why are anarchists not working with marxists/communists/tankies ?
i mean the left is very divided and there is very little of actual leftists (most people think liberal=leftist at this point) so it would make sense for all of us to unite together to achieve our goals
why are marxists not working with anarchists?
this is also something i wonder
it's a massive feud that's been going on for last few generations of leftism and honestly i'm sick of it
Every time they did they were backstabbed.
For Marxists "working with" means "I'll tell you what to do."
Marxist communists view the state as a tool of class rule because of a materialist take on structures of authority and hierarchy as well as a historical take on the state which has always superseded the existence of the bourgeois class. Hence, Marxists do not shy away from its use.
Anarchist communists view the state as the means through which class divide itself comes under a capitalist mode of production. I don't really know why and I feel like my take on the rationale behind the Bakuninist/Kropotkinist-anarchist rhetoric against the state would either be butchered or heavily biased against it because I'm a Marxist. Either way, this ultimately means that anarchists will shy away from its use.
We can't work together for reasons above and any pretext of trying would basically just be waiting for the first backstab. I feel like we ought to work together to actually get to a point where infighting would matter – it's absolutely pointless to have our autistic feuds when there's no way for either of our ideas to be the catalysts to obtain power as of today. I'd be for a left unity if not strictly for us to be able to kill each other after escaping this ideological jail we find ourselves in.
you're talking a long time ago man
Lots of historical bad blood, which neither side is innocent from +people on both sides being inflexible with their dogma
That said.
Because sectarianism is apparently more important to the modern left than actually creating a revolution. Anarchists and Marxists have worked together countless times in the past and did a great job, I don't see why we shouldn't also do that now.
United we stand. Divided we fall.
We have vocal Anarchists (who get paid for introducing sectarianism) and anarkiddies.
IRL Anarchists worked with Marxists regularly.
Are we taking about innocent warlord for hire, or about that attempt to use famine to depose Bolsheviks?
Lol.
back to >>>Holla Forums
That's…not quite it?
It's more the argument that the state is a hierarchy and thus creates positions of exploitation. The argument against this in favor of marxist states that most succintly addresses the issue is that the marxist state exists for the purpose of eliminating the reasons for having a state in the first place and as such it 'withers away'.
...
Marxism: the insane idea that you can reach a stateless, classless society through an authoritarian, hierarchical state.
I don't see why we should get rid of the state in the first place tbh.
Then you're not a socialist. Marxists, like all socialists, agree that the state ceases to exist upon the creation of a socialist society. The only difference is that we, unlike anarchists, don't utilize authoritarian means against the proletariat when it attempts to use similar means against the bourgeoisie. I'd love to explain more but I'm on my phone, though I would recommend that people here read The State and Revolution so you guys can at least have a basis when you pretend to understand Marxism.
I'm talking about perception of Anarchists being eternally at odds with Marxists.
Except we don't.
State does not "cease" it "withers away". Slowly being displaced out of existence. One bit at a time.
Except that's not how it's going to pan out. The state is a formal organizations and organizations care much more about perpetuating their existence than fulfilling their stated goals. They become their own ends. Show me ONE example of a state that allowed itself to wither away. ONE!
Soviet Union?
It did not wither away, it broke up into smaller states that exist today.
Of course, I must clarify, that's a bit facetious of me.
State's "withering away" is based on economic situation, rather then return to tribal societies some people expect.
It did not. None of the bits have anything to do with USSR.
Im down to work with some ancoms, i like the concept of workers managed cooperatives and minimal authority to avoid corruption, but them thinking we dont need a vanguard for a revolution pisses me off.
Maybe we need left wing minarchism
I believe you're looking for left communism
LeftCom are anarkiddies. Even /anarcho/ thinks this.
It doesn't work like that. Decisions have to be made. The only way to combat corruption is organization: different roles, discipline, accounting and grassroot democracy.
For example, Soviet "purges" (real, not 1937-meme): while officials held a lot of power, they were subject to strict accounting; worker collectives also often congregated and discussed if they want to kick out the manager/administrator (all posts were subject to this). If such a decision was made - administrator was out of job, effective immediately.
A reformist tankie wow
Tankies are not leftists.
Withering away into a different kind of state is not really withering away.
This word means SocDem, who want to work within the framework of Capitalist State.
I'm talking about Socialist state.
Yes it is. You don't have economic base to support non-state society. Formation of other state in unavoidable. It's either that or full-on AnCap feudalism.
That's an oxymoron.
According to theory the state is an instrument of class domination and it's supposed to disappear as classes are abolished. Obviously this didn't happen in the Soviet Union which was clearly a class society.
Care to explain?
64.
The concentrated spectacle is primarily associated with bureaucratic capitalism, though it may also be imported as a technique for reinforcing state power in more backward mixed economies or even adopted by advanced capitalism during certain moments of crisis. Bureaucratic property is itself concentrated, in that the individual bureaucrat takes part in the ownership of the entire economy only through his membership in the community of bureaucrats. And since commodity production is less developed under bureaucratic capitalism, it too takes on a concentrated form: the commodity the bureaucracy appropriates is the total social labor, and what it sells back to the society is that society’s wholesale survival. The dictatorship of the bureaucratic economy cannot leave the exploited masses any significant margin of choice because it has had to make all the choices itself, and any choice made independently of it, whether regarding food or music or anything else, thus amounts to a declaration of war against it. This dictatorship must be enforced by permanent violence. Its spectacle imposes an image of the good which subsumes everything that officially exists, an image which is usually concentrated in a single individual, the guarantor of the system’s totalitarian cohesion. Everyone must magically identify with this absolute star or disappear. This master of everyone else’s nonconsumption is the heroic image that disguises the absolute exploitation entailed by the system of primitive accumulation accelerated by terror. If the entire Chinese population has to study Mao to the point of identifying with Mao, this is because there is nothing else they can be. The dominion of the concentrated spectacle is a police state.
read 'the state and revolution'
read Zizek
nice memes, you sure have been here for a month
while i agree with the debordian/situationist analysis of actually existing socialism i'm not sure it supports the state capitalist theory
He literally calls the SU state capitalist. Are you sure you understood his analysis?
...
That retard claimed that the USSR was actually pretty anarchist if you disregard Cold War propaganda. I think he is mentally ill.
He actually said this? That's a rather bold claim, and not one an ML would make in any positive way.
I bet a lot of the movements of the Prague Spring would have lead to the state withering away
That is, if the Soviet Union didn't ironically ruin socialism a g a i n