I’ve heard this joke before:
Marxism: Antifascist Aktion
Anarchism: Anti Aktion
lmao
insondablemente basado
Removed by mod
The definition they give is indeed different.
Anarquismo. Corriente político-social,hostil a todo poder político o jerárquico entendido como control social y voluntad que se le impone al individuo . El anarquismo bajo concepciones políticas tiene como objetivo promover un cambio social hacia una sociedad mas justa,según principios anarquistas, respecto a la sociedad con proposiciones como la igualdad,el voluntarismo,el derecho económico y otras que se oponen entre las diversas corrientes anarquistas.
The image may have taken the information from the section «Diferencias de marxistas y anarquistas»:
Las diferencias esenciales de los criterios de los marxistas y anarquistas las redujo Lenin a tres puntos fundamentales:
- En que los primeros, cuyo fin es la destrucción completa del Estado, reconocen que este fin sólo puede alcanzarse después de que la revolución socialista haya suprimido las clases como resultado de la instauración del socialismo. Los segundo, en cambio quieren destruir por completo el Estado de la noche a la mañana, sin comprender las condiciones en que puede realizarse esta destrucción.
- En que los primeros reconocen la necesidad de que el proletariado, después de conquistar el poder político, destruya totalmente la vieja máquina del Estado, sustituyéndola por otra nueva. Los segundos propugnan la destrucción de la máquina del Estado y tiene una idea absolutamente confusa de con qué ha de sustituir es máquina el proletariado y de cómo ejercerá esté el poder revolucionario. Los anarquistas rechazan incluso la utilización del poder estatal por el proletariado revolucionario.
- En que los primeros demandan que el proletariado se prepare para la revolución aprovechando el Estado moderno, mientras que los anarquistas lo rechazan.
Although there are some overlaps in the the things said, it seems to me they might have used an older version of the article (specifically due to the subordination of the working class to the bourgeois politics part).
I’m an anarchist, who’s no more ‘hostile’ to dictatorships of the proletariat than a pacifist is.
Does that make me a subordinator of the working class to bourgeois politics too?
I guess it depends on how you interpret ‘hostile’.
Considering that a DotP is a form of government, and that Anarchism seeks the abolishment of government, I imagine we have very different ideas about what hostility involves… or we have very different ideas about how hostile a pacifist would be to a DotP!
Before I can exist in anarchy, I would first have to abolish the conditions that make dictatorships of the proletariat historical probabilities (if not inevitabilities) in the first place… it does very little good for me to attempt to convince others of the advantages of decentralization if the reasons for establishing or preserving centralization are too compelling for people: whether I like it or not, many workers do want to keep dictatorships of the proletariat established, and demonstrating unambiguous hostility to them can be either useless or counterproductive.
The material conditions that make dictatorships of the proletariat so probable are, I’m presuming, already familiar to you. Only by attacking those, and not the proletarian dictatorships themselves, can I hope to make proletarian dictatorships completely unnecessary.
Isn’t the main difference between Anarchism and Communism the question of when the state should be removed? I don’t think anyone would disagree that government should be removed when it’s no longer necessary, it’s just that one of those necessities is ‘Capitalists exist and want to destroy us’. Which is a very pertinent one for Cuba with the US constantly breathing down its neck.
Some anarchists disagree. Regarding external threats, some of us argue that if we can destroy the government, we can defend against others as well. That said, the Republic of Cuba’s formal defences and self‐sustainability are matters of historical inevitability and not of choice. We would be far better off doing whatever we can to abolish Imperial America rather than somehow convincing Cubans to abolish their state.
Fair. So maybe the Cuban wikipedia should say some Anarchists are hostile to the Dictatorship of the Proletariat.
So what’s the difference between an Anarchist that thinks State Socialism is an acceptable means to the end goal, and a Communist?
We prefer decentralization.
Depends… if you’re ideologically against proletarian organization (as is the case for most types of anarchism), then yes.
While I am skeptical about it, I still have to understand the reasons why so many proletarians turn to it, and figure out whatever I, and others, can practice to eventually invalidate those reasons; acting overtly hostile against it is only going to alienate proletarians more than anything else.
So while it isn’t my preference, I cannot, in good conscience, tell other oppressed people how they ought to be defending against their oppression. My stance is probably best described as ‘neutral’.
