So some anarchists are viewing us as “imperialists with a red flag”. What is a good response for thatM
Major ML achievements:
- USSR
- China
- Cuba
- Vietnam
All of which have existed for 70 years and counting (excluding the USSR). All of which fought long wars, some of a civil nature, against the forces of reaction.
Anarchist achievements:
- Um
- Hmmm
- Hold on I’m sure I can find one
- Paris Commune? But that lasted 2 months and wasn’t entirely anarchist
- Revolutionary Catalonia? But that lasted only as long as the civil war did and wasn’t entirely anarchist.
- Makhnovia? But they exploited the unrest created during the October Revolution (communist) and lasted 3 years only due to this instability and their relative unimportance.
- Kronstadt? But that was started by Whites aiming to establish a non-communist government, nothing anarchist there.
- Mondragon federation? But Huawei is bigger and operates from the PRC.
- Rojava? But that’s a Kurd nationalist state who oppresses their other populations (such as Assyrians).
Anarchists do not have the high ground to be taking this kind of speech to us, because they have achieved nothing. So they take the *moral *high ground instead. Yes, they didn’t succeed. But their revolution was pure, unblemished by authoritarian acts. Except when Makhno chain-ganged peasants and forced conscription, the anarchists in Catalonia executed priests and the Whites masquerading as anarchists in Kronstadt were about to mass execute Bolsheviks. But we don’t talk about that. Anarchism is pure, it’s not the evil tankie red fash authoritarianism. The fact that is has never succeeded is exactly why it’s pure – they’ve never held to power long enough to actually do anything with it.
So my best advice to dealing with anarchists is to ignore them. I don’t feel threatened by anarchists, because for that they would have to actually pose a threat. I don’t expect them to ever achieve anything (due to their whole ideology), but I fully expect them to fight against the socialist government – they want 0 government, they want to smash the state, they have always been very clear about that. What do you think will happen after we establish the socialist republic? It’s still a state, so they’ll fight against us. And like at Kronstadt, or like in the kibbutz, they’ll side with the reaction. Hey, do this funny thing: google kibbutz. First link is Zionist state propaganda. But they’re still anarchism in practice, I swear!!
… Though anarchists themselves can’t seem to agree on what anarchism is. I’ve seen it described as “anything that fights against the state”, and the person who said that made it clear that the Nazis (who did not actually fight against the state, they were invited by it) would be anarchist at least in spirit under this definition. It doesn’t help, obviously, that they are so averse to reading in general, not just political theory. Anarchism is also usually the first ideology rebellious teens go to if they want to put money where their mouth is (and I get that, it’s not easy being a teen in a late-stage capitalist society) so I’m not holding this anti-intellectual stance to every anarchist. But certainly to most of them.
You have to understand the reasons for being an anarchist lie deeper than merely having ideas – because of course we are not idealists, we are materialists, and we understand the material world one lives in influences one’s ideas and not the other way around. Anarchism is a petty-bourgeois ideology founded on libertarian principles. Now, anarchists will claim they coined the term libertarian first in the 19th century, and the “right-libertarians” like you see in the US co-opted their movement.
But you don’t see right-wingers co-opt Marxism. So why is that? That’s because left-anarchism has more in common with capitalism than it has with communism. They just want to be left alone in their commune, where they are free to make whatever laws they want. Anarchism is mostly found in petty-bourgeois backgrounds (there are more MLs living in the state of Kerala, India than there are anarchists in the world), because then they could make laws for their famous worker’s coops. If you gave anarchists laid-back capitalism, where they could basically live in their gated communities among themselves, work in their manufactures that belong to them only whenever they want, and trade their stuff and make money off it, they would love it. Perhaps that is why kibbutz love having the protection of the Zionist state as well.
[Anarchists] never held to power […]
:D
It’s not paradoxal. Anarchists believe they can abolish the state (which even then does not necessarily mean abolishing power) while there is still reaction surrounding them. But believing in something and changing the meaning of words still does not make it true. Perhaps in 500 years when communism has had a good run, things will be different. Until then, they are the only ones pretending they are not a state when they wield the monopoly of violence they are so fond of.
Really nice comment, mostly the last two paragraph.
Although in my experiences is the oposite with the “right-wing” of the subject, the more intellectual formation, deeper economic undertanding, more anarchist tend to be the people, and they also agree with what you said:
“That’s because left-anarchism has more in common with capitalism than it has with communis”
I will add that from the ancap perspective, governament is not equal to state. A government is ok so far it is accepted voluntarily, in contrast, the state is always imposed using violence.
Mises and the Austrian school don’t count as deeper economics understanding lol. Their stuff is literally high school level and is based on what one feels like.
Here have fun http://digamo.free.fr/morishimarx.pdf
Lol, the fun part is that I actually thought I was talking to someone who ise that fleshy blob of meat insode his head.
Go read human action before triying to battle it with a book with an oxymoron in the title. Is kind of pointless, you ignore the theorem of the imposibility of socialosm stated by Hayek, amd call it high scool level jajaja you are funny dude, please, never change xD
Anarchist:
Cospaia city (now part of Italy), almost 400y of ANCAP organization, untill ot was anexed by Italy near the 1800s. One of the top tobacco producers of his time, and relatively more prosperous than all his neibours.
Not bad for a tiny city with a population of 300~600.
It even didn’t have prision nor police, no cohertion was needed to bring it to existence, no war, a bit of good luck and one really bad surveyor mapping the land.
Cuba, Vietnam, China… ther is a difference in being sucessfull and just “being” I won’t say they are succesful now, and in the long run I believe they will end to exist, one or two generations after us probably.
https://mises.org/power-market/republic-cospaia-anarchist-renaissance-city
Not that successful if they were annexed by Italy of all countries lmao
Edit: also apparently you can still comment despite being banned? Well, that gives me an excuse to flesh out my comment.
I don’t know if you’re aware but the prevalent system in 1400s Italy was feudalism lmao, with some free cities where a bourgeois class developed. These bourgeois organised themselves in guilds, and hired “free” workers that worked on the daily. Capitalism wouldn’t come around for another 300 or so years. So how could a city of 300 illiterate peasants (lmao really found a great example there) be ancap (and invent capitalism in the early Quattro Cento!) when it was surrounded by feudalism lmao. Also 300 people come on, everyone knew everyone else in that hamlet. That’s smaller than some high schools, that’s smaller than some universities at the time. You could house the whole population of this “republic” in a single army barrack. The fact they weren’t invaded is precisely because they were so irrelevant to Italy that no one really wanted to bother with it. It would cost more money to field an army to grab Cospaia than you’d get out of them. The best way Cospaia sums up anarcho-capitalism is perhaps when it was created by a clerical error, a pure accident lmao. And the best way you sum up anarcho-capitalism is when you try to claim it has historical backing and isn’t just the fever dream of some very weird fascistic tendencies.
This is why people say ancap is a meme ideology (and yet it could have never been capitalo-marxism), because you have no idea what you’re talking about and just have a very strong feeling that it would work out for the best if we just gave ancap a chance.
But really the funniest part of your comment has to be the mises link. I read it. It left me with more questions than I had going in. They’re really just preaching to the choir.
You better argument is based in when the ancap term was coined? Also you seem kind of in foght or fly mode, man, you are not going to win amy aword figting on internet with a random guy, don’t make this a homo sapiens version of two chimps throwing shit to each other.
400 years is plenty more than some red examples I must say, and with orders of magnitud less people to defend it, so that look like a overwelming succes for some pesants half starved.
The fact you read the article is something that kind of make up for the tribal defending you do of your believes, and even more if you have more questions now, would be far more productive and interesting if you just share them. In fact will be really interesting since your perspective will undoubtedly be different and so will do you questions.
Anyhow, I honestly enjoy a book recomendation despite the context, so 👍 tks.
There are various responses, but honestly, they don’t deserve a response. Most of them are just anti-communists who are looking for any excuse to dislike the USSR and China (the two main targets of this accusation, and the two largest Marxist-Leninist states to exist). If you explain that “social imperialism” isn’t the argument they want it to be, or explain the detailed history of communist diplomacy, they’re just going to scoff at you, then turn to what-about-isms.
In the case of the USSR, they claim the post-WWII territory growth of the USSR was “an empire wrongly invading other states”, when in reality it was a treaty that brought developing or wartorn Eastern-European countries into the Union, where they could rebuild without coercion from the west. Then they claim the wars with Finland were attempts of Soviet invasion, and again “an empire wrongly invading” Finland. But this, again, isn’t the case. The winter war happened because Finland was growing their relationship with the German state… you know, the Nazi government… Finland’s border was very close to Leningrad, where a large amount of the Soviet military industry was. So, put that into perspective, your neighbour could very likely join the enemy in the upcoming war, and they can reach the most important city for your ability to produce warfighting materials. the Continuation war was exactly the reason the Soviets got into the winter war to begin with, their exact fear happened. Finland and the Nazi government worked together on the Eastern front during WWII. Then, they’ll finish their claims by bringing up the Soviet-Afghan war. To simplify that conflict, the American backed terrorist organization, the Mujahideen (who would later claim the 9/11 terror attacks as their own as the Taliban) attempted to coerce the pro-Soviet Afghanistanian government towards becoming a western-backed nation. For the Soviets, having the Americans have a border directly with the Russian SR would have been a strategic nightmare, so they worked along with the legal Afghanistanian government to stomp out the ‘rebel’ factions. They weren’t trying to force Afghanistan to become an SR, nor trying to force Afghanistan to become communist, they were just keeping the Americans out.
For China, they claim the (rediculous) claims that China is ‘local-imperialist’, and trying to illegally grow its borders into Tibet, India, and the South China Sea. Which… they aren’t doing. If they wanted to wage a war and take Tibet illegally, they could. But they haven’t because their military actions in Tibet were in support of the popular uprising… they were assisting Tibetans so Tibet would get rid of its feudal system. India has a fascist government, the border conflicts have a lot to do with that. and the SCS is China’s coast, they can do whatever they want with it… it’s theirs. Same goes for China’s actions towards Hong Kong. They waited patiently for the UK to return the territory, and are slowly implementing the foundations of socialism into HKer culture. HK legally belongs to China, they’re only trying to reimplement it in the least hurtful way they can. and the people who oppose this are… well… the HKer bourgeoisie and pro-imperialists.
I should add because I forgot, Another one of the accusations of imperialism thrown at China relates to their debt-busting in Africa. No, sending African nations debt-free loans so they can get out of the debt of western banks isn’t “social imperialism”. No, helping African nations build roads and infrastructure so they can gain the foundations of development isn’t “social imperialism”. No, Helping African nations build hospitals and financing the building efforts isn’t “social imperialism”
the Anarchists really are just rarin’ to call the greatest humanitarian-aid project of the 21st century (so far) “social imperialism”, just because it’s China who’s leading it.
I’d be willing to bet, if the Americans were building roads and hospitals in Nigeria, the Anarchists would applaud it. But, China does it in Angola, and they’re slinging around terminology they don’t fully understand just so they don’t have to feel wrong about having a hardline hatred for AES.
As a radical anarchist, you can still be a basic chauvinist, but you’re radical about it. China bad, but also US bad except when it would lose me friends to say it. It’s the safe option.
deleted by creator
I don’t know why so many comrades pay so much attention to anarchists. Especially internet anarchists, who are pretty much liberals who don’t like the government. They are insignificant and I barely remember that they exist.
You should be paying more attention to stuff like this.
Comrade just notified me of this. Maoists are… kinda unhinged.
? Explain what you mean
I mean we have bigger fish to fry.
Maoists have a lot more influence in ML discourse than anarchists; we shouldn’t ignore this.
But… Isn’t Maoism an extension of Marxism-Leninism?
For some reason I get the impression I talked about Maoism with you on another occasion, but maybe I’m confusing you with someone else? Or maybe I just invented this whole conversation lol.
Maoism refers to two things: either MZT (Mao Zedong Thought), which is taking Mao’s theories he developed for China and applying them where they fit, and Maoism proper, or Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, invented by a man named Abimael Guzmán in Peru, in the 90s, holding that Mao’s theories form a distinct body of theory superceding Leninism (much like there cannot be effective Marxism today without Leninism), but history has not proven him right. First of all because the Shining Path has its share of controversies (but of course you shouldn’t just believe everything imperialists say about it), and second because… it just doesn’t apply universally.
Maoism, in China specifically and only there, is also sometimes used interchangeably with MZT. But there are also MLMs there, and they want to take power from the “revisionist” CPC. This is objectively wrong and would be detrimental to Chinese socialism.
I otherwise agree with Makan that Maoists are a more relevant subject for MLs because they are active on the ground. The Communist Party of the Philippines is a Maoist party, and has been waging a protracted people’s war for 60 years now against the government. They are also so much against the PRC that it’s become dogmatic. These are people with real power, they do organising and try to win over the working class on top of actively taking up weapons against the government – for the New People’s Army, I am not aware of any controversy that turned out to be true. But they are anti-Leninist, because they claim China is “social-imperialist” (objectively wrong) and that the USSR after Stalin was also social-imperialist (can be debated, but social imperialism does not exist at all in ML theory). On top of that, many Maoists in the west sound more like ultras, where they like to use grandiose speech (seriously, read a Maoist newspaper once, it’s amazing) and exalt the virtues of anything they do, but then they end up alienating themselves from the working class because the workers are not left enough, or they alienate themselves from other communist orgs because they don’t live up to their impossibly high standards.
There’s also a weird cult of personality in MLM parties, where they look towards their leader. I don’t really understand it, but maybe I could try to. If you look at the Philippines again, their leader (not of the NPA but of the party itself) has been living in exile abroad for decades now. I’m not sure what you can achieve leading a communist party when you’re seven time zones away, but they really hold him up as a leading figure.
But overall if we’re staying strictly on theory, it’s just not universal and I’m not sure what gave Guzman the authority to synthesize Maoism and declare it as such. With Leninism, it was Stalin who synthesized it, and I can get that because they worked together prior to, during, and after the revolution. Stalin continued what Lenin left. But with Guzman, honestly, he just ended up in prison halfway across the world from China.
Maoism is a “rupture” from Marxism-Leninism as many Maoists will tell you and Gonzalo, who created Maoism, even announced it as such.
Mao Zedong, in a few speeches of his, even said that any additions or added focus to Marxism-Leninism by him in regard to Chinese conditions should not be made into an extension of ML itself.
No good response. Because that’s what you are.
Be careful that when you kick the hornet’s nest, you do not kick it in your own face :)
