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
I love the idea of Anarchism, but it’s entirely unrealistic on a major scale. I think there’s one anarchist autonomous zone in Mexico (forgot the name), but it’s like a few tens of thousands of people in one smaller region. They also never even had to deal with a full-on fascist leader of Mexico who was willing to spill blood in order to destroy their society – if one came to power or if they posed a big threat, they would be crushed in 2 seconds.
Anarchists also bring up Rojava in Syria, but it’s only been around for 7 years, and recently when Turkey invaded they immediately had to ask Assad for help. And honestly, I’m not even sure how “anarchist” it even is, I’m not uber familiar with the situation there, only read a couple of things, and it seems more like a mix of different ideas.
In a purely idealistic discussion, I would probably side with anarchism more than with communism. HOWEVER, I’m also realistic and realize that’s a pipe dream.
Yeah, I would love a free society where no authority was needed and everyone just got along and helped one another, but that’s just not a reality we live in. It never worked on a large scale and it never will. You need a centralized power to enforce marxism and fight off any attempts at reactionary takeovers or outside influences (like, how would an anarchist country split among many different sections and no centralized military force fight off an invading fascist force for example?) and just, in general, take care of a million other problems that come with not having a centralized government.
The funniest thing to me that they love to bring up is the CNT-FAI – which was super authoritarian towards people who didn’t want to participate – but they brush that off as “not real authoritarianism.”
To add, here’s a great essay by @DashRendar@lemmygrad.ml on where tanks come from.
Great read. It really put a lot of my thoughts that I didn’t know how to express into actual comprehensive words.
What do you think communism looks like in an idealistic discussion?
I might’ve used the wrong word there (sorry, no my 1st language) – not sure if I did or not, but what I meant was like: “in a perfect world, would you prefer a Marxist society where no authoritarianism was needed or an authoritarian Marxist society.”
Like, yeah in a perfect world I would love the first option, but we don’t live in a perfect world, and I know authoritarianism is indeed needed.
I mean in a perfect world, nobody would choose an “authoritarian Marxist society” as you say so there wouldn’t even be a meaningful distinction between anarchist and Marxist in that scenario.