That last 6% (which seems very arbitrary tbh) includes such concepts as “anti-authoritarianism” though, which is a core concept of anarchism. M-Ls on Lemmy generally endorse a centrally planned economy and state ownership of capital and resources, which inevitably leads to state authoritarianism (or so history tells us). Most M-L leftists here are happy to defend that kind of authoritarianism, so long as it’s in opposition to the Western liberal democracy. I think that’s why anarchists argue so much with M-Ls, because it’s a core and arguably irreconcilable difference in ideology.
I agree with you that in an ideal world, anarchists and M-Ls would have little to argue about, but given the sheer number of tankies arguing that China and Russia are basically faultless (even while admiting they are no longer truly communist or socialist) and throwing their support behind the most despicable theocratic and/or authoritarian regimes, like Iran, Yemen, North Korea and Russia, just because they see it as a way to diminish Western liberal democracies, there seems to be a lot to argue about nowadays. Replacing a one authoritarian state with just another authoritarian state does not seem like progress.
I am definitely more of a Marxist than an Anarchist, but I believe comrades are comrades. I believe Anarchism is certainly a beautiful idea, but just isn’t as practical as Marxism is. That doesn’t take away that Anarchists are my allies against Imperialism and Capitalism. I agree that eventually the question of how to organize the revolution will bring conflict between Anarchists and Marxists, but I also am not so naive to think that the revolution can be won by Marxists or Anarchists alone. Only a mass worker-led movement can gain change.
I will say, as someone on a .ml account, who sees Lemmygrad and Hexbear content regularly, I do believe you are woefully mischaracterizing the vast majority opinions of MLs, and I would not be a good Marxist if I didn’t at least try to correct that. There may be a few people exactly as you describe, but the vast majority believe the following:
Russia is a reactionary bourgeois dictatorship with brutal anti-LGBT laws that is currently allied with China against US hedgemony. MLs do not believe Russia can do no wrong, at least not from what I have seen, but do support movements against US hedgemony. The closest is retaining hope that the Communist Party will take over after Putin either dies or retires, and takes the Nationalist Party with him, as the Communist Party is the second most supported and there are no clear successors within the Nationalist Party.
MLs believe China is Socialist, and support it as such. Rather than decoupling from international trade like the USSR did, leading to its collapse, the PRC opted to stay connected while maintaining state superiority over Capitalists. They don’t believe China is fully luxury space gay communism or anything, but that it is building up its productive forces to become fully worker owned after destabilizing US hedgemony.
Again, Critical Support. I assume you’re familiar with “lesser evil” support in Biden vs Trump, correct? Same general process, supporting movements against Imperialism while also supporting leftist movements within these states. Importantly, states cannot become Leftist while under the thumb of Imperialism. Watching Burkina Faso is a great example, they are becoming more leftist as they fight against US interests.
This is the majority opinion I see. Full blown support without any nuance is very rare in my experience, so saying the “sheer number of tankies” are like this is a mischaracterization IMO.
As for why replacing a Capitalist State with a Worker State is a good thing by itself, without a need for full anarchism, I would ask you if you would rather work at a worker co-op or a Capitalist business. Both would have managers, both would have bosses, but the power balance is fundamentally different.
I don’t expect you to agree with me, but I do think that if you’re truly an Anarchist, you are far closer to MLs than you are to Liberals. Just my 2 cents.
As a moderator, I might encounter more tankies than you. Daily, I see posts justifying Putin’s invasion of Ukraine, for example. We can likely agree that this stance is indefensible, both historically and otherwise. Unfortunately, tankies tend to stand out because they actively troll on other instances. I acknowledge my perspective towards MLs generally might be skewed by this experience.
Simultaneously, China is showing assertiveness towards Taiwan, seemingly preparing for an eventual invasion. The Belt and Road Initiative is another manifestation of China’s subtle imperialistic goals. They have adopted the same sort of strategy as the IMF and World Bank, offering loans to impoverished nations for development, which leads to a debt trap, control over crucial foreign infrastructure, and increased political and economic influence. To be fair, it’s a case of what’s good for the goose is good for the gander, but it’s unsettling to see China going down that road.
I guess I’m just not convinced by the argument that supporting Russia and China equates to opposing imperialism. On the contrary, it seems more like an attempt to replace Western imperialism with a similar form led by China and Russia. To me, leftist authoritarianism is just as unappealing as Western authoritarianism, and shouldn’t be endorsed or excused. And no government should be defended from valid criticisms just because it’s notionally socialist.
You may encounter more debate-lord focused MLs, but again, I see Lemmygrad and Hexbear content regularly and on ML home turf, you are describing outliers.
What counts as “justifying” an invasion of Ukraine? Just like you say no government should be defended from valid criticisms, does that include Ukraine? For clarity, I am anti-war, I am just trying to figure out where you personally draw the line between criticism and justification. I see a lot of criticism, but not an actual desire for war to continue. That may be the source of our differed experience.
Same largely goes for China and Taiwan.
I think it’s important to see what Imperialism actually means to MLs to understand both what they oppose, and why. If we take Imperialism at its face value and assume from there, ML stances appear to be nonsensical.
MLs follow Lenin’s definition of Imperialism, which is extremely simply the export of Capital to regions where production is cheaper due to lower cost of living to super-exploit for super-profits. In the eyes of MLs, Russia has a largely insular economy and produces largely domestically, so invasion of Ukraine isn’t justified, but also doesn’t fit Lenin’s definition of Imperialism, largely.
As for the why of opposing Lenin’s definition of Imperialism, rather than all expansionism from more powerful states across the board in equal measure, Imperialism perpetuates Capitalism by slowing its decline in the Imperial Core, off the backs of the majority of the globe. The US isn’t Socialist yet because the majority of the Workers enjoy higher standards of living than the majority of the world, so the Workers support US foreign interests. The MIC continues churning and Palestinians continue to be bombed into oblivion. This can’t last forever, but certainly is an evil system. By comparison, Expansionism doesn’t contribute to continuous global exploitation, it is just individually largely evil. Opposing the system that causes the most conflicts is seen as the most important system to oppose.
Personally, I wish no states were expansionist or Imperialist, and I believe that to be the majority opinion.
As for why I believe Socialist States are fundamentally better than Capitalist States, I again ask if you would rather be employed by a Worker Co-Op or a Capitalist business. A State that serves the interests of Capital and the small class that holds the Capital is fundamentally worse than a State that serves the Workers and their interests, via worker ownership.
Anarchism is nice, and I wouldn’t oppose Anarchism, but I believe Marxism to be more practical.
To be clear, I would definitely prefer your particular version of a Socialist State with worker co-ops compared to working for a neoliberal free market capitalist business. And thanks for taking the time to engage with me in good faith. I’ve enjoyed our discussion.
For clarity, my example was within the framework of Capitalism. I do believe a centrally planned, democratic worker-state is better than a liberal democracy with worker coops, as the profit motive inevitably leads to monopolic power among the better coops, and can lead to a new bourgeois class. Marx makes a compelling argument in Critique of the Gotha Programme, if you’re particularly inclined to check it out and haven’t already. At the same time, I would absolutely support a worker co-op system over neoliberalism, don’t misunderstand.
Thanks for hearing me out, I am particularly annoyed by the rise in liberalism and liberal sympathy lately. Earlier today I was called a tankie for saying that the US is a net negative on global stability due to its hand in funding terrorist movements and fascist regimes to protect its economic, Imperialist interests, which I believe any Leftist should hold, Anarchist or Marxist alike.
Marxists and Anarchists share 94% of views, but those last 6% cause 99% of conflicts between them.
That last 6% (which seems very arbitrary tbh) includes such concepts as “anti-authoritarianism” though, which is a core concept of anarchism. M-Ls on Lemmy generally endorse a centrally planned economy and state ownership of capital and resources, which inevitably leads to state authoritarianism (or so history tells us). Most M-L leftists here are happy to defend that kind of authoritarianism, so long as it’s in opposition to the Western liberal democracy. I think that’s why anarchists argue so much with M-Ls, because it’s a core and arguably irreconcilable difference in ideology.
I agree with you that in an ideal world, anarchists and M-Ls would have little to argue about, but given the sheer number of tankies arguing that China and Russia are basically faultless (even while admiting they are no longer truly communist or socialist) and throwing their support behind the most despicable theocratic and/or authoritarian regimes, like Iran, Yemen, North Korea and Russia, just because they see it as a way to diminish Western liberal democracies, there seems to be a lot to argue about nowadays. Replacing a one authoritarian state with just another authoritarian state does not seem like progress.
I am definitely more of a Marxist than an Anarchist, but I believe comrades are comrades. I believe Anarchism is certainly a beautiful idea, but just isn’t as practical as Marxism is. That doesn’t take away that Anarchists are my allies against Imperialism and Capitalism. I agree that eventually the question of how to organize the revolution will bring conflict between Anarchists and Marxists, but I also am not so naive to think that the revolution can be won by Marxists or Anarchists alone. Only a mass worker-led movement can gain change.
I will say, as someone on a .ml account, who sees Lemmygrad and Hexbear content regularly, I do believe you are woefully mischaracterizing the vast majority opinions of MLs, and I would not be a good Marxist if I didn’t at least try to correct that. There may be a few people exactly as you describe, but the vast majority believe the following:
Russia is a reactionary bourgeois dictatorship with brutal anti-LGBT laws that is currently allied with China against US hedgemony. MLs do not believe Russia can do no wrong, at least not from what I have seen, but do support movements against US hedgemony. The closest is retaining hope that the Communist Party will take over after Putin either dies or retires, and takes the Nationalist Party with him, as the Communist Party is the second most supported and there are no clear successors within the Nationalist Party.
MLs believe China is Socialist, and support it as such. Rather than decoupling from international trade like the USSR did, leading to its collapse, the PRC opted to stay connected while maintaining state superiority over Capitalists. They don’t believe China is fully luxury space gay communism or anything, but that it is building up its productive forces to become fully worker owned after destabilizing US hedgemony.
Again, Critical Support. I assume you’re familiar with “lesser evil” support in Biden vs Trump, correct? Same general process, supporting movements against Imperialism while also supporting leftist movements within these states. Importantly, states cannot become Leftist while under the thumb of Imperialism. Watching Burkina Faso is a great example, they are becoming more leftist as they fight against US interests.
This is the majority opinion I see. Full blown support without any nuance is very rare in my experience, so saying the “sheer number of tankies” are like this is a mischaracterization IMO.
As for why replacing a Capitalist State with a Worker State is a good thing by itself, without a need for full anarchism, I would ask you if you would rather work at a worker co-op or a Capitalist business. Both would have managers, both would have bosses, but the power balance is fundamentally different.
I don’t expect you to agree with me, but I do think that if you’re truly an Anarchist, you are far closer to MLs than you are to Liberals. Just my 2 cents.
As a moderator, I might encounter more tankies than you. Daily, I see posts justifying Putin’s invasion of Ukraine, for example. We can likely agree that this stance is indefensible, both historically and otherwise. Unfortunately, tankies tend to stand out because they actively troll on other instances. I acknowledge my perspective towards MLs generally might be skewed by this experience.
Simultaneously, China is showing assertiveness towards Taiwan, seemingly preparing for an eventual invasion. The Belt and Road Initiative is another manifestation of China’s subtle imperialistic goals. They have adopted the same sort of strategy as the IMF and World Bank, offering loans to impoverished nations for development, which leads to a debt trap, control over crucial foreign infrastructure, and increased political and economic influence. To be fair, it’s a case of what’s good for the goose is good for the gander, but it’s unsettling to see China going down that road.
I guess I’m just not convinced by the argument that supporting Russia and China equates to opposing imperialism. On the contrary, it seems more like an attempt to replace Western imperialism with a similar form led by China and Russia. To me, leftist authoritarianism is just as unappealing as Western authoritarianism, and shouldn’t be endorsed or excused. And no government should be defended from valid criticisms just because it’s notionally socialist.
You may encounter more debate-lord focused MLs, but again, I see Lemmygrad and Hexbear content regularly and on ML home turf, you are describing outliers.
What counts as “justifying” an invasion of Ukraine? Just like you say no government should be defended from valid criticisms, does that include Ukraine? For clarity, I am anti-war, I am just trying to figure out where you personally draw the line between criticism and justification. I see a lot of criticism, but not an actual desire for war to continue. That may be the source of our differed experience.
Same largely goes for China and Taiwan.
I think it’s important to see what Imperialism actually means to MLs to understand both what they oppose, and why. If we take Imperialism at its face value and assume from there, ML stances appear to be nonsensical.
MLs follow Lenin’s definition of Imperialism, which is extremely simply the export of Capital to regions where production is cheaper due to lower cost of living to super-exploit for super-profits. In the eyes of MLs, Russia has a largely insular economy and produces largely domestically, so invasion of Ukraine isn’t justified, but also doesn’t fit Lenin’s definition of Imperialism, largely.
As for the why of opposing Lenin’s definition of Imperialism, rather than all expansionism from more powerful states across the board in equal measure, Imperialism perpetuates Capitalism by slowing its decline in the Imperial Core, off the backs of the majority of the globe. The US isn’t Socialist yet because the majority of the Workers enjoy higher standards of living than the majority of the world, so the Workers support US foreign interests. The MIC continues churning and Palestinians continue to be bombed into oblivion. This can’t last forever, but certainly is an evil system. By comparison, Expansionism doesn’t contribute to continuous global exploitation, it is just individually largely evil. Opposing the system that causes the most conflicts is seen as the most important system to oppose.
Personally, I wish no states were expansionist or Imperialist, and I believe that to be the majority opinion.
As for why I believe Socialist States are fundamentally better than Capitalist States, I again ask if you would rather be employed by a Worker Co-Op or a Capitalist business. A State that serves the interests of Capital and the small class that holds the Capital is fundamentally worse than a State that serves the Workers and their interests, via worker ownership.
Anarchism is nice, and I wouldn’t oppose Anarchism, but I believe Marxism to be more practical.
To be clear, I would definitely prefer your particular version of a Socialist State with worker co-ops compared to working for a neoliberal free market capitalist business. And thanks for taking the time to engage with me in good faith. I’ve enjoyed our discussion.
For clarity, my example was within the framework of Capitalism. I do believe a centrally planned, democratic worker-state is better than a liberal democracy with worker coops, as the profit motive inevitably leads to monopolic power among the better coops, and can lead to a new bourgeois class. Marx makes a compelling argument in Critique of the Gotha Programme, if you’re particularly inclined to check it out and haven’t already. At the same time, I would absolutely support a worker co-op system over neoliberalism, don’t misunderstand.
Thanks for hearing me out, I am particularly annoyed by the rise in liberalism and liberal sympathy lately. Earlier today I was called a tankie for saying that the US is a net negative on global stability due to its hand in funding terrorist movements and fascist regimes to protect its economic, Imperialist interests, which I believe any Leftist should hold, Anarchist or Marxist alike.