When I began my political journey which began with Peoples history of the United States and to the Communist Manifesto and the writings of Marx, Engel to Lenin and now Mao in parallel I also learn about Anarchism, historical and modern. I am not trying to dog on Anarchists because we both have the same overall enemies but when it comes to theory I just realized how little theory there is. It’s largely philosophical and critiques of hierarchy and the state, it seems it has its foundations in idealism which I guess would make it more Hegelian? I am a Marxist I try to keep idealism out of my thought and keep to material realities domestic and global.
Marxism is the theory of scientific socialism, Leninism is the extension of Marxism applied to the early 20th century developments of capitalism and imperialism and colonialism. Finally Maoism which while not the same thing as Mao ZeDong thought incorporates things like the cultural revolution. Each theory provides not just “theory” but theory put to practice and tested. Anarchists point to people such as the Zapatistas who don’t consider themselves Anarchists but rather have Anarchists, Communists etc. in their ranks and in general anti capitalists, so to use them as some kind of ideal of Anarchism is dishonest at best. The best example of an actual Anarchist movement establishing itself was the CNT-FAI, let me know if I’m wrong but they did receive a little support from Soviet soldiers but didn’t military itself have an issue with discipline? Don’t get me wrong anarchists are great fighters but the lack of adherence to central structure can create issues won’t it?
Anyways there are times when I’ve seen Anarchists criticize Communist MLs or MLMs for adhering too closely to theory and even Mao spoke of what he called book worship, theory is a guide not a bible of strict rules to follow, and while it is something that can happen to comrades it’s not something that normally happens. It’s this unified theory which strengthens us, not just theory but theory that’s been put to it’s paces and put to practice and tested and continues to do so even to this day such as in the Philippines when it comes to young revolutions. If there are Anarchists out there it seems that they usually join the MLs or MLMs when the conditions of revolution reveal themselves and I think that says more about Anarchism in practice than Marxism Leninism, Marxism Leninism Maoism.
Just my thoughts
Did you not intend to imply they had some special insight beyond what they identified as that could act as a better bridge than whatever Marxists have to say?
Also, damn I suspected I might have come off as salty. I even added that ‘previous’ word there just in case.
All good.
ABSOLUTELY NOT!
If it seemed like that was implied than maybe I should apologize! However, what I am saying is Marxism is extremely taboo here (USA) anything written is treated as some black magic book of necromancy, people fear what they don’t understand - in my case it was just pure ignorance - not until I read Marx (especially Lenin) did I see the value & incite in it. BUT I first became politically aware of deeper left politics through Chomsky, which lead me to protest in the second Iraq war, become more class conscious etc.
Well, I’ve got some bad news. The ruling class can also infuse their “curse” magic on all our favourite terms! I am interested not so much in the fact that Marxism is taboo, but rather how Marxism was made taboo. What was the tool with which they used to render Marxism, or any other word for that matter, taboo?
My point is that if people can be deterred by scary words, all the bourgeoisie have to do is repeat their demonizing campaigns on every word we use until nothing we use can attract the libs.