When I began my political journey which began with Peoples history of the United States and to the Communist Manifesto and the writings of Marx, Engel to Lenin and now Mao in parallel I also learn about Anarchism, historical and modern. I am not trying to dog on Anarchists because we both have the same overall enemies but when it comes to theory I just realized how little theory there is. It’s largely philosophical and critiques of hierarchy and the state, it seems it has its foundations in idealism which I guess would make it more Hegelian? I am a Marxist I try to keep idealism out of my thought and keep to material realities domestic and global.
Marxism is the theory of scientific socialism, Leninism is the extension of Marxism applied to the early 20th century developments of capitalism and imperialism and colonialism. Finally Maoism which while not the same thing as Mao ZeDong thought incorporates things like the cultural revolution. Each theory provides not just “theory” but theory put to practice and tested. Anarchists point to people such as the Zapatistas who don’t consider themselves Anarchists but rather have Anarchists, Communists etc. in their ranks and in general anti capitalists, so to use them as some kind of ideal of Anarchism is dishonest at best. The best example of an actual Anarchist movement establishing itself was the CNT-FAI, let me know if I’m wrong but they did receive a little support from Soviet soldiers but didn’t military itself have an issue with discipline? Don’t get me wrong anarchists are great fighters but the lack of adherence to central structure can create issues won’t it?
Anyways there are times when I’ve seen Anarchists criticize Communist MLs or MLMs for adhering too closely to theory and even Mao spoke of what he called book worship, theory is a guide not a bible of strict rules to follow, and while it is something that can happen to comrades it’s not something that normally happens. It’s this unified theory which strengthens us, not just theory but theory that’s been put to it’s paces and put to practice and tested and continues to do so even to this day such as in the Philippines when it comes to young revolutions. If there are Anarchists out there it seems that they usually join the MLs or MLMs when the conditions of revolution reveal themselves and I think that says more about Anarchism in practice than Marxism Leninism, Marxism Leninism Maoism.
Just my thoughts
If there’s a biggest indicator for me, it’s historical success. The only successful revolutions, in the global south in particular, have resoundly rejected anarchism in favor of Marxism Leninism.
These comrades are fighting for their lives, they understand the need for organized coercion, violence, and know that building the vanguard party is their immediate necessary task and most important thing they can do to survive.
Anarchism on the other hand is only embraced by the well to do in the imperial core, who, since they aren’t under threat of violence, can reject authority without actually challenging it.
Anarchism has been a tremendous historical failure, and it should be in the trash can along with all the other intellectual only trends that have died throughout history and are only studied as intellectual curiosities.