Anarchism. Petit-bourgeois social-political current, hostile to all power, including that of the dictatorship of the proletariat; it opposes the interests of small private property and the small peasant economy to the progress of society based on large-scale production. The philosophical basis of anarchism is individualism, subjectivism, voluntarism.
I mean, about right… it’s neutralish, though I would say
Petit-bourgeois {derived but ultimately purely superstructural-focused}
and cut out
it opposes the interests of small private property and the small peasant economy to the progress of society based on large-scale production
More from the old version of the page (The current version is much more neutral towards positive):
The emergence of anarchism is linked to the names of Schmidt (Stirner), Proudhon and Bakunin, whose utopian theories were subjected to criticism in the works of Marx and Engels. In the 19th century, anarchism spread throughout France, Italy and Spain.
Anarchism does not go beyond general phrases against exploitation, does not understand what are the causes of the latter, nor the class struggle as a creative force for the realization of socialism. The anarchist negation of the political struggle objectively contributes to the subordination of the working class to bourgeois politics.
The most essential in the struggle against anarchism lies in the problem of how the revolution should proceed in the face of the State and in the problem of the State in general. The anarchists advocate the immediate annihilation of the State, they do not recognize that it is possible to take advantage of the bourgeois State to prepare the proletariat for the revolution. After 1917, anarchism in Russia became a counter-revolutionary tendency. At present, it enjoys a certain influence in Spain, Italy and Latin America.
Differences between Marxists and anarchists
The essential differences in the criteria of Marxists and anarchists were reduced by Lenin to three fundamental points:
In that the former, whose aim is the complete destruction of the State, recognize that this end can only be attained after the socialist revolution has abolished classes as a result of the establishment of socialism. The latter, on the other hand, want to destroy the State completely overnight, without understanding the conditions under which this destruction can be achieved.
In that the former recognize the need for the proletariat, after conquering political power, to totally destroy the old State machine, replacing it with a new one. The latter advocate the destruction of the State machine and have an absolutely confused idea of what the proletariat is to replace this machine with and how it will exercise revolutionary power. The anarchists reject even the use of state power by the revolutionary proletariat, its revolutionary dictatorship.
In that the former demand that the proletariat prepare for revolution by taking advantage of the modern state, while the anarchists reject it.
Anarchism does not go beyond general phrases against exploitation, does not understand what are the causes of the latter, nor the class struggle as a creative force for the realization of socialism. The anarchist negation of the political struggle objectively contributes to the subordination of the working class to bourgeois politics.
After 1917, anarchism in Russia became a counter-revolutionary tendency. At present, it enjoys a certain influence in Spain, Italy and Latin America.
Ok, at this point, they’re just trying to criticize it instead of simply presenting as is… I can see yer point
I mean, about right… it’s neutralish, though I would say
and cut out
(out of confusion)
More from the old version of the page (The current version is much more neutral towards positive):
Ok, at this point, they’re just trying to criticize it instead of simply presenting as is… I can see yer point