Do they think the Catalan Anarchists had no bourgeois blood on their hands? Do they think the Makhnovites never executed counterrevolutionaries? Fucking idiots. I preferred it when anarchists actually threw pipe bombs.
Do they think the Catalan Anarchists had no bourgeois blood on their hands? Do they think the Makhnovites never executed counterrevolutionaries? Fucking idiots. I preferred it when anarchists actually threw pipe bombs.
Easy there. Are you against revolutionary violence? If not, then he’s not talking about you.
Maybe. But there way too much of this kind of rhetoric on the site for me to look at this and say “oh he’s not talking about me, I’m one of the good ones”
If I felt like there was more differentiation between what was an “acceptable” anarchist and just libs with the “anarchy” label. That would be one thing. But I don’t see people saying anarchy is OK.
Just mostly people bashing anarchists…
You have entered a Marxist community, not an anarchist community. Members of this community are expressing their frustration with the ever-growing swaths of anticommunist and antirevolutionary liberals who describe themselves as anarchists, but who have little to no actual engagement with anarchist ideology. They have expressed that this frustration is derived from these people’s refusal to read theory and to educate themselves on the history of anarchism. They are not criticising anarchist ideology, they are criticising people who claim they are anarchists but refuse to actually learn anything about anarchism.
You are making broad, sweeping statements condemning the Marxists in this community for their beliefs, and seem to be reading their frustrations as personal attacks and attacks on anarchism. Perhaps you should re-examine your standpoint here and go read some elementary anarchist and leftist theory. Here are some recommendations:
Anarchism and Other Essays by Emma Goldman
Principles of Communism by Friedrich Engels
An Anarchist Programme by Errico Malatesta
The Conquest of Bread by Pyotr Kropotkin
Any of Antonio Gramsci’s writings
These are all good recs (especially
), but please, don’t tell me to Google Murray Bookchin. It’s been ten years.
I’m so tired.
Damn, just agreeing with all the cringiest people. I read the section of his book (post scarcity anarchism) called “listen Marxist” and was hoping there would be something worth listening. Unfortunately, all he says is basically Marxism’s old so we should ignore it and also evil vanguardists stole credit for the revolution and did evil stuff instead of pressing the communism button. I always hope to find something interesting to think about in anti-communist arguments, but they rarely say anything new.
That being said, there’s merit to the idea that lockstep dogmatism to a 175 year old definition of a political model isn’t necessarily a successful model for any given present day era.
This is why I’m wary of “read theory.” Sure, read theory, but don’t treat it like a Bible. Expand, adapt, update, adjust.
Besides, like all science, theory should be reproducible without need for the text. Theory after all means “best guess,” and it’s supposed to be vulnerable to new realities and discoveries.
Every communist should be familiar with the core philosophy and principles of Marxist analysis. That information and methodology is very hard to just naturally luck into without reading the theory – especially if you grew up in a sea of liberalism.
Our adherance to past principles of organizing needs to be dynamic and not dogmatic though.
Theory is useful to learn how to figure out what to do. Some of Marx’s predictions ended up being wrong, most notably his prediction that the already industrialized countries would be first to revolution. However, his work on how to understand how society works and how to change it isn’t outdated. To make an analogy, any scientific theory may be proven wrong, but the scientific method will always remain a valid tool for understanding the world.
Coincidentally enough, there is theory about this very issue. Dogmatically following theory when it is not applicable to your material conditions is a problem Marxists regularly grasp with.
True, there is a great danger in dogmatism. That’s why Marxists emphasize the scientific and changing nature of our worldview. “Read theory” shouldn’t mean “just read Marx and Lenin” it means you should also read Mao, Amin, Horne, and so on. Read it critically, notice changes, notice contradictions and consider different perspectives.
Bookchin argues we toss out Marxism as a whole because not everything Marx says can have held up. However, Marxists recognize that and critique and change the theory. We adapt to our conditions. Bookchin denies the method of proletarian revolution which we still uphold because we see it worked. He does not see it worked because he accepts the anti-communist alternative history.
I’m not telling you or people in general to read theory, I’m telling chucklehead over there to read some, because based on his posting I sincerely doubt he ever has. Dude claimed he was opening his anticommunism blinders less than two weeks ago, then fell ass-backwards into lemmygrad’s infighting community and decided to go to war using a balloon sword.