There’s the Zapatista I guess, but even that was indeed centrally managed by the state EZLN like all successful socialist revolutions.
I don’t want to dunk on anarchist comrades, but some of them make it so hard to unite by shitting on revolutions that have actually managed to succeed, specially if they’ve prospered enough to rival the imperial core and challenge capitalism globally.
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.
From Anarchism or Socialism by Stalin. The work goes more in-depth, even the foundation of Marxist theory, that being dialectical materialism, is something that it is rejected by our anarchist “comrades”.
What a great strawman but what would you expect from him. I mean, sure there are individualistic anarchists and anti-associationists but most just want organizations without hierarchies like the anarchosyndicalists in Spain.
But I agree that anarchists are the real enemies, at least of Marxism Leninism, because they show a direct path to a stateless, classless, moneyless society without an authoritarian intermediate state. That’s why Stalin didn’t support the CNT in Spain. A free and socialist society that shows other ways to a socialist future? That would undermine his authority. A fascist regime at the other end of Europe? Far away and the smaller problem.
They started as a ML organization but in contact with the people in the villages and stuff, they developed a decentralized organization. That’s the thing: bolshevik revolutions end up centralized every single time as you can learn in the video essays I’ve linked. Anarchism isn’t the absence of rule but the absence of rulers.
There’s the Zapatista I guess, but even that was indeed centrally managed by the
stateEZLN like all successful socialist revolutions.I don’t want to dunk on anarchist comrades, but some of them make it so hard to unite by shitting on revolutions that have actually managed to succeed, specially if they’ve prospered enough to rival the imperial core and challenge capitalism globally.
From Anarchism or Socialism by Stalin. The work goes more in-depth, even the foundation of Marxist theory, that being dialectical materialism, is something that it is rejected by our anarchist “comrades”.
What a great strawman but what would you expect from him. I mean, sure there are individualistic anarchists and anti-associationists but most just want organizations without hierarchies like the anarchosyndicalists in Spain.
But I agree that anarchists are the real enemies, at least of Marxism Leninism, because they show a direct path to a stateless, classless, moneyless society without an authoritarian intermediate state. That’s why Stalin didn’t support the CNT in Spain. A free and socialist society that shows other ways to a socialist future? That would undermine his authority. A fascist regime at the other end of Europe? Far away and the smaller problem.
They started as a ML organization but in contact with the people in the villages and stuff, they developed a decentralized organization. That’s the thing: bolshevik revolutions end up centralized every single time as you can learn in the video essays I’ve linked. Anarchism isn’t the absence of rule but the absence of rulers.