So, Marxists, why do you reject Anarchism?

"All kinds of people today call themselves “libertarians,” especially something calling itself the New Right, which consists of hippies who are anarchists instead of leftist collectivists; but anarchists are collectivists. Capitalism is the one system that requires absolute objective law, yet libertarians combine capitalism and anarchism. That’s worse than anything the New Left has proposed. It’s a mockery of philosophy and ideology. They sling slogans and try to ride on two bandwagons. They want to be hippies, but don’t want to preach collectivism because those jobs are already taken. But anarchism is a logical outgrowth of the anti-intellectual side of collectivism. I could deal with a Marxist with a greater chance of reaching some kind of understanding, and with much greater respect. Anarchists are the scum of the intellectual world of the Left, which has given them up. So the Right picks up another leftist discard. That’s the libertarian movement." - Ayn Rand

Lol, even Ayn Rand understood anarchokiddies are retarded.

...

...

What, did you want me go into detail about why a decentralized military is incapable the kind of sophistication and integration that defines a modern military? Or how the industrial processes that construct and maintain modern military equipment is all but impossible without central coordination?

Sounds like your signifiers don't signify anything.

As far as I'm aware, there's no reason an anarchist society would be incapable of utilizing and maintaining a modern-style military. Will communism have no militaric force? After all, a stateless, classless society is by definition inherently anarchistic.

There seems to be a miscommunication here that leadership cannot exist in anarchism.

Good one.

If you've achieved communism then presumably you've suppressed all counter rev interests and a military will no longer be necessary.

A modern military is extremely hierarchical. I don't see how an anarchist revolution can reconcile that with their ideology.

How familiar are you with modern military structure and equipment? Do you know anything about infosec or command and control? Do you know how ridiculously many different industrial processes go into the construction of modern aircraft?

As little and as decentralized as possible. There will be no need for a sophisticated military when capitalism is gone.

This is what I mean by marxists being idealistic. All it would take to overthrow communism then is for someone to put together a military in secret? Or for another race to show up from off-planet and stomp us out?

And let me ask you. If I have a large staff dedicated to construction an airplane, as an example. Someone puts the parts together, someone orders supplies, someone maintains tools as they are needed, and someone takes notes on the proceedings and informs everyone on progress. Is this "hierarchical"? This is a heavily simplified example, but my point is this.

Anarchism is explicitly about the decentralization of political power. If your job is to give others marching orders, but you have been elected to that spot democratically (and the masses still have the power to remove you if necessary) than it's still perfectly compatible with anarchy.

It's work division.

Nonsense. Who will protect us from the bloodthirsty xenos hordes we will inevitably encounter in the grim darkness of the far future?

Communism is the final stage of development. All class interest must be eliminated to achieve it. If there is a threat of counter revolution you haven't reached communism. Marxist recognize this. That's what the DotP is for.

What kind of anarchist society has a standing army?

I don't believe in a power vacuum, every form of anarchism I've heard is either completely impossible or 'just don't call it a state'.

Pure ideology. Communism does not transform humans into logical creatures. They will not always act in the most sensible way, and coups are always going to be a possibility.

A successful one.

It's like these guys have never played Hostile Waters, it has both.

youtube.com/watch?v=yUOBXdLfu0g

...

A counter revolution in full communism is illogical by its nature. If an egalitarian society has been achieved why would members of that society participate in a reactionary movement? Why would they want to be subjugated to a hierarchy?

How are you going to defend the revolution against the militaries of the modern world without that equipment?

Libcom here who reads a lot of anarchist shit. My biggest problem with the wider anarchist movement is that they are still tied down by humanism/moralism, and in recent years it's been infected by Tumblr-style liberalism.

(and yes I know I'm generalizing but just speaking from personal experience)

What, do you really think it's impossible for a party to be organized democratically? It obviously isn't. To hear you guys talk you'd think we proposed to hand over total authority to a few hundred party elites. This point just demonstrates one of my biggest problems with anarchism, you guys seem to think your program is a guarantee of democracy. One gets the impression anarchists only consider military failure as a possibility with political corruption not even being an issue for them at all.

The problem with any revolution is keeping political power in the hands of communists and away from everyone else. The revolutionaries will always have to repress the counter-revolutionaries, this is inevitable even under anarchism. Every revolution is authoritarian to some degree. I argue that anarchism doesn't go enough because history and the present seems to show that capitalism, even during it's dark hours, is capable of breeding a population overwhelmingly supportive of socialism. The question is ultimately how many communists will there be, and how much political decentralization/democracy can be afforded without sabotaging the revolution? I just worry that another situation like 1917 is inevitable. Back then most were undecided or would switch their orientation depending on the situation. The committed communists only numbered a few million and there were just as many fervent counter-revolutionaries. In such a situation anarchism isn't even an option to be considered.

Is incapable, I meant.

How are you going to get enough people to maintain the numbers you need for a standing army?

Because they want to be at the top of that hyerarchy?

Not sure if serious.

It is simplified beyond reason. Military airplanes are not flying Volkswagons. And who orders the construction of the aircraft? Does your elected field marshall have to make a case for every vehicle he orders? And who elects the field marshall? A bunch of people who have no idea how a military works? How can it seem like a good idea to turn military strategy into a political issue? Who are they to judge a general strategy? What happens when he retires or gets replaced? Who maintains the airfield? Or ensures a reliable supply line for things like JP-8?

You seem to think that a modern military is numerous pieces that are collected together. It is not. It is one incredibly sophisticated machine, and it is one that requires an operator.

Why the God-Emperor, the primarchs, and the Adeptus Astartes of course. What could possibly go wrong?

by not trying to build socialism in one country
by not having militarism as the main driving force of the revolution (of course it is necessary sometimes to take up arms, but the social change always precedes it and is really what drives things forward)
if you had mass support of a revolution anyway, an army couldn't suppress it
it's defending it up to that point that is the hard part, but all you need for that is rifles pretty much and realistically that's all you could get
the coal wars in america couldn't have been fought with tanks or a standing army in any circumstance for example

By hiding in the mountains until they go away.

t.anarchist

The revolution has to start somewhere, and the place where it starts will immediately be attacked by the entire capitalist world. If the revolution does not have a proper military, then it will be put down.

How will you organize a simultaneous worldwide revolution where all capitalist powers fall at the same time?

where did the revolution in spain take place?
barcelona, where a military was not necessary, where the army fell to the people, where militias were formed overnight and could advance into the countryside

same way the entire world is liberal now pretty much, a general change in beliefs

Are you really using Spain as an example that the revolution doesn't need military force?

Not everyone can be at the top of a hierarchy. How does an anarchist have such a low opinion of people that you think people will act completely against their own self interest when their basic needs are met? Your opinion flies in the face of basically all socialist theory.

yes, military force imposed by republicans and bureaucrats was the counterrevolution if you'll remember
the actual revolution's gains were won without that, if the CNT was as strong in other places as it was in catalonia there'd have been no civil war

Apparently it was necessary.

How will you shift the entire planet's ideology?

Inb4 by starting a dialogue

Because Comatoast is an anarkid.

it was necessary because places other than barcelona weren't as revolutionary
the aragon front was the only front on which ground was gained

the same way liberals and abolitionists did it

And there won't be a counter-revolution today? I don't even really understand the point

no the "military discipline" people literally were the counterrevolution
are you saying you're supporting the counterrevolution user?
what's all this about?

That's my point. The role of operator is just another job for someone to fill.

People perform illogical actions all the time, not just try and fulfill their most basic needs. It's called ideology m8. I can't help but laugh at all these people going "oh anarchists are the idealists, the humanists" and then spout this kind of nonsense, that everyone will just suddenly chill out once they don't need to sell labor for food. Of course they won't. It solves a lot of problems, but not literally everything.

By waging war, I presume.

the french revolution was an abject military failure though
slavery wasn't abolished through outside military force in most of the world either

What? I don't get this. The Revolution, with Napoleon, established liberal republicanism all over Europe - through war. Ie. gave the rising bourgeoisie political power inside the nation states.

Just because the Jacobins failed or Napoleon lost a war, doesn't mean those changes were just reversed. They weren't.

What is Haiti, just to cite one example.

Care to cite another?

haiti was a slave rebellion, it wasn't a revolution mainly by outside military force like the memers here are advocating
napoleon also reinstated slavery lmao

Really? The American civil war, with the victory of the defenders of liberalism (wage labor and so on). Or the Mexican war of Independence.

war
wôr/Submit
noun

a state of armed conflict between different nations or states or different groups within a nation or state.

But not in France, right? I wonder why.

maybe because slavery didn't exist in france since 1315
like i've said in this thread, it's probably necessary at some point in a revolution to take up arms, but the french revolution was not a product of militarist vanguardism, and in the end it was militarism that put an end to it with napoleon

By the way, reposting this from early 2015 - from a similar thread, which was about the tactics of both marxism and anarchism. Posting just to expand the discussion; I do not hold these views. I guess Nietzsche was right afterall: "eternal recurrence" is real

Some people believe that Marxism and anarchism are based on the same principles and that the disagreements between them concern only tactics, so that, in the opinion of these people, it is quite impossible to draw a contrast between these two trends.

This is a great mistake.

We believe that the Anarchists are real enemies of Marxism. Accordingly, we also hold that a real struggle must be waged against real enemies. Therefore, it is necessary to examine the "doctrine" of the Anarchists from beginning to end and weigh it up thoroughly from all aspects.

The point is that Marxism and anarchism are built up on entirely different principles, in spite of the fact that both come into the arena of the struggle under the flag of socialism. The cornerstone of anarchism is the individual, whose emancipation, according to its tenets, is the principal condition for the emancipation of the masses, the collective body. According to the tenets of anarchism, the emancipation of the masses is impossible until the individual is emancipated. Accordingly, its slogan is: "Everything for the individual." The cornerstone of Marxism, however, is the masses, whose emancipation, according to its tenets, is the principal condition for the emancipation of the individual. That is to say, according to the tenets of Marxism, the emancipation of the individual is impossible until the masses are emancipated. Accordingly, its slogan is: "Everything for the masses."

Clearly, we have here two principles, one negating the other, and not merely disagreements on tactics.

this is just a """""""""""""""stalin"""""""""""""""" quote though

The last time people were really triggered by it.

So I just saved in my memory to post on these kind of threads.

Not sure how he had both social democracy and Nazism at the same time but ok

kek

an anarcho communist society is ideal to live in, but its not realistic at the moment. in order for an anarcho-communist revolution to succeed, the masses have to educate and agitate by themselves, it requires the proletariat to actively try to learn and be class conscious. most, if not all countries dont have that opportunity, so a vanguard is necessary to reach out to the workers.
it also depends on the condition of certain countries/places. if rojava is succeeding with anarchist-inspired government, theres no reason to not support them, but obviously not every place is the same and some requires a state to transition to socialism.

The two perspectives are merely "A will induce B" and "B will induce A." There is no contradiction and both A and B are desirable.
There are certainly cases where one or the other is clearly right, and also matters in which each feeds the other.

The Marxist program is about trying to establish both A and B every bit as far as possible through changing the fundamental, objective material conditions of society.

I generally see anarchists as undisciplined, not in their rejecting illegitimate hierarchy but in their building programs for A and B on softer and more subjective phenomena in hopes of obtaining a more complete A and B. This attaching of peripheral utopian elements to a scientific/materialist framework is in every sense a tactical decision which at worst cheapens the brand.

To me the intellectual difference is one of scale and scope. If Marxism is biology, anarchism is psychology.

Ah, now it makes sense. Who else but Stalin could be so thick-skulled?

I disagree with the underlying philosophy. Historical materialism and dialectics are fundamental to me.

i totally agree

nice religion

lol dude fuck ur theory *rips bong* anarchy lives!

this but unironically

>>>Holla Forums is that way ->>>>

i actually read books and don't just talk about it

I don't care about the system that does it as long as it creates socialism

Its utopia and doesnt work. Grow up anarkiddies.

The quote lacks context and is somewhat different from original (Russian). Either way, let's proceed to people who are actually capable of independent thought:

There is a contradiction between two approaches. One of causal nature.

Practical example. A = earning a lot of money; B = owning a fancy car

Both A and B are desirable, right? But if you wish to achieve both (or sustainable B), you need to concentrate on A, rather than choose among A and B what is easier to accomplish (getting a loan for car is much easier, as a rule).

There are some extreme cases when "each feeds the other", but it would take a complete and utter idiot to buy fancy car (B) and expect to get a huge pay raise (A) merely because of it. Which is basically what Anarchists are suggesting.

Except A - is a fundamental material condition of society, while B is simply a consequence of A.

Basically, you are pretending that Marxists cannot differentiate between Basis and Superstructure.

Context: the year is 1906, Russian Empire.

Are you supporting random violence of Anarchists (assassinations of government officials/rich people and generally blowing shit up) or not?

Are people who are telling bright-eyed youths "go out there and kill people until police guns you down, because this is the only real Socialism and this is the only way Revolution can happen" your enemies or not?

Because this is the real question here. What should Socialist do? Sit on his ass and pretend nothing is going on?

I can't agree. Difference is fundamental. Stalin examines it and points it out (in full article - Anarchism and Socialism). I suggest you read it.

could'nt the rest of society be have no higherarchies, and the milatary have higherarchies as needed?

I don't have a stake in this shit thread, but if you seriously think that "Anarchism or Socialism" (not AND, you illiterate moron) is anything more than century-old shitposting, you are a terminal retard or don't have a clue about anarchism, and probably both.

In fact, that probably is also true of both dialectics and the Paris Commune.

says the commie

∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆

Because the forced corporation of state actors will generally dominate non state actors