maotist and ☭TANKIE☭ sects
Guerilla movements that sell drugs or parties that violently split between participating in elections.
Fam, I did read your little quote. It's still bad. "action oriented" is literal realtorspeak, just like saying a run-down shack is "improvable". It's a nice term to hide the fact that your greatest contemporary work is a shitty pop-philosophy book about a subject that was explained and discussed far better and more concisely by a bearded guy who lived over a century ago.
Not well enough obviously. Read it again, slowly if you need to, and consider it in the context of the OP.
Fam, you can tell me to read it and reread it time and time again. Doesn't change the fact that Graeber is a shitty theorist. He should stick to anthropology.
Re-read the Op. Read the quote again, the whole thing. The relevant point is the fourth sentence, which may be a struggle for you to reach but with persistence you can do it.
Which is what he does. Debt is an anthropology book, if you read it instead of a meme that would be clear.
How is that reformism?
In which they utterly fail everytime so they don't even have the chance to be reformist.
Half of it is anthropology, and that's pretty much the only decent part. The rest is his terrible historical analysis.
It certainly isn't revolutionary.
I agree, but unfortunately getting .2% of the vote is dialectical so they must continue on.
Historical analysis is part of anthropology and he wasn't writing a text book. Regardless of the quality of that work, he is correct on the academy.
Well then I stand corrected. Debt is a terrible anthropology book.
Selling drugs to buy guns and supplies isn't revolutionary?
No because it's actually doing something and they aren't getting stomped by reactionaries
Be that as it may, do you have any counter-arguments on the academy or is Graeber wrong about conferences to debate the metaphysics of toilets?
Only if the groups are revolutionary, sadly many of them are either uninterested or unable to be revolutionary.
Just like anything else which doesn't produce immediately a DoP, and of course anarchists fall under this category too.
What theories of his do you disagree with and why?
Well yes, Graeber is just another academic bullshitter spreading some shitty anecdote about some academics he disagrees with to hide the fact that he has made no notable contributions of his own.
Besides the fact that this is an ad hominem argument, he's one of the most distinguished anthropologists of our time. It's simply not true that he hasn't contributed to his field.
Yes, the state of the left is dismal this day and age.
So Graeber is wrong about useless conferences of academics because he himself is engaged in useless conferences of academics.
Only gaining because:
Microsoft basically gave up on Windows NT
Commercial UNIX is dead because the cost of maintenance did not justify the license revenue.
Linux has been stolen by porky
I said they made the same mistakes the The US did in Vietnam in Afghanistan. Please read
I said reproducible results using controls, either a control group or just controlling relevant variables.
Hypothesis: the rate of acceleration for gravity is constant
Experiment: drop ball millons of times, acceleration is constant, proving hypothesis
You: hurr durr I dropped a feather proving you wrong
Me: your findings are wrong, you failed to control all the variables.
Hahahahahaha my sides! You EVER harden in OS in your entire life?
It proves the anarckiddies right. The Poliburo, I.e. a hierarchy, created a de facto class part and unaccountable to the workers. It collapsed due to the hierarchy, unless you’re the type that think s the USSR was state capitalism.
You cite Cuba as a successful socialist state, and then get butt mad when I said that’s not scientific proof. Well there’s a bunch of capitalist countries that are more successful by every measure that Cuba might be.
According to your “scientific” Marxism that proves capitalism works.
Because Marx posed theories that could be tested while anarchists generally do not.
I don't know why you brought up Bayesian shit except maybe to dazzle your opponent. This stuff is really difficult to wrap your head around. I'm a grad student whose thesis involves MCMC simulation and even I feel like I need to take a course on Bayesian probability next semester. It's not a trivial topic to learn about.
No, Linux is a benevolent dictatorship and is highly centralized.
I was pointing out that Popper is not relevant to actual science. Even when it comes to evaluating evidence - supposedly, the strongest point - his "falsifiability" concept is utterly surpassed by Bayesian approach, which does not rely on overly simplistic "true/false" answers.
Well, the basic concept of there being strong and weak evidence is quite simple and intuitive, imo.
By the same token, neoclassical economics is the most scientific given how popular it is in academia. (And if you don't like teaching that, you'll get into trouble.)
What does this even have to do with Marx? Can you make an argument as to why he would not have preferred a frequentist approach to probability?
This is the Popper-derived retardation I am talking about.
> [incoherent ranting]
Everything is a hierarchy. Also, your bold claims are unprovable - if your own logic is followed. You can't make any conclusions without having a series of experiments with Soviet Unions and "control groups".
Are you delusional?
It isn't. But you asked for examples of Socialism.
I'm sorry, but this is a height of hypocrisy to insist on "all variables being equal" - and then compare Cuba to nations that weren't poor as fuck in 1960 and have not been embargoed by most of civilized world.
As I said: you have no idea how scientific methods works. Even scraps of it that you understand you refuse to apply to your own conclusions.
If people judged it on its "tests" no honest person would be a Marxist today.
Why did he support the bombing of Libya?
Nothing. We are talking about the Popper's retarded ideas (endemic to 20th century) not being relevant to anything.
I don't understand the question.
He explicitly say that he does not support it.
Take a guess…
Anarchism is infantile and impossible to implement, concept of state and authority irremovable from humanity.
t. literal fascist
Authority will always exist in any way shape or form, in some cases its government in some cases its a militia but it would be foolish to think that Authority can be abolished.
And from Authority grows the State it would be better to try bettering the states fault than to try and abolish it for your not abolishing the concept of Authority but the state, which will be replaced by another state.
wow the idealism
How about giving counter arguments instead of one sentences pre rehearsed answer against anything that challenges your beliefs?
The falling rate of profit on investment is a prediction of Marx's theory of value and the empirical evidence supporting it is quite substantial.
Fell free to post those studies supporting it. I'm not saying Marx was wrong, but it's weird to claim he was more scientific than other economists because he predicted some stuff
Low-effort shitposting, user.
He is scientific because he used scientific method: he gave exact definitions of the processes and was describing what was actually going on - not engaging in wishful thinking or trying to flatter the ruling elite.
Correct predictions (of which most are much more important then those done by liberal economists) mean that his theory is useful.
You do realize that anarchist and marxist theory coheres in every respect with the exception of the state, which was vaguely defined by Marx in the first place.
In fact, Marx's definition of the state is so vague that it could be interpreted in such a way where it lies in perfect coherence with anarchist theory.
You seem to completely lack an understanding of anarchist thought; read some more.
Because Marxism is controlled opposition. The anarchists, the insurrectionary ones in particular, are the real revolutionaries.
Laugh away, NSA!
Truth is sometimes stranger than fiction.
From Robert Anton Wilson's Illuminatus! Trilogy:
“Privilege implies exclusion from privilege, just as advantage implies disadvantage in the same mathematically reciprocal way, profit implies loss. If you and I exchange equal goods, that is trade: neither of us profits and neither of us loses. But if we exchange unequal goods, one of us profits and the other loses. Mathematically. Certainly . . .
When A meets B in the marketplace, they do not bargain as equals. A bargains from a position of privilege; hence, he always profits and B always loses. There is no more Free Market here than there is on the other side of the Iron Curtain . . .
And it is this that is threatened by anarchists, and by the repressed anarchist in each of us."
They do not. Also - what Anarchist theory? No, seriously. There is no codified Anarchist theory I can actually challenge; only meme-tier "Read Bookchin" - which changes to "Read Kropotkin" (once Bookchin is revealed as AnCap whore) or "Read Proudhon", or "Read Godlman".
No, it wasn't. Proceed here:
Lower part of the post explains: "No Communist ever (Lenin included) wanted to achieve Anarchism"
And then lower there are quotes:
Privilege implies a mutually recognized order of values and systems, neither Anarchists nor Marxists recognize the system of capitalist orders. Thus, to still orient ourselves with regards to the inequities in exchange is to sublimate ourselves to a system which makes production for exchange inherent. Not to mention it violates the fundamental tenet that surplus is generated in production and not in exchange - unless we intend also to regress to a Thomist law of essential values and the law of essential commodities along with it.
In eliminating inequity in exchange, we have by no means resolved the basic negativities of capital. This section is good, in that it points out the negativity exists and that any positive assertion (privilege, advantage, profit) equally addresses a negative corollary (exclusion, disadvantage, loss), but that does not resolve how we continually reproduce and reinforce these negativities - that becomes a question of philosophy, of which Marxist tendencies have been the most incisive tool for the critique and dereliction of the thought and logic of capital.
Anarchism is highly regarded in academia. Just middle school academia.
If your point is that Marxism provides the best critique of capitalism, I agree. But I still think that that in practice, Marxism has been counterrevolutionary, overall.
Anarchism does not create power, Marxism does.
Demonstrate it, then!
Isn't the point of the revolution to break down power?
No, it is to reorganize it. MLM uniquely creates power however, unlike anarchism. It's only natural that the intelligent avoid it like the plague.
What does that link prove?
Yeah, it's unique in that it abuses revolutionary rhetoric to create an extremely effective autocracy. Very clever, Porky!
That Marxist doctrine can and has brought the oppressed together to revolt against their oppressors.
Just stop, you are embarrassing yourself.
Yes, but what has Marxism accomplished on the whole? It's given communism a bad name, that's its legacy.
Is not a company owner the autocrat of his empire? A Soviet Premier very similar.
lmao, Marxism IS communism you fucking dimwit
That's just what THEY want you to think!
Marxism is a cohesive framework for analyzing class society. Anarchism is a loose collection of political proposals.
When Engels said that Marxism is scientific while Proudhonism is utopian, he was not suggesting an anarchist social organization was unfeasible. What he meant instead was that Marxism provides insight into the behavior of social classes throughout history, as technological changes leads old modes of production to be supplanted and new societies to arise. Through this framework, we recognize that the terminus of class society will necessarily be the abolition of private property and the value form. Communism is thus an inevitable development.
Anarchism simply proposes a cool set of blueprints for organizing our society. Syndicalism and mutualism and anarcho-communism are ideas, good ideas, but much like liberalism in the 18th century they only offer ways for capitalism (as in, property and commodity production) to operate in ways that are more humane and egalitarian. Unlike Marxism, anarchism is only as strong as its proponents. I have not seen any anarchists suggest that anarchy is a probable development for human society, instead they argue why it would be nice.
Some anarchists like Dejacques, Bookchin, Proudhon have interesting thoughts on government and society that we all should read and understand, but they don't approach Marx in significance or impact. These guys are more comparable to -individual Marxists-, like Bordiga or Bukharin or Rosa Luxemberg, who made similar proposals or predictions about social organization rather and did not establish a paradigm for understanding the world. But while Marxists are building off of the theoretical foundations of Marx and Engels (excluding the Trots and ☭TANKIE☭s who think nationalization is socialism and don't read Marx), the foundations of anarchism are the liberal assumptions that underlie capitalistic society.
People will be discussing Marx and using Marxist analysis as long as commodity production exists. I'm not sure if people in the 22nd century will care much about anarchism.
Getting together a militia isn't particularly unique.
And given that every ML(M) state collapsed into revisionism with the arguable exception of the DPRK, it seems MLM uniquely succumbs to revisionism.
How was he? Haven't read him yet
Scientific as fuck!
why the fuck does it matter how individual anarchists organize their parties or social clubs under capitalism and the state
lifestylism is fucking awful and a huge liability to working class organizing
why are MLs so fucking weird dude
IT'S A C U L T
Sorry for the wait on a reply, just got off the ice.
I am not sure in what vein you mean, but if you mean organization of power in a hierarchical or didactic manner, I wholly agree that the emancipatory projects of Marxism (1917, 1949), while indicative of universal potential, were derelict for rigid, stratified ideological projects that reflected a reshuffling of powers rather than their abnegation. This, of course, not being without the praise for the developmental and organizational capacity of the bodies, meaning that there is indeed an emancipatory legacy of Marxism to salvage from the otherwise debilitating holds of the projects of the 20th Century
Marxists have dug a very deep public relations hole that we are going to have to work very very hard to dig out of.
Also, Marx's ideas about the inevitability of communism, and the necessity for societies to pass through a capitalist phase before achieving communism is retarded.
Also, fuck Marx's disparaging thoughts about the "lumpenproletariat" and fuck his obscenely shallow understanding of religion, especially Christianity.
His writing is incomplete in a lot of areas and as such he is known more for being a revolutionary than a theorist, but his Revolutionary Catechism and what exists of God and the State is pretty good.
Assuming there is a revolution, those organizations will play a part or even lead it. That means after claiming territory, they will have some sort of power and influence, as such the organization matters. If we've learned anything from the ML states it's that a hierarchical organization can very easily go to shit if revisionists somehow gain power. As such organization that is resistant to this appeals to anarchists.
I agree, but there's a difference between attempting to create horizontal organizations and squatting with your eco-friendly vegan group.
I one hundred percent agree on the unilinear reading of history being retarded, but even Marx came to recognize that in the truly emancipatory context that it was Hegel who first provided for the possible "end of history" scenario we find ourselves caught in. That said, the Marxian project for the resolution of the contradictions is, and remains, the only one of poignance.
As far as it serves as an abstract distinctions amongst the proletariat, I agree that it is a needless invective; however, we have recognized that the traditional understanding of the class division does not account for the subject being constituted, albeit negatively, by the ideology of capital - the system of thought functions, prohibitively, but it does function. That same function now finds us racing towards a dystopian future that we seem so resigned to and a huge amalgam of overdetermined angers amongst the populace that are never given shape, and so we are left with impotent violence towards no end. This, too, is a huge point of contention within Marxian philosophy. In that sense, I think the bridge between Anarchism and Marxist tendencies can be found in the philosophy, where both groups have long since achieved a unity of thought, circumventing their respective partisan factions and inter-party conflicts
Why? How can a society establish communism without a proletariat?
I call myself a minarcho-communist. What do you think?
Catechism wasn't by Bakunin, that was by his literal bf
By the People deciding to, en masse. That simple.
Bakunin has one as well.
I just call myself a communist. Nomenclature for labels is meh
But then everyone will think you're a Marxist.
well, i am. just not a defender of the ignominy of the state projects
In what way are you a Marxist?
What non-Marxist movement used the term "Communism" in 1918 - when Communist International was formed?
Why is that a relevant question?
Merely proposing that the theories do not cohere does not make it such. Most libertarian socialist strands of anarchist thought deny very little of historical materialism and recognize the superstructure base system that is erected upon the founding of private property and the ensuing class struggle which arises a of consequence therein.
This is barnone the most legitimate criticism of anarchism. It's a cluster fuck of an ideology with vigorously offshoots of thought that all self proclaim to be "true anarchism." Yet, on the other hand it provides a diversity of ideology all of which enable one to achieve a broad perspective of the world and possibilities of which have not been pondered, so I propose reading all of it. I happen to find myself agreeing most with anarcho egoism, but more with an analytic and Marxist influence, rather than the idealistic approach of Stirner.
None of the definitions provided articulate a precise Marxist interpretation of the state. But your supplemented criticism of anarchism is substantial to demonstrate your lack of understanding of the anarchist definition of state which is, in fact, very precise. Most anarchists concur that the state is any local monopoly on violence, i.e. the individual or collective of individuals who have direct and exclusive use of the means of violence (weaponry). You, on the other hand, seem to conflate the state as encompassing everything from which such a body can have possible implications upon, which quite frankly amounts to almost everything, it is an astounding misinterpretation of anarchist theory of the state. Thus, in this definition of the state, there exists no inconsistency between anarchist revolutionary theory and Marxist revolutionary theory. The workers seize the state, collectivize it, thereby eliminating the monopoly and by extension, the state. The seized means of violence are then used by the work force to fight off opposition, upon whose collapse class distinction becomes null and therefore the means of violence becomes useless and, in the practical realm, "withers away" leaving anarchy. The notion that no communist has ever wanted to achieve Anarchism is completely absurd, the advocacy for statelessness is the advocacy for anarchism, this is common sense stuff buddy. Your hilarious attempt to separate the terms "statelessness" and "anarchy" involves absurd mental gymnastics and a complete straw man construction of anarchist thought, the words are completely synonymous.
Nor does claiming that they do - as you did.
< We do not deny it, but we are suggesting exactly the opposite of what follows from it.
You claimed that there is Anarchist theory that "coheres in every respect" to Marxism. You can't prove this through arguing that it is good to read books. Those are unconnected statements.
What you need to do is to define this Anarchist theory that "coheres in every respect" to Marxism. And you can't demand from me to do it - the burden of proof is on you.
Goalposts! Put them back. The point was to demonstrate that there a difference between State-as-Anarchists-understand-it and State-as-Marxists-understand-it (also, State-as-Laymen-understand-it).
Which is not relevant to anything. Or are you going to claim that Marxists intend to enforce Common Plan without resorting to violence - when necessary?
This not "my" understanding of the State, but that of laymen.
There are three different interpretations of State - each defines different aspect.
Anarchists define State through organized violence: because that's what they don't like.
Marxists define State through the class struggle: because that's the reason why State-as-oppression exists.
Laymen define State through social functions: because that's how contemporaries primarily interact with State.
What you are essentially trying to do, is to argue that there is only Anarchist interpretation of state that is "Correct" - from which follows that Marxists and Laymen has to have the same interpretation.
That's not how it works. All three groups are talking about different things when they use the term "state".
Except this definition is not Marxist.
They do not eliminate monopoly. They seize it and make it stop working like Capitalist monopoly.
False. It is not "opposition" that is the basis of class distinctions - and struggle, but economic life.
False. Only one specific form of organized violence ("means of violence") "withers away" - political oppression (State-as-understood-by-Marxists). Any other forms of it are outside of purview of Marxism. The point is to move society towards Communism, where it will be immeasurably easier to solve problems.
Marxism does not aspire to be a panacea and does not provide recipe against every ill society might have.
It's common misconception.
My "hilarious attempts" hinge on the fact that Marxists are talking about very specific thing when they talk about State. Which was supported by multiple quotes. You not only failed to disprove this, you failed to understand this.
anarchism is just "whatever the proles like" whereas marxism takes a more nuanced analysis of class and doesn't moralize
how about offering a nuanced analysis of my theoretical failure instead of insulting me fool
Anarchism is for an abolition of centralized power, of hierarchy, of slavery in all its forms.
anarchism is stupid and wrong
those are the things the proletariat wants. anarchism wants the bourgeois mystifications of those things
Except I elaborated on my claim and provided an epistemic justification. In refutation you merely claim that I was wrong without doing the same as I have.
Once more, not only is this claim unsubstantiated, but also completely false. Assume that the transitional stage of communism (first stage of communism, socialism) necessarily implies the existence of a local monopoly on the means of violence as per Marx's definition. Insofar as historical materialism is concerned, this is the only stage with which anarchist thought does not cohere, thus, the notion that anarchist thought contradicts Marxism in every respect is a complete over exaggeration.
The goal posts were never moved, I never proposed that Marx's definition of the state is was exactly the same as the anarchists definition. To the contrary, I posited that Marx's definition of the state is implies the anarchists definition of the state, but not necessarily vice versa. In other words, where Marx's definition was vague, the anarchist definition was precise, but coheres with the Marxist definition.
This whole argument arose from your disagreement with the idea that Marxist theory could possibly cohere with anarchist theory as of a result of the nebulous definition of the state provided by Marx and the anarchist definition happening to meet the necessary conditions of the definition thereby constituting a Marxist interpretation of the state.
Your whole position depends on demonstrating that the anarchist definition of the state contradicts Marxist definition of the state, so your implication that a specific Marxist definition is immaterial to the subject of this discourse is absurd considering the whole reason I argue that anarchist definition of the state coheres with Marxist definition of the state is directly due to the vague definition Marx provided in the first place.
I admit that I am at fault for your misinterpretation of my argument, and sorry for the lack of clarification and elaboration.
The point I was making was that there exists some strand of coherent anarchist theory that does not contradict Marxist theory. Such a theory isn't necessarily an already established and named anarchist theory but a synthesis of pre existing ones and notions that haven't been yet asserted in any pre existing theory. Hence my proposition referencing the reading of books.
It seems you once more do not understand me. I am no pacifist. I merely suggest that rather than an individual or group of individuals maintaining exclusive control over the means of violence that the means of violence be collectivzed and publicly owned, just like any other means of production.
This is literally what you asserted to be the Marxist state in the link you posted. Seeing as to how you're a Marxist, insofar as you wish to not contradict yourself it is logically necessary that this be your definition of the state as well.
That's a definition you pulled straight out of your ass. Literally any sort of anarchism that is against private property advocates for voluntarism, that is, any sort of social interaction (including organization of violence) insofar as the social interaction does not does not cause, nor take part in, the development of a class system nor any other self nullifying system of social stratification. Organized violence to overthrow the ruling class is perfectly fine in the eyes of leftist anarchists. Hell, even AnCaps are for organized violence, considering private property can only be enforced via any violent force and therefore, if possible to establish, an organized violent force is acceptable.
Well I'll ignoring the fact that this doesn't actually articulate the precise Marxist definition of a state and doesn't even contradict the anarchist definition of the state. Class distinction can only be maintained insofar as there is a violent force that protects the private property of the dominating class, therefore the dominating class exists if and only if the state exists. Extending this argument if the state exists then a dominating class exists, therefore oppression exists. Therefore your implication that it is possible for a state to exist without oppression is nonsensical.
So you're trying to tell me it is possible for there to be a monopoly in a socialist state of affairs? That is absolute nonsense. The whole premise of socialism revolves around the abolition of private property and any monopoly is necessarily private property. Moreover, how is it possible that such a state not establish and maintain class distinctions considering the only reason there would be to monopolizing the state would be to antagonize those who do not have access to it? It is impossible that under such circumstances the opposition would die out considering it is necessary, for anyone who has will, to have access to the means of violence. Further, a monopoly requires that it be used in only one way at any given moment therefore it is impossible for the worker class as a whole to own a state, you cannot collectivize a monopoly.
First, the means of violence is not synonymous with organized violence. The means of violence is the means by which one can strip bodily autonomy from another individual. Second, I did not advocate for the abolition of violence, it was merely the practical of the means of violence and use of it that would be abolished. With the destruction of the class system and the resolution to class struggle it is no longer necessary for anyone to use violence to pursue their passions.
Never argued this to be the case.
No it isn't, statelessness is literally the definition of anarchism.
There has been absolutely no instance at which you or Marx have demonstrated this precise definition of State that contradicts anarchist definition of state.
How do you mean?
Do you know what "epistemic" means? Or are you just using smart words? I'm assuming it is the latter. In refutation you merely claimed that there is evidence that I was wrong. And that's it.
There is no "most libertarian "socialists"". There is no "we" you keep talking about.
I can say "we, Communists" - there is Communist Manfiseto and the entirety of Communist International that defines the term "Communist". You - can not. There is no Anarchist International that represents your ideas. There is no codified Anarchism. You have to constantly use specific names and specific texts to define your position.
But you do not do it. You did not assess a single quote I had given, nor did you provide a single quote yourself, you didn't give a single name of Anarchist thinker - despite explicitly claiming that you are representing their position. So far you've only claimed that there is something that proves you right. I am not buying this shit. There isn't.
It is substantiated by the whole history of Anarchism.
At what point did Anarchists attempted to create anything that resembled Central Planning? They certainly did not do it in Paris Commune, nor did they do it in Makno's "Non-State", nor did they do it in Spain.
At no point did they do it. And yet you have the balls to lie that Anarchist "accept" Marxist ideas.
You had argued that "anarchist and marxist theory coheres in every respect with the exception of the state":
It does not.
Non-negotiable necessity of Central Planning implies non-negotiable necessity to enforce Central Planning.
Non-negotiable necessity to enforce Central Planning implies organized violence - aka monopoly on violence.
And monopoly on violence - as per Anarchist understanding - means state.
Consequently, Communist "Commune" ("Gemeinwesen"; fully Communist society) is a state - as per Anarchist understanding of the term. Since Marxists define state via class struggle, they can claim that Commune is not a state.
You never challenged, nor refuted this idea. And - yes. Claim that there is a refutation is not a refutation.
You are not even pretending that you are arguing with me.
Either present it - or fuck off.
I.e. it literally doesn't exist.
Maybe they don't see Marxism as a real threat to capitalism because ML always degrades back to capitalism.
I think anarchism of any variant is a joke really. The army is a branch of the State, how would anarchists propose that the nation defend itself from possible invasion or internal revolt to restore capitalism? The police and prisons are also a branch of the State, also needed to deal with criminals. The bureaucracy/administration is also a branch of the State, and is needed to organize the economy and distribute scarce resources. A socialist revolution, if it occurred in a single nation or a few nations, would not abolish all capitalist governments (thus the need for an army), it would not abolish crime (thus the need for police/prisons), it would not abolish scarcity of resources (administration). Socialism would give rise to a society which gradually abolished these things, but they wouldn't disappear overnight of course.
Anarchists have no answer to this, when asked they will either engage in mincing words over what "the State" really is, or they will claim that revolution will be international and thus won't need an Army (but not all the other branches of the State). Or then their arguments will turn to being liberals - the "vanguard" is not needed to organize the working class, and when in history has a class (or group) ever managed to seize power (and keep it for more than a day) without having some form of political representation. When has "the people" ever risen up and overthrown the State without having leaders and organization.
I would love to see how an anarchist army (that is, one without any form of hierarchy) would perform in the field. Same goes for an industrial economy without some form of hierarchy and division of labor. I see anarchism as worse than just a wrong ideology, it's actually an anti-communist ideology because the only result of it in practice will be failure and the triumph of capitalism.
That kind of makes sense tbh
Very funny. Much lulz.
@OP - most people have put accross decent reasoning but it's far simpler than this. Kropotkin and Bakunin are just far harder to summarize and explain than Marx and Engels. Actually you need knowledge on Marxism to truly even get into The Bread Book and so on. So it's more of grad than undergrad material.
I really don't think anarchism has to be that complicated. Obviously, like any theory, it can be expounded upon and fleshed out, but at its core, it's an intuitive idea.
Go Gods! No Masters!
God is within, I should say.
Nice persecution complex, you should see a psychologist.
As a Marxist, certainly you agree that we ARE in fact being persecuted/exploited ?
It's only a "persecution complex" if one is not actually being exploited, right?
Marxism is a sociological method, with schools of political economy, tools like dependency theory and it's own school of philosophical materialism. Anarchism is a political program, not an analytical tool like Marxism. Why would anarchism be highly regarded in academia? It is not an academic program.
Unless Anarchism gets its own Marx and a major systematizing of the critique of social hierarchy becomes popular. The problem is that this system of thought would not be able to gain popularity as it would necessarily be based on universalism since you cannot have a coherent critique of hierarchy that views all hierarchies as particular, only a critique of particular heirachies - already popular in academia in the forms of postcolonial theory, gender theory &etc. Marx already presents the universalist critique of social domination from a materialist perspective. Anarchist marx would just be a universalist idealist ie all liberal philosophers since Kant
"Marxism" is a technique that can be applied to social science, Anarchism just isn't.
Marxism is a revolutionary theory, it cannot be used for bourgeoisie sociology.
Anarchism doesn't exist among people with triple digit Autism Levels.
this is why i cant stand anarchists. they always let the right wing set the terms for argument with blatantly bullshit western propaganda even when evidence says otherwise. same with leftcoms.
It's undeniable that anarchists today are much more popular in the streets than Marxists.
That's usually what happens when you leave your house or do stuff beyond attending party meetings.
Where are these academic Marxists? Why do I feel like I’m on an island in academia?
Everybody I know in academia are liberals, socdems at best, and in some cases red liberals.
Granted I am in a STEM field but I can’t tell people I am a communist without getting weird looks
A small minority in the philosophy department, and even then they're not likely to be active in a party or anything. Which makes this thread even funnier because almost all the anargiddes xd posts would be screeching at these academics for not supporting the local ML party or defending the DPRK from imperialism.
over what could anarchists be slanderes other than being failures that can't get anything done, even rightfully so?
Food not Bombs, killing Golden Dawn members, setting up medical care in Greece, fixing potholes in Seattle, destroying the Democrat and Republican campaign offices in Carolina, protesting G20, bookfairs, partcipating in protests, not supporting some minor ML party, doing anything judging by the posters on this board.
toppest of keks
I'm sure next time you'll get a whopping .3% of the popular vote.
just noticed that this again might be one of these ironic shitposts actually mocking anarchists
i'm really bad noticing these, too much shitposting going on here
lmao, the levels of delusions you guys reach down to is ridiculous
the fact that you talk about elections in itself is a joke, you fags wouldn't even be able to compete even in these times if you tried
I'm not the one pretending to be from 1945.
Of course we couldn't, those take money to particpate in and unsurprisingly a bunch of working class kids don't have money. Your party hasn't been relevant in an election for some time yet you continue to do it regardless, I'd hardly call that something to be proud of.
because of western counterrevolution, which marxists actively try to prevent. at least ML states can actually survive for more than 3 years
You're hardly unique in that respect.
And yet ML states have disappeared, with maybe one exception, all the same. If anarchism is fated to die after 3 years, than ML is fated to fall to revisonism and get dismantled or subverted into red capitalism. If the goal is to abolish capitalism, then all revolutions have failed miserably.
Mostly in the imagination. Right-wingers like to call anyone who doesn't embrace their Cult of Invisible Hand a Marxist.
So? The question is if method works. It is obvious, that it does work. Capitalists can be defeated. The only problems that remain are internal.
3 months. Catalonia lasted that long only because of Communists and SocDem fighting Fascists in their stead.
Not really. Moreover, the reason for revisionism is known now. In no small part it is delusion that True Socialist state cannot succumb to revisionism (the one you embraced).
Please note, the Anarchists did not find any solutions for their problem of disorganisation.
Which means what? Nobody is going anywhere. Old Revolutions had failed? Time for a new one. And if we are going to choose one - it makes sense to use the methods that allowed Socialism to last for 70 years and improve the lives immensely.
Prefigurative politics literally always fail.
If they're gone and capitalism is still around, then they obviously failed to defeat capitalism. That isn't working.
Yes really, the proposed solutions to revisionism are laughable.
That every revolution failed and as such there are no success stories. Do you need help with english or are you just retarded?
You mean the same methods that fell to revisionism.
That anarchists get killed isn't an argument against their legitimacy as socialists
They did abolish capitalism.
Just because you got flabby after you stopped exercising, doesn't mean that exercising doesn't work
Leninist party in denial. After they will work out what else doesn't work, they'll either go full ML, or get themselves killed.
I think it is you who is retarded. But I was giving you benefit of the doubt and allowing to explain yourself.
Degenerate, do you realize that every member of the "failed" Revolutions also breathed? Do you per chance intend to argue that this means that people should stop breathing? Or maybe you will get into your dumb head that you are not actually thinking your thoughts through?
It is an argument against their legitimacy as smart socialists.
The argument against their legitimacy as socialists is the bullshit they are trying to pull off.
of course it isn't but it illustrates he problem with anarchism
it's the best ideology, but the very essential principles of the movement makes it difficult for it to grab power and defeat the reactionaries
anarchism isn't about grabing power but struggling against, that's why it useless for people with political ambitions
Then it wouldn't be around today. As capitalism is still around, they failed.
Revisionism was due to material circumstance outside of the USSR's control, purging a few more people or whatever won't stop it for the NewSSR.
No, it's Bakunin decades before Lenin was out of diapers.
Degenerate, you realize biological functions aren't the same thing as revolutionary strategy.
I'm not the one who refuses to accept that a state dismantled by revisionists and replaced by an oil porky state failed. Why you fags can't accept failure as failure is baffling.
precisely, which is why there will never be a world wide anarchist revolution, such as is seriously imagined by Trotskyists and Leninists
its more about the principles
I specifically present an analogy with the training: you want to keep your muscles and health, you've got to keep exercising.
Soviets stopped doing DotP in 50s, then slowly demolished Central Planning. So they've fallen back to Capitalism. This doesn't mean that Central Planning doesn't work.
So you are just talking out of your Liberal ass.
An outright cult? I've been giving Anarchists too much credit.
Degenerate, do you realize that just like there are biological functions that are necessary for living, there are social functions necessary for revolution?
You are the one who refuses to perceive history as anything but sequence of events simplified to binary form of "Capitalism abolished forever - or not".
Yes, and if an excercise results in crippling injury it's obvious you did something wrong. Furthermore exercises must be geared towards the person's conditions, expecting an ectomorph to have the same results as an endomorph did is unscientific. You would have an ectomorph attempt the same program that crippled an endomorph because at some time the endomorph was fit when doing the program.
No, I'm pointing out that it's idealism to assume that revisionism won out of ideology and not out of material circumstance That you think this is liberalism shows the meagar limits of your knowledge.
Acknowledging where praxis comes from isn't cultish by any reasonable standard.
Seeing as your revolution is a corpse, it stopped those functions. Given that it wasn't killed by an enemy but died from within, we have to assume somethong was wrong with the body or actions taken by the body.
Well yes, the permanent abolition of capitalism is the point, you don't see feudalism, slave socieites, or primitive communism in capitalism after all. A temporary capture of a state is not victory over capitalism.
There was no "crippling injury". Imperial Russia was India-tier. 40 years after Revolution Soviets beat back Foreign Intervention (17 capitalist nations), won WW2, industrialized nation, greatly reduced influence of Capitalists in half of Europe and China, and were on the bleeding edge of progress - mastering both nuclear and space technologies.
If there was something wrong, it should've become evident after 40 years, not 70.
You need to actually make connection with reality. I did - Soviets dumped DotP, and then Central Planning.
Nobody assumes anything. You were unable to present "incorrect" views of anti-revisionists. Consequently, you are not aware of them and your opinion is not based on some flaws you noticed.
Cultural Marxism+Anarchism? Oh, boy.
Socialist State stopped being Socialist. Which means functions that keep Socialism working were compromised. You, however, claim that it is functions that created it are at fault - which has no basis. Moreover, you go as far as claim that it is proof that functions are unfixable.
There obviously is no basis for this belief. And the reason you had given cannot be the reason why you actually think this way. You are simply justifying your own position, without explaining why you truly support it. I.e. arguing in bad faith.
No single Bourgeois revolution abolished Feudalism in one go on the whole planet. Similarly enough, no Feudal state abolished slavery everywhere forever (even today we can see it here and there - recent slave market in Libya, for example). And yet, you pretend that there is some basis for idea that Socialist Revolution must enact a change no other Revolution - change of mode of production - ever accomplished.
What is the true basis of you belief? It is clearly not based on historical evidence. I say you are just trying find justifications why ML can't work. The true reason why you consider ML "bad" is not stated. Is it ignorance?
Yes there was, it was the revisionists taking control.
And the revisionists who did this did not come out of nowhere, they were a consequence of the program and the stalemate with capitalist states.
My opinion is based upon what MLs here say, which by and large is to repeat ML as practiced in the USSR with "more vigiliance" or more purges. Given who revisionists were, this would be an ineffective method to prevent revisionists from taking power again and crashing actually existing socialism again.
Whatever translator you're using is highly flawed.
Then what created it? Revisionists didn't rise from hell with Stalin's death, they had been living in the USSR for decades before hand.
But multiple revolutions did, and many of the states that were a product of those revolutions exist today with the arch-capitalist USA being an example. Conversely, ML states have died and seen capitalism leave them behind with the only survivors being revisionists with the possible exception of the DPRK. As such we can not consider ML a success when it comes to eclipsing capitalism based upon previous activity.
The modern ML parties split almost as much as the trots and fight among themselves for fractions of a percent of popular vote. Like the rest of the left, they have been neutered and fallen to irrelevancy yet can not come to grips with their position or update their tactics, instead preferring to claim a revolution fought before they were born. In the event of revolution, MLs now would be wholly unprepared to pull off what the Bolsheviks were able to do and would get stomped along with the rest of the left by fascists or liberals.
lmao you call yourself an antifascist yet you support fascism in Hungary
sounds like foucault sjw shit
Which took 30 years. Only by 1986 (Perestroika) did USSR fully abandon Marxism.
1) 39 years is not much of an improvement over 40 years
2) Literally Fascists
3) Not even USSR
You can't blame it on Soviets.
Revisionists always exist. Bolsheviks themselves were only part of Russian Labour Party - of which Mensheviks were another, and the international Marxist movement was hijacked by Kautsky. And before that Marx & Engels themselves had to argue against people who were distorting their works.
This is anonymous forum, if you hadn't noticed. Also, ML flag literally doesn't exist here.
The term "praxis" is usually used by Cultural Marxists.
See above. Revisionism is inevitable part of any ideology (unless it is undefined mess).
Many? Two major revolutions are English and French: Commonwealth of England and First French republic. Neither survived for long. If you try checking Germany, Italy, Spain, China, Japan, and the whole lot - you'll see that their first non-Feudal states didn't survive for 70 years either.
US of A is an exception, not a rule.
And how many republics did exist in 19th century? Also, "fallen ML states" mean USSR, DDR, and Albania. Warsaw pact was SocDem.
Not really. The world rolled back to pre-WWI state. See Piketty.
What happened to Cuba?
Are you kidding me? ML never cared about "popular vote", nor expected to get much of it.
Moreover, ML is literally criminal offence in most nations where it is not "neutered" (for example, recently Kazakhstan had to ban Communism, since it had risen to prominence) - or is heavily suppressed, even if nominally allowed (Russia, Germany). Also, most ML parties. KKE is going pretty strong in Greece, for example.
They did "pull off" in Nepal. The fact that is not the case in US is a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Mass murders of Communists is not "Socialism".
< Goebbels told me that Stalin is bad, so it's okay to be Fascist
Here is your (You)