The funny parts is that a lot of anarchists hate MLs with a passion. Meanwhile, most MLs are sympathetic to what anarchists want, but just think that they’re misguided in terms of their methods.
I’m not even sure we have the same intended long-term goal as them tbh. At least, a lot I’ve come across really seem to think ‘stateless’ means no government, no large scale infrastructure, the old ‘someone will make insulin as a hobby’ meme.
I find it’s more meaningful to talks about specific flavors of anarchism, such as anarcho-syndicalism. I can definitely see the appeal of what they want such as structuring businesses as worker owned coops. I just don’t think they have an actual workable plan of how to get there. A lot of anarchists I’ve talked to though, do have infantile notion of society where they basically just expect everyone to just get along and be nice to each other.
Anarcho-syndicalism seems pretty compatible with MLism, like they’re just missing the complete picture and focusing on one specific part. The flavor of anarchism that’s basically “we will abolish all hierarchies, governments, exploitation, wage labor, and currency in one fell stroke and create a post-scarcity society without a vanguard party or any transition period” seems wholly at odds with Marxism or even common sense.
Right, I suspect it comes down to how much education people have. The most extreme forms of anarchism are basically naive ideas of how human society works, and as people become educated their ideas start getting more nuanced, and eventually it starts looking a lot like Marxism because that’s the only workable approach in the end.
Indeed, the strains that want something slightly more realistic (like worker co-ops) are a lot easier to speak to. As you say they tend to lack a practical means of implementing their desired society, or if they have ideas, they seem to just ‘reinvent’ MLism with different terminology (cue the Engels quote).
Yeah basically, I think the really sad part is just how much pointless bickering is happening when a lot of people want essentially the same thing. Arguing about what specific flavor of communism we’re gonna be focusing on when majority of people can’t even define communism is putting the cart before the horse.
Yeah basically, hence why I think a lot of anarcho-syndicalist ideas are entirely compatible. The part they miss though is the role the state needs to play both in politics and in the economy.
I think there is definitely a difference between anarchists who want the same generally better world that we do and anarchists who want Mad Max style civilizational collapse
Oh certainly, it’s just that anarchism can contain both of those things, with MLism, we know where we stand in terms of the end goal. And we also understand that it will not be within any of our lifetimes.
In Marxist terms, the state is a tool of class oppression, it is the machinery by which one class imposes its will on all others. Under capitalism (or rather, under a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie (DotB), like e.g. the US, UK, France, Brazil, etc.) it is the bourgeois class who controls the state and uses it to oppress the proletariat (and any remnants of prior classes like the peasantry). In a dictatorship of the proletariat (DotP), that structure is inverted and the proletariat uses the state to oppress the bourgeoisie (and any remnants of say, aristocracy or whatever).
The idea is that in a DotP, the bourgeoisie will eventually become proletarianized and, after a long enough period when there are no more bourgeoisie, there will be no more proletariat (as classes are defined in terms of the conflict between them). Without a class system, there will be no longer any reason for the state - as that tool of class oppression to exist. All that will be left in terms of governance, will be the administration of things. You still need to manage healthcare, housing, transport, etc.
I take a very literal approach to “the state.” The state is the status quo. The way things currently are. The totality of social relations. The state is what keeps Haskell programmers awake at night. Nothing more, nothing less.
A hippie commune, an Anarchist book club, a Syndicalist federation, and a dictatorship of the proletariat helmed by a Communist party are all states. It isn’t very useful to argue about what is and isn’t a state. It is much more interesting to explore how these various forms of social organization differ in composition and outcome. To learn from effective practice, incorporate the triumphs of past movements, while avoiding the mistakes. Differing conditions call for differing tactics, and it doesn’t behoove anybody to be too dogmatic.
The funny parts is that a lot of anarchists hate MLs with a passion. Meanwhile, most MLs are sympathetic to what anarchists want, but just think that they’re misguided in terms of their methods.
I’m not even sure we have the same intended long-term goal as them tbh. At least, a lot I’ve come across really seem to think ‘stateless’ means no government, no large scale infrastructure, the old ‘someone will make insulin as a hobby’ meme.
I find it’s more meaningful to talks about specific flavors of anarchism, such as anarcho-syndicalism. I can definitely see the appeal of what they want such as structuring businesses as worker owned coops. I just don’t think they have an actual workable plan of how to get there. A lot of anarchists I’ve talked to though, do have infantile notion of society where they basically just expect everyone to just get along and be nice to each other.
Anarcho-syndicalism seems pretty compatible with MLism, like they’re just missing the complete picture and focusing on one specific part. The flavor of anarchism that’s basically “we will abolish all hierarchies, governments, exploitation, wage labor, and currency in one fell stroke and create a post-scarcity society without a vanguard party or any transition period” seems wholly at odds with Marxism or even common sense.
Right, I suspect it comes down to how much education people have. The most extreme forms of anarchism are basically naive ideas of how human society works, and as people become educated their ideas start getting more nuanced, and eventually it starts looking a lot like Marxism because that’s the only workable approach in the end.
Indeed, the strains that want something slightly more realistic (like worker co-ops) are a lot easier to speak to. As you say they tend to lack a practical means of implementing their desired society, or if they have ideas, they seem to just ‘reinvent’ MLism with different terminology (cue the Engels quote).
Yeah basically, I think the really sad part is just how much pointless bickering is happening when a lot of people want essentially the same thing. Arguing about what specific flavor of communism we’re gonna be focusing on when majority of people can’t even define communism is putting the cart before the horse.
I mean isn’t that a soviet, or am I missing something?
Yeah basically, hence why I think a lot of anarcho-syndicalist ideas are entirely compatible. The part they miss though is the role the state needs to play both in politics and in the economy.
I think there is definitely a difference between anarchists who want the same generally better world that we do and anarchists who want Mad Max style civilizational collapse
Oh certainly, it’s just that anarchism can contain both of those things, with MLism, we know where we stand in terms of the end goal. And we also understand that it will not be within any of our lifetimes.
Wait, if stateless doesn’t mean ‘no government’, what exactly does it mean?
In Marxist terms, the state is a tool of class oppression, it is the machinery by which one class imposes its will on all others. Under capitalism (or rather, under a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie (DotB), like e.g. the US, UK, France, Brazil, etc.) it is the bourgeois class who controls the state and uses it to oppress the proletariat (and any remnants of prior classes like the peasantry). In a dictatorship of the proletariat (DotP), that structure is inverted and the proletariat uses the state to oppress the bourgeoisie (and any remnants of say, aristocracy or whatever).
The idea is that in a DotP, the bourgeoisie will eventually become proletarianized and, after a long enough period when there are no more bourgeoisie, there will be no more proletariat (as classes are defined in terms of the conflict between them). Without a class system, there will be no longer any reason for the state - as that tool of class oppression to exist. All that will be left in terms of governance, will be the administration of things. You still need to manage healthcare, housing, transport, etc.
I see, thanks for clearing that up! I always wondered how everything would work without a government, I understand now.
I take a very literal approach to “the state.” The state is the status quo. The way things currently are. The totality of social relations. The state is what keeps Haskell programmers awake at night. Nothing more, nothing less.
A hippie commune, an Anarchist book club, a Syndicalist federation, and a dictatorship of the proletariat helmed by a Communist party are all states. It isn’t very useful to argue about what is and isn’t a state. It is much more interesting to explore how these various forms of social organization differ in composition and outcome. To learn from effective practice, incorporate the triumphs of past movements, while avoiding the mistakes. Differing conditions call for differing tactics, and it doesn’t behoove anybody to be too dogmatic.
😄
I don’t think it’s just that they are misguided. It’s that they raise guns against the revolutionary state.
That’s why we need to educate people on the necessity of the revolutionary state. :)
I will never tire of your contributions.
:)