Is it possible for anarcho-communists and marxist-leninists to work together?

like poetry

like pottery

this is how I imagine Ukrainian ASSR's Flag if Makhno stopped stealing Red’s Army ammo.

when has this happened?
nazbols are literally nazis who hate hitler for invading their precious muh nation
and vapor condenses to water which freezes into ice.

lmao

youre assuming tankies become nazbols is a common thing, it isnt. meanwhile ancoms, trots and socdems betraying the revolution has happened countless times.

So was Marx wrong when he called for the "dictator of the proletariat?"

...

No. Anarchists are very real enemies of scientific-socialism, as much so as any fascist is. The "anti-sectarian" meme is exclusively preached by their sympathizers like libertarian "Marxists," it's not something to be taken seriously by us. Marx devoted a large part of his life to struggling against these anti-proletarian and anti-dialectical socialists. Either we continue this struggle or we can't claim to be a part of that revolutionary legacy.

ancoms are generally not marxist, and some like that moron are probably not even communists.

basically this

calm your autism, comrade. anti-sectarianism is the only thing that can keep the left running, along with anti-idpol

There is no left, there is only Marxism and all the rest. The other socialist movements have proclaimed themselves to be our enemies at every turn and will continue to do so when communist parties take power in the future. The struggle between reformism, Marxism, and anarchism is not merely a question of tactics, the respective philosophies are just completely incompatible with each other. Ours has already proven the path the proletariat will take, by rejecting that they reject revolution.

I've heard ancoms say they are "tru stateless classless labour voucher society pls marx wanted this!"

We need them all for the revolution friendo. Good luck getting communist party membership up when the academia screams "1000 ZILLION KULAKS"

No not even in a thousand years would I ever side with the Marxists-Leninists!
Not even Dead!
When I wan an Ancom I fucking hated them for what they did to Makhno and Kronstadt.
Now that I'm an Agorist I still fucking hate them for the same reasons.

TRAITORS OF THE REVOLUTION!

I was*

This post made me a tank and gave me autism.

...

Supported by the French gov and white army right?

How is social democracy autismus?
If anything it's relatively neurotyp.

The anarchists are doing that already.

Why? Makhno's territory was already an autocratic feudal state anyway. It makes no sense to support it when it was basically a parody of what you think ML is.

...

Show me some proof of that!
don't just pull that out of your ass!

marxisme.dk/arkiv/bakan/90-krons.htm
newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Kronstadt_rebellion

Why would we want to work with people who would kill us at the first chance they get?

we could say the same about you. the point is we're both revolutionary, and its best to stick together instead of being severely divided

Because you can still have worker autonomy with a vanguard.

...

keep voting bro!

Do you expect me to take you serious with that flag?
You lying coward!
Buying into Lenin's propaganda to justificate the treason and massacre of the sailors.
Stalin and the Republicans Stabbed the CNT-FAI in the back during the Spanish civil war allowing Franco to win!
I will never forgive the Marxists-Leninist-Stalinist USSR scum.

Wouldn't it be possible to have a state controlled by the vanguard coexisting with more autonomous communes inside the territory?

i wont 4get u 2 bb :x

yes, that would fix the current issues with marxism-leninism, being vulnerable to corruption and authoritarianism

meant 4
fuggg

This is one of the dumbest things I've read this week.

There's nothing for anarchists and tankies to work together on. We both advocate entirely different means of achieving whatever distant shared goals we have.

No anarchist would be interested in joining some stupid communist party, and no M-L would be interested in participating in direct action. And if a tankie actually is interested in participating in anarchist tactics, I would recommend they re-evaluate their political stance, and vice versa.

Sure, because it's not like capitalism creates authority that is far more difficult to defeat then centralized totalitarian bureaucracy, right?

okay bruh

Fucking Tankiddie.
You are a fucking Nazi in disguise.
Hitler copied the Soviet style dictatorship and formed the SS inspired by the CHEKA and the NKVD.

Okay so hear me out:

we don't have a secret police but we have a state in order to avoid capitalist subversion?

Maybe. Until the state fucking destroys them.

...

Conjecture. You need the state. If Reagan destroyed Yugo while it was still going strong what makes you think your autonomous community is going to be able to avoid being crushed by capitalist?

pls dont h8 me like that bb ilu alut

Not what I said tankiddie

Can't we learn of the past?
What are good sources about the anarchist/ ML feud. How could they keep each other in check?

Conjecture? Or history?

working together doesnt require completely changing ones ideology m89

we follow our religion while they follow theirs

If the Union was so shitty why didn't they rise up and crush it after WW2? Why do polls across the Eastern Bloc show they prefer capitalism to what they had before? And you didn't answer my question: how do you plan to stamp out subverters? Doing what?

Marx shat on non-authoritorian socialist because you're utopian idealist who don't understand the implications of a post revolutionary state.

That's not the point I'm making. Party politics is simply incongruous with anarchism, and the same with direct action and M-L. So if you are a tankie who actually wants to participate in direct action, I think you need to reevaluate your beliefs, because you're probably more sympathetic to anarchism than Marxism.

Like they say, actions speak louder than words.

I bet you are a Holla Forums Infiltrator.

Yet!

I wonder how the fuck, are you going to get that running successfully, this time.
because, every time you strangle the free market, you end up running out of fucking toilet paper, go figure.

That's a bit short. You need certain circumstances for religions to coexist or to cooperate, in other they easily go at war with each other (Catholics protestants, Shia/Sunni). How does it happens?

Okay so what IF:

We allow for autonomous communities BUT the vanguard is there for pragmatism after the revolution

You're joking right? Look at Russia before and after. You're comparing nations like the United States to a country that had industrialized 40 years earlier. Not to mention Kruschev abandoned everything Stalin did right in favour of introducing capitalism back into the system. Not to mention Tito's Yugoslavia was way more successful than any anarchist community, and was only crushed by the same subversion forced I'm talking about.

Rojava is the struggle of ML!

Anarchist have yet to come up with an effective plan to avoid subversion from the capitalist power that comes to fill the vacuums.

forces* and vacuum*

Define "pragmatism".

For ML to be more vulnerable to corruption there would have to be such a thing as an actual Leninist model for a state, economy, or party. But no such thing has ever existed, Lenin himself never applied any universal rules for every situation and proposed centralizing or decentralizing political power when necessary. ML is just a statement that you are a supporter of proletarian revolution, it doesn't refer to any particular system.

This. Now I just wish we could split up into our own boards so you guys could fade into irrelevance.

A secret police, though hardly desirable, could be necessary in some situations. Why do you think the Makhnovists made such extensive use of theirs?

The proposal that every state is a self-perpetuating body that behaves the same belongs to the likes of Hayek and Friedman. By claiming bourgeois dictatorship is the only form of government and proletarian rule is impossible you reject socialism. This is why any kind of "left unity" is neither possible nor desirable.

The problem is that they see anarchism as a perfect guarantee of democracy, they consider political degeneration as impossible in their society. Whether they're being purposely ignorant of what the governments of Catalonia and Ukraine actually looked like I don't know. Either way, their refusal to acknowledge the rampant corruption in anarchist societies is another reason behind their inherently counter-revolutionary nature.

<

I insist on this, but is there any good work about the general relationship between anarchists and marxist? Pov of both side would be welcome.

And ML have yet to come up with an effective plan to avoid the vanguard from forming a new ruler class.
I'm sure both could learn from each other. So the question is how could they work together?

We already have /marx/ and /anarcho/

That would be the wisest thing to do Real Ancaps are chill and Agorists are the best.

the USSR and Yugoslavia both ultra-Authoritarian totalitarian police states.
Just look at them, they all ran out of toilet paper and had massive bread lines.

Well, duh.
I'm an Agorist.
But I have no trouble with Ancoms as long as they live me alone I myself was an Ancom for 3 years.

...

...

Well, I mean yeah we would put you up against a wall. Anyone who wants to persevere private property is our enemy

The people loved Tito, and Stalin was voted to be the best Russian and Yeltsin the worst. Deluded anarkiddie.

Democracy would be used until subversion is a real threat, education etc. Does Rojava has a "le ruling class"? That is the struggle of ML's. There are models for things can be done out there, but I haven't heard an anarkiddie provide a way to avoid widespread subversion.

a. there has been quite a bit of precedent, and even today on this board, examples of more "authoritarian" leftists deciding that because anarchsts resist the state that they are counterrevolutionary. That they are somehow simultaneously crypto-liberals and also ultra-leftists.
b. recognition of the state capitalist model. It's not just saying "you guys are actually da gabidalists!" but trying to point out that we need to transcend the concept of what is going on in capitalism as just what happens when you have privatized businesses. which brings us to
c. understanding of capitalism as a subset of hierarchy. Despite the heresy of saying this, capitalism is not unique, it's just extremely pervasive and reinforces itself more than most other forms of hierarchy. If we took out the hierarchy from capitalism but left private ownership, as bizarre as that sounds, the bourgeois would have no actual ability to claim to the work produced by the laborers. Such a system is somewhat absurd but shows much of the beating heart of capitalism itself.

Like?

How does that works?

Thanks for reproducing some Marxist narratives about anarchism and then topping it off with

Clearly, the preferable ideology.

I listed Rojava and Tito as examples

wow using Nazi tactics.
Oh wait Hitler copied that from Lenin and Stalin.
Go figure.

Not even surprised coming from the Marxist-Leninists-Stalinist plague.

you are blinded by your cult of personality.

and you get mad when all Anarchists tell you you that Marxist-Leninism is a Religion and you are a cultist.

You fucking Nazi.

But HOW? Is there any papers or books about this? I found something about Yugoslavia but i don't know much about about Rojava. I'm curious.

Off-topic, but I'm curious: How does agorism differ meaningfully from aynclap?

I don't know much about it, and I'm not really a pro-market type, but agoism has some interesting ideas IMO. But it also seems like it's mostly associated with ancaps who just wanna buy drugs with shitcoin.

Please explain how the capitalist can lay claim to the value produced by the laborers without the ability to dictate how the company's resources are allocated. Even if the workers agreed to it, his claim rests entirely on the workers giving his claim legitimacy and that could be revoked quite easily. As it is the capitalist's claim rests entirely on state (or PMC) enforced property rights that are beyond question.

you're memeing pretty hard right now bruh

I would very much like to believe that ancoms and M-Ls could coexist, but I have my doubts. I sympathize deeply with anarchism, but I don't see the urban infrastructure and global supply chains that support the majority of the world's population as capable of surviving a successful revolution without the advent of modern centralized planning and a socialist state. The anarchist commune model can't easily be extended globally unless you kill off a few billion people. I'd like to think that the world could be divided into urban socialist regions, and rural anarcho-communist regions existing independently, with the latter acting as a 'safety valve' and a counterweight to the regrowth of state power. However, such an arrangement seems inherently unstable and prone to conflict unless true post-scarcity has been achieved.

Agorists are way more flexible and aren't ideologically stiff as most Ancaps are.

I could link you some audio books if you are interested.

Agorism could be used by any one to subvert and destroy state power through the black market.

that's just the stereotype.
because Ancaps are scared of us because most Agorists don't go with the NAP.
2016 the current year and you haven't smoked weed come on man.

Are we talking about private property? As opposite to personal property? Because it's from private propery the capitalist can exploit labor.

Tankiddie got triggered.
to the bunkers he goes.

From what I understand, Rojava uses direct democracy for smaller scale stuff and the state for funding and larger scale choices. They also have diversity quotas to make every ethnic group gets representation in the state. It's really not shit at all. It's what was suggested earlier about having semi-autonomous collectives exist within the overall authority of the state but the anarchist spew platitudes and go "fug you'll just kill us".

Agorist are counter revolutionaries. You want to preserve capitalist hierarchy, which is way harder to preserve than the state. Austrian economics don't even make sense.

THC is pretty known to kill motivation. Some people can compensate , but i'm sure that shit would turn me into an apathetic NEET.

Personnaly i prefer writing over audiobooks (English is not my first language) but why not?

No, I'm asking, What happens to private property when you strip the unjustified claim to resource etc. distribution from it? ie. what happens when you remove the hierarchy? And if the concept sounds confusing, it's because the point is precisely that it's an absurd notion and capitalism implodes without hierarchy, as does the bourgeois state.

Anarchist theory everyone.

But how suppressing hierarchy? What stop the appearance of private security companies? How avoiding feudalism?

Quitting drugs was one of the best things I ever did with my life.

Argentina provides good examples of what happens to Anarchists. They fuck up, and a state with any authority removes them.

You legitimately cannot see how the argument about hierarchy is more encompassing than simply pointing out what happens to private property? Because the same thing happens to a lot of other institutions that there is far less marxist critique of, for example a military. These too have resources moving up and command moving down.

Are you asking this on a practical level?

It does but it helps me keep Anxiety under control.
I no longer use Benzos thanks to weed and I only smoke it very sparse.

Don't worry! English isn't my native language either.
My Great grand ma and grandpa, had to flee Catalonia when Franco took power, go figure.
and I'm getting called a Reactionary.
wew.

An Agorist Primer:

kopubco.com/pdf/An_Agorist_Primer_by_SEK3.pdf

The New Libertarian Manifesto:

agorism.info/docs/NewLibertarianManifesto.pdf

Solutions: Agorism

youtube.com/watch?v=Cynd4AINc70

I used to be an ancom I know what you're saying.

My question is how the system is capitalism if there is no hierarchy? You sound like an advocate of Market socialism, saying to remove the hierarchy but keep the capitalist structure?

Anyone have a picture of that Ancom symbol just by itself? It looks pretty good imo

I'm not advocating market socialism, but rather pointing out that much of the marxist critique already presupposes a system of hierarchy in place. This leads to some rather bizarre assertions such as suggesting that once the bourgeois are removed as private entities, then capitalism is ended. It also doesn't take into account what happens if there is a non-private entity that takes the same position as a hierarch. Refer to the original post about state capitalism.

Well theory is useless without practice. I'm not asking for an autisticly technical manual but if you could give me some general tips or works on the subject, that would be a good start.

Thanks for the links.

or, to be a bit more clear: people reading marxist theory get caught up in the details of how capitalism operates on very specific levels but on the whole miss the fact that it all is made possible by the one on top being able to hit the guys on bottom.

Agreed. Which is why as a Leninist I advocate for a system that gives workers autonomy but can purge the system of subversion is necessary. Again, Yugoslavia and Rojava are not failures of M-L. I just want to know why you think a more organized force won't try and subvert your movement like they have every time in history, and how you plan to stop this.

Not at all true, capitalism is made possible by capital. Managers and the bourgeoisie are just the most vulgar representatives of capital's interests, their existence is made possible by it's demands. You could have the most democratically organized market-socialist country on the planet but the second you hit any economic difficulties you'll have thousands of millionaires springing up in no time.

You are welcome!

Thanks, I'll just give these a look.

Though I have to ask now: Are agoists followers of austrian economics? Because I mean I just can't roll with that shit tbh

Avoiding subversion is a general problem lots of leftists systems have to overcome.
What is known about the processus of subversion?

They are. They support unions, but they're not against wage labour and think "le Magic markets" are the pinnacle of freedom.

Yeah but not quite.
They develop their own theories, but they aren't obsessed, with studying Austrian economics.

I usually get annoyed with Ancaps, their worshipping of Rothbard and Austrian economics, but the same could be said for Ancoms and their worshipping of Kropotkin and Bakunin.

In ML
In Anarkiddie land

The more you post the more I hate agorist.

ehhhh, idk. I agree that communist anarchists can be a bit too dogmatic about Kropotkin, but then again I'm a post-left nihilist type.

It seems like agorists are sane enough that I could at least work with them, though I respectfully disagree over economics.

Last question: When are agorists going to give up the black and grey flag so that nihilists won't get confused with them? :^)

K.

But how subversion itself work? Maybe brute force is not enough to fight ideas.

I'm not against rules and violence. The only serious flaw anarchism has more than other systems is the democracy being open to voter subversion. Which is a bit more of a tangled mess I'm trying to work through still.

the only real difference there is if you actually have the time it takes to hold said trials. Otherwise I don't see how "go to gulag" is actually a better option.

I don't shill for markets and actually am somewhat mystified as to how market syndicates and democracy are compatible, as if it were possible to have democratic social issues while having economic private entities that withhold resources beyond the reach of democratic power.

Tbh, I have no idea about the Anarcho-nihilists,but could you define it in a short sentence?

And that's all that matters to me!

That's why I use the Pirate flag, I think its better suited for us.

All Marxist-Leninists are dishonest pussy's who have raped all what Stalin stood for. ML'ers are bassicly proto-trotskyists and should be shot and only by letting everyone be like Stalin can we create a true socialist country with every city replaced with a gulag and collectivisation of everything.

I found something talking about subversion
fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_subversion_(Mucchielli)

It's french, i don't know if has been translated in english, but i'll try to get it.
Knowing about the root of problems themselves could hep.

I'm with you, OP.

Hooray!

I'll give you an example. One of the families up here, the dad is the head of the hells angel chapter. One time when he was on trial for murder, they filled the court with HA and the charges were dropped. Now imagine you have that but with no central authority to stop it once and for all. Everyday you wait, everyday they become craftier. Destroying evidence, etc. the subversion I can think of mainly is vote blocking to stop things from going forward functionally. Always voting to prolong something, or do it the most inefficient way possible.

I hate to admit it, but is right. Allying with other movements, especially SocDems, will eventually force us in to some sorts of concessions that will detract from any hope of building Communism.

Anarcho-nihilism is the collision of anarchist (mostly post-left and insurrectionist) ideas with the ideas of political nihilism (which would be the Russian Nihilists of the 19th century and the Illegalists).

As the name implies, one of the main tenets of anarcho-nihilism is the rejection of progressivism and optimism within the revolutionary left. Meaning that an anarcho-nihilist rejects the idea that revolutions are inevitable, or even possible. A nihilist instead sees the attentat (propaganda of the deed) as having value in-itself, and does not need the possibility of success in order to aspire towards pure negation through the attentat. A nihilist's end goal is that of a Nietzschean active nihilist: To annihilate Everything, all values and the material mechanisms that reproduce and enforce values, because a nihilist considers this world to be unacceptable and in need to being completely destroyed. This is why anarcho-nihilists take the illegalists and the Russian Nihilists as part of their history, though there are some nihilists who will critique the concept of the attentat and question whether there is any reason to engage in pure negation anymore than just doing nothing. I personally don't agree with this position.

That's it in a nutshell I guess. You can read Aragorn!'s two introductory texts on nihilism if you wanna learn more. Little Black Cart also has a book called Blessed Is The Flame that I highly recommend as an intro to anarcho-nihilism, but I'm still trying to get a .pdf of it from the author.

I honestly can't tell whether or not this is bait

Wow…
do you guys get called counter revolutionaries or reactionaries?

Oh! I get now why you are against capitalism, but what about Communism and Socialism? Shouldn’t you be against it as well?
Do you want to be Hermits?

I read years ago, that Lenin's brother was some kind of Nihilist, is this true? was he a part of the Russian Nihilist we are talking about?

That sounds pretty bleak Imho.

Thank you for taking the time to explain it to me I have discovered a whole new branch of anarchists today.

I will take a look at the PDF's

I just hope Mods don't get mad for going off topic.

...

Lmao no one thinks we arnt sectarian. Right wing philosophy is just so black and white it's easy to get idiots to go along with it. You're either evil, or good. The agorist and anarchonih are hardly even leftist. The ones we want to unite is the various types of left anarchy and ML's

hownew.ru

trotsky and lenin thought of setting aside land for an anarchist society as an experiment

Is Holla Forums actually this retarded now or is it just you?

We can't all be robots spewing the same talking points from the ruling class like rightists

How about neither?

First, there may be ways to create provisional temporary central authorities as needed for specific purposes. Two, if you don't like trials, what may I ask would you have them replaced with? Supreme Leader's gut feeling?

The number of people throwing the term vanguard around who clearly have never read any Lenin is pretty hilarious. Anyone, no matter their political orientation, should read the source material of the concept they attempt to criticize. From reading this thread it seems most of you don't actually know what "the vanguard" even refers to, really.

itt: basement dwelling anarchists gets angry at tankies and calls them fascists because they have no idea what a vanguard is

what do you even expect, hes a self-described algorist who types like an uneducated eastern european guy who found out about Holla Forums through muke's channel

If you seriously want to know why anarchists and Marxists, particuarly those following Lenin and everything that followed from there

Seriously, Marxists can't even get along well enough with other Marxists. Why in the hell would anyone WANT to be allies with you? Most of the time, the "answer" to these disputes isn't trying to resolve them to build a movement, you typically go straight to gunning people who disagree with you down with "dis is da brize of gommunism! :DDD" plastered everywhere, talking about how "no remorse for revolutionary violence" as if revolutionary violence were literally the only tool you have in your toolbox. "But muh dissent! Muh subversion!" As if you can't figure out how to handle dissent, subversion, or even fellow leftists who have slight disagreements in any other way than mass violence. Have you not been paying attention to the liberals for the last hundred years? You can't figure out how to run a bread and circus show for the people who don't like what you're doing to make it at least slightly tolerable while you get your way?

Conversely, the anarchist movement is not riddled with remotely as much strife. I can't even remember the last time there was a argument on this board alone between two anarchists that was more than just a "That's pretty stupid comrade." Sure, there's people who get annoyed with one another, but I'm not going to go murder a Mutualist or a Syndicalist, even though I have some disagreements with their ideas and I'll have their back just as surely as a fellow An-Com. It's almost as if it were approaching something like, gasp solidarity with my fellow leftist!

tl.dr your movement is a fucking wreck that no sooner builds itself up than it goes for its own throat as well as those of its allies

No, i'm not saying every Marxist is like this but the movement has been riddled with authoritarian shit since day one.

If anything he was the driving spirit of the organization. He only "fucked with" a certain chump that he rightly suspected of trying to capture it. Not that you care though. Attacking Marxists and then whining about "betrayal" is one of the core components of the anarchist philosophy.

See above.

The Bolshevik party was chosen be the urban proletariat as it's representative. To play at Western-style party-politics with the Mensheviks and SR's wasn't going to bring Russia one step closer to communism. So they crushed them (the Whites would have anyway) and continued the revolution. much to the dismay of anarchists and the world's ruling classes.

Tito wasn't a Marxist in any sense.

Trotsky was a Trotskyist first and a Marxist second. He pretty much developed neo-conservatism by himself.

He responded accurately to the anti-communism of the post-Stalin USSR.

See above.

Trotskyists? Sure.

That I grant you. But the differences between the various anarchisms are minor, that isn't the case with us. But Marxism, the most widely demonized theory of all time, has been infiltrated by revisionists and reformists for a while now. There's even quite a few "Marxists" here who, in truth, are just anarchist sympathizers preaching the whole "anti-sectarian" meme even though you guys have (rightly) tried to destroy our movement at every turn.

...

well he wasn't. that's a good thing though if you ask me

Like clockwork.

That certain "chump" is usually what we call "the majority".

i like this picture very much, but i think scarcity is embedded in human nature and the necessarily more powerful urban dwellers would find ways to fuck the rurals.

An interesting counterexample to this are the Amish, though they have to accept scarcity through their lives, and are seemingly not bothered much by it.

They manage by immersing themselves into christianity, and in particular, the work ethic. They remain a stable community because they both show people how "bad" people outside have it, and also by allowing people to leave if they can't take it.

...

Not a fan of the USSR, Maoist China etc but I could see myself working with urban guerrilla groups of a M-L persuasion, like the RAF or JRA.