My views fall mainly under progressive, between liberal and far-left. I believe we should cap wealth at a billion dollars, and use the surplus capital for alternative energy infrastructure.
That’s far too progressive for liberals, yet I’m not on board with the “burn it all down and let a socialist utopia rise from the ashes” perspective of the far-left.
There are plenty of people on the left that hold non-centrist views, who would also not be considered far-left.
There is no “burn it all down and let a Socialist utopia rise from the ashes” perspective on the far-left, and I say that as a Marxist. Anarchists wish to build a new society out of the shell of the old, from within, while Marxists advocate building up dual power. In neither case do leftists believe in rising from “ashes,” but building up and replacing the current system.
too many misunderstand anarchy to be about destroying structures that exist. many of them are doing a pretty good job of that to themselves already, and the ones that are left would rather slaughter us than disarm. it’s the final throes of a dying beast. too dangerous to throw more lives at, but nature will run its course eventually.
so we (anarchists) instead create structure to survive where we are, with the goal of directly helping people help each other, aiming to grow past existing power structures. it has been surprisingly possible to do a lot of praxis without even firebombing a second Chipotle
Two points:
- Prefiguration means "building the new within the shell of the old. Otherwise, you could misunderstand it as some “rise from the ashes” philosophy.
- Prefiguration is a dual power approach, as well.
Re 1:
I don’t see how what I said is different from what you said. My wording pretty clearly included “from within,” it still relies on existing infrastructure and industry but creates new horizontal organizational networks from within. I used to be an Anarchist, I still have knowledge of Anarchism.
Re 2:
Marxist Dual Power and Anarchist Prefiguration are similar approaches but I believe calling them both “dual power” approaches can be very misleading. Marxists and Anarchists want fundamentally different structures in the end and the beginning, agreeing on building up alternatives within existing society does not mean they share anything else truly in common.
-
I’m not interested in arguing semantics with you. I don’t read what you wrote as properly describing prefiguration. If you disagree, consider it a clarification of what you wrote.
-
“Marxists and Anarchists want fundamentally different structures in the end”??? Say whut? I thought Marxists understood communism as a stateless society, as well.
Marxists don’t have a monopoly on the approach of dual power. Every anarchist prefigurative approach that doesn’t aim for a utopian commune, separated from the outside capitalist world (i.e.: every re-olutionary approach) is also a dual power approach. Or are you claiming that anarcho-syndicalist tactics aren’t dual power?
The main difference between Marxists and Anarchists in this regard is that Anarchists try to unify means and ends, while Marxists do not. But both try to establish dual power.
-
As long as we both understand.
-
The idea that Marxists and Anarchists have the same end goal is common of those who don’t read Marxist theory. Marxists and Anarchists have a different notion of what constitutes a state. Marxists see States as the aspects of society that enforce class oppression, Anarchists see States as monopolies on violence and hierarchy. As a consequence, Communism for Marxists is a world Socialist Republic fully Publicly Owned and Centrally Planned, as classes cease to exist in such a system, while for Anarchists Communism looks like a horizontal spiderweb of mutual aid networks. This fundamental difference in end goal means the tactics are different as well.
Marxists don’t have a monopoly on “Dual Power,” no, but those using the term “Dual Power” are almost always Marxists. I’m not saying that Anarchists don’t practice similar approaches, but that calling said approach “Dual Power” has a Marxist connotation. Again, this is more semantics.
As for unification of Means and Ends, Anarchists place more importance on it but Marxists don’t abandon that either. Engels does a good job of explaining the whithering away of the State:
When ultimately it [Cowbee clarification: The State] becomes the real representative of the whole of society, it renders itself superfluous. As soon as there is no social class to be held in subjection any longer, as soon as class domination and the struggle for individual existence based on the anarchy of production existing up to now are eliminated together with the collisions and excesses arising from them, there is nothing more to repress, nothing necessitating a special repressive force, a state. The first act in which the state really comes forward as the representative of the whole of society – the taking possession of the means of production in the name of society – is at the same time its last independent act as a state. The interference of the state power in social relations becomes superfluous in one sphere after another, and then dies away of itself. The government of persons is replaced by the administration of things and the direction of the processes of production. The state is not “abolished”, it withers away.
The Socialist government that forms the basis of Communism gradually folds Private Property as it develops into monopolist syndicates and makes itself ripe for central planning, this is why Marxists claim the State cannot be abolished overnight.
Question 17 : Will it be possible to abolish private property at one stroke?
Answer : No, no more than the existing productive forces can at one stroke be multiplied to the extent necessary for the creation of a communal society. Hence, the proletarian revolution, which in all probability is approaching, will be able gradually to transform existing society and abolish private property only when the necessary means of production have been created in sufficient quantity.
I’m not trying to argue against Anarchism here, or even argue in general, just offer clarification on Marxism. This community has strict rules against supporting Marxist movements and opposing Anarchism anyways, and I don’t wish to infringe on those rules, but there’s nothing against clarifying the Marxist stance.
You really can’t help yourself with all the essays you write when no one is asking, huh?
In short: I disagree (e.g.: I know self-proclaimed Marxists who agree that the end goals of Marxists and Anarchists are the same) and disengage.
A couple paragraphs were necessary to answer questions *you asked.*Do you have any reasoning for saying that? I gave pretty clear examples straight from Engels. Oh well, you can disengage if you want.
-
-
“burn it all down and let a socialist utopia rise from the ashes” perspective of the far-left.
Yeah, I haven’t really been able to make sense of all the tailism and accelerationism happening on .ml and hexbear. I don’t know how we’ve gotten to the point where stanning a bunch of right winged authoritarian countries is a form of anti-imperialism.
Unlike anarchists, MLs don’t really have a practical plan to get from the here and now to their socialist utopia. All they can do is wait for the collapse of the current society and hope that the subsequent radicalization will lead to them being the vanguard. However aside from the fact that vanguardism (and as an extension, ML) has been an abject failure, they can’t cause that collapse, so they do accelerationism instead.
The only rational approach to change this world is anarchist prefiguration which is the opposite of “burn it all down”.
Any idea where their current definition of imperialism is being grafted from?
I know they use a lot of language from world systems theory, designating America as the imperial core. However world system theory specifies that it’s only a way to analyze global trade, and that global trade is strictly defined by capitalism.
Any time I ask anyone on ml or hex, I just get downvoted and told that If I read lenin I would understand… But fucking lenin defined imperialism as a competition between Great powers, not a war between peripheral states against the “imperialist core”.
Is this all coming from some fucking streamer I don’t know about or something?
Lenin didn’t define Imperialism as “competition between great powers,” just that that was a side effect of the division of most of the world among the Great Powers. The actual definition of Imperialism by Lenin’s analysis is better simplified as export of Capital to the Global South to hyper-exploit for super-profits, like what Coke for example does in Columbia. The reason multinational corporations produce in the Global South is because they can weild their power to keep wages low and profits higher by selling back in the Imperial Core.
Lenin didn’t define Imperialism as “competition between great powers,” just that that was a side effect of the division of most of the world among the Great Powers.
I feel like that’s a semantic dispute, as a division of the world between capitalist great powers would be done competitively.
The actual definition of Imperialism by Lenin’s analysis is better simplified as export of Capital to the Global South to hyper-exploit for super-profits
I think you are injecting a little modern bias into the interpretation. Lenin didn’t really ever mention the “global South”, during his time the great powers were more focused on Asia and parts of Africa.
selling back in the Imperial Core.
Again, the term imperial core is a modern term utilized in global systems theory. Imagining that there is a single imperial hegemony is kinda antithetical to the idea of lenins writing about a division of the world between great powers.
My point is that the “war” was a side effect of the extraction process. Moreover, using modern terms like Global South and Imperial Core is shorthand to convey the meaning more effectively, otherwise I’d link Imperialism and be done with it, like how I used the Coke example. Additionally, “Global South” is shorthand for “exploited countries,” it usually coincides with geography but doesn’t necessarily.
Finally, it isn’t antithetical to Lenin to understand that certain Imperialist powers can be dominant in a given period of time. The world being divided and having one power with dominance is an example of two opposing ideas that can and do exist at the same time, and will be a source of conflict. Marxists call this a Primary Contradiction, that spawns Secondary Contradictions.
My point is that the “war” was a side effect of the extraction process. Moreover, using modern terms like Global South and Imperial Core is shorthand to convey the meaning more effectively
But people are utilizing the “short hand” of imperial core to validate conflicts like in Ukraine as anti-imperialism. Which seems to be a byproduct of an extraordinary process.
Finally, it isn’t antithetical to Lenin to understand that certain Imperialist powers can be dominant in a given period of time.
Even if there is a dominant power, capitalism demands there still be a competition for extraction to maintain growth among the great powers.
I just don’t really see how people are validating the support of the competing great powers, even if it is critical support. It just seems like tailism to me.
Ah, yeah, they don’t read theory written after the 1970s. I wouldn’t try to reconcile it with anything written afterwards.
Well the crazy thing is, I’m starting to think they don’t read anything but reductionist interpretations made by their fellow shit posters.
A lot of the language they use are terms made by liberal academics made to critique neoliberal policies in the Regan era. They just ignore the rest of the theory they don’t agree with, and then claim it all as Marxist Leninists, despite it being antithetical to actual ML writing.
What is your practical plan?
I literally just said it: Anarchist prefiguration
How do you plan to scale that? Prefiguration sounds great for small already tight knit communities, however there are very few of those in the USA that aren’t complete chuds.
Do you have a plan for the drone swarms the people in power will send to wipe out your community? Living well isn’t a plan while you’re also surrounded by the enemy. Especially when the guy living next door isn’t gonna even listen to what you have to say because theyre so brainwashed by the powers that be.
Prefigurayion doesn’t mean “tight knit communities”. That tactic can be a refuge for some, but ultimately doesn’t work. Prefiguration means showing the people how mutual aid and solidarity can help everyone.
The US army won’t drone strike a community meal, or disaster relief events. And growing within communities, not as a separate bubble should be protection enough from bullets ever being shot.
The US army won’t drone strike a community meal, or disaster relief events.
Why not? They do it in other counties.
It’s called “magic”
My main take on Tankies is that they’re sort of stealth right-wingers.
They believe that the way to communism is through a strongman dictator who will enforce the communism from the top.
If you sub out communism for “social hierarchies” then you have the right-wing wet dream. Because Tankies worship Lenin, the man who betrayed the revolution to seize power after he lost an election. It was the first and last free election in Russia, and Lenin ignored the results because he lost. Then he spent the rest of his life pretending that an authoritarian dictatorship could ever be communist.
No, true communism needs to come from the people. Extreme democracy is the way.
If you sub out communism for “social hierarchies” then you have the right-wing wet dream.
If you replace “the abolition of social hierarchies” with “the reinforcement of social hierarchies,” it makes left wing people sound just like right wing people 🤔
My point is that Tankies love dictators and hate democracy.
Which is the antithesis of communism.
Communism is much closer to a worker co-opt than anything else.
Dictators who seize the means of production are just kings in disguise. That’s Feudalism. It’s a step backwards.
Turns out when 90±% of people when put into power have to grapple with their own morals and outside pressures they conform to what the situation calls for right then or use it for their own gain. You’re never going to get to utopia when there’s so much disfunction and division in the human experience
To me the tankies are almost like nazis in that regard that they want to force the issue and create a new world RIGHT NOW. When there are going to be a billion different factors that are going to counter act that notion and with prejudice
deleted by creator
It stems from the dialectical part of dialectical materialism.
Yeah, but anyone can claim that they are acting within dialectical reasons. If you have some reading material that explains the actual dialectical process, I would love to give it a read.
So the thought is basically “let’s get the shitty part out of the way, so we can get to the good stuff.”
Yeah, but Lenin wrote specifically why this (tailism) is a mistake.
“Lenin describes tailism in What Is to Be Done? as the tendency of some activists to drag (like a tail) behind the most progressive elements of the working-class movement, by reflecting in their politics only the most reactionary views of the masses.[1] This is a mistake, because, firstly, it underestimates the political and revolutionary potential of the working class, and secondly, communists must be the revolutionary vanguard of the struggle, not lagging behind it as reactionaries within the movement.”
Re: Dialectical Materialism:
Georges Politzer’s Elementary Principles of Philosophy is an excellent overview of DiaMat.
Haven’t read politzer, so I will have to give it a read. Thanks.
However, I was moreso asking how dialectical materialism is being applied in a way that validates supporting right winged nationalist governments like Russia or Syria.
It’s the entire concept of “critical support,” an enemy acting against a bigger enemy can be relied on with respect to their stance against said mutual enemy. Not everyone agrees with this approach, or that said enemy is not in fact the bigger enemy, hence the entire controversy. That’s the answer in as neutral terms as possible, you can ask Marxists directly in their comms for more info, this is a comm for Anarchism and I don’t wish to infringe on that.
It’s the entire concept of “critical support,” an enemy acting against a bigger enemy can be relied on with respect to their stance against said mutual enemy.
Does that not require a more indepth investigation into the motive of the country you are critically supporting, and isn’t that investigation reliant on perspective?
In one perspective you could critically support Russia for inciting destructive competition between the great powers. While criticizing their motive, and means.
On the other you could critically support Ukraine for defending themselves from colonial extraction from great power. While criticizing reactionary forces within their government.
you can ask Marxists directly in their comms for more info, this is a comm for Anarchism and I don’t wish to infringe on that.
Fair enough, just thought I should take the opportunity while I could. I have tried to breach this subject a couple different times in their comm, but tend to just get called a Nazi or other slurs.
Thanks for the dialogue, I appreciate it.
How did you come up with 1 billion dollars as the cap? You know that’s an absolutely absurd amount of money right?
i’d much rather be arguing about what the cap should be than be arguing if there should even be a cap
I chose it arbitrarily. Specifically, I think we should look at historical economic trends, admit that Trickle-Down/Voodoo/Horse and Sparrow economics yielded inequality, redistribute the surplus, and implement equitable economic policies.
I’m much more of a “be the dandelions cracking through the pavement” far left than a “burn it down” type
That’s far too progressive for liberals, yet I’m not on board with the “burn it all down and let a socialist utopia rise from the ashes” perspective of the far-left.
I don’t know how you combat climate change if you refuse to touch the existing fossil fuel infrastructure.
I don’t know how you address mass incarceration if you won’t dismantle these massive organizations designed to surveil, arrest, and extort poor and homeless people at the scale we operate.
I don’t know how you address greedflation and wage theft on a national scale if you don’t touch the banking system, you leave in place these huge wage disparities, and you permit privatized industry to control all our critical natural resources.
When we talk about this kind of institution going away, we’re talking about creative destruction. Clear space for Green Energy. Establish real civil rights and social justice, rather than a trillion dollar pack of mall cops guarding the richest people’s property. Build an economy that allows public collaboration rather than industrial rent seeking.
That’s not even utopian. It’s just a step forward from capitalism.
But what are we going to do as a society if we don’t label all people we don’t like as a radical?
If I’ve learned anything from the collective left, it’s that unity comes second to bickering.
Wedge posts like this don’t help.
Exclusivity is more important than inclusivity.
deleted by creator
Yea, whether the Lefty be Marxist, Anarchist, etc. no Lefty I have met has shied away from that label. Fascists love veiling themselves, however.
I will hide the fact I’m a leftist when speaking to someone about leftist beliefs. That word has become such a dirty word in the media that you can see people shut down when you lead with that.
Which is weird, because I’ll regularly see two liberals screaming “Tankie!” at one another absolutely credulously
Fair, lol. Liberals learning the word “tankie” has been quite silly.
Lefties usually want to eat the rich… not many people are considered rich. They want to give.
Nazis/Altright want to have slaves to fuck/kill/exploit. They want to take. Just look at the child fucking Trump.
bitch I’m far ting
but are you the shit tho?
Bröther I’m far king exhausted I need a nap.
I’m personally an Anarcho-Syndicalist so yes :3
God bless whoever pointed out “‘both sides,’ says one side.”
I’m always hesitant to use that label because to the average American I’m far left, but to the average leftist I’m a moderate.
Would extremists even be able to identify the people in the middle?
Republicans describing Democrats as “far left extremists” suggests not.
depends on they actually believe it or if it’s a convenient lie that fits their narrative. I think it’s both, so yeah, what you said.
From what I’ve seen, leftists can. There hasn’t been a visibly strong far-left movement in the US for a while though, so most people think people just slightly left of the democrats are far-left —and the media is partially responsible for this representation.
There is a large difference between moderates, regular republican voters, and vocal neo-nazis. I think the left side is probably slightly more blurry, because it’s largely down to what methods you agree are appropriate, while largely the end goals desired are similar.
Two sides of the same coffin
I know it wouldn’t work with the format, but fml I cannot upvote because they are the wrong way around
It’s just a meme, but is it right to call oneself that in your opinion?
What, far left?
Average. /j
yup
Do you call yourself that?
What’s the problem with that?
I was misunderstood for I find this exact wording cringe for far-left is an invention of rightwing propaganda and in itself denies description.
I think I get your point. That’s why I prefer “radical left”. It’s also used as a derogatory term, but it’s actually a quite accurate description.
And you get to be radical.
I want us to choose these labels ourselves if we aren’t to make our own or trash them altogether (:
Check out my bio ;)
You, like, don’t? You use existing go-to terms.
I was misunderstood for I find this exact wording cringe for far-left is an invention of rightwing propaganda and in itself denies description. Hence the question.
The salient point is that we don’t try to hide or disguise what we actually believe
It is a topic of it’s own discussion (and in r/anarchism and other spaces it was), but with how anarchy is coupled with disaster in a state-provided vocabular, many call themselves libsoc for example, e.g. I default to socialism or socdem. It is, by some degree, muddies the water, at least for those who don’t know these things intersect with big scary words.
The difference is, probably, more nuanced. Although both are kinda off-color in a public discussion, fascism unlike anrachism is about statism, nepotism, populism, exclusion, big capital and they hide that because otherwise their goals put clear would frighten off regular folks (and not the state and capital). Anarchism isn’t spoken directly because it’s the state’s dogma that scares people, while the causes are not even close but common and even though about by them already.
I call myself libsoc to randos, but I’ll gladly call myself anarchist as well if I know they’re not afraid of the word. Reactionaries however will bend themselves backwards to pass as centrists or “concerned citizens”. They will of course go all “the time for talking is past” when cornered.
It’s not right it’s left.
Funny.
Yes. It’s good to be self-aware and honest enough to properly represent your viewpoints. Saying your views “are just common sense” or whatever is dishonest.
