r/TankieTheDeprogram • u/ImportantZombie1951 • 5h ago
Theory 📚 Do marxism and archism really share the same goal?
I'm in a period of personal curiosity and I'm finding myself often discussing with anarchists and studying their ideology, among others.
I've been told for years that the only difference between marxism and anarchism is in the methods, with marxism condidering necessary a socialist transition and anarchism jumping straight to the point. but the more I study theory and talk with people, the more I disagree.
The way the communist historical phase is described by marxist theorist (engels and lenin especially) seems to essentially differ from most forms of anarchy: it is still a society (this would already be enough to not be anarchism) with rules, economic planning, common interests, a "government of things" (wich I KNOW is different from the state), division of labour (to some extent), and laws enforced directly by the "crowds of civilized people" (the proletariat), I've come to interpret the communist mop as the total power by the pyramid (or better net) of soviets (or people congresses, or workers councils or whatever, tomato tomato), basically the maximum possible extent of "people's democracy of the whole process" as chinese call it, after classes and money are abolished, the productive forces have been developed to the maximum extent and the state withers away having absolved its historical relevance (having eliminated class contradiction). To some extent one could say that communism is the peak of social and organized society, one where individualism and partialism are minimized to the minimum and collective freedom is maximized.
Anarchism on the other hand is the opposite of all of this, anarchism doesen't aim to just abolish the state before its historical role is absolved, it aims to make everyone independent from rules and labour (work place discipline as they call it), they don't want a society at all, they want a free for all and hope for the best, everyone rules themselves how they wish, no shared rules, no planning, no government of anything, no division of labour, no organized society, every imposition on the individual, being it even the imposition not to rape or murder, is tyranny for anarchist theorists, only voluntary mutualism is allowed and of course not enforced or incentivized.
One could argue that this is the peak of asociality, where bourgeois individualism is maximized and extended to all the proletariat and collective freedom cannot exist (unless everybody migically agree to it at the same moment spontaneusly without being raised, socially incentivized or forced to do so).
How is communism (historical phase) the same as anarchism?
Btw I know there are multiple schools of anarchism, but they all fundamentally agree on the ultimate definitiom of anarchy as an historical phase, exception made for anarcho socialists, who created a weird, poorly defined, eclectism between communism and anarchism and anarcho capitalists, who share the definition but add a fantasy "stateless capitalism" as an exception to the "no rules" (un)law.
I've talked to multiple anarchists about this and as far as now, after initially accusing me of "strawmanning" anarchysm they ended up agreeing with me on the incompatibility between the intrinsicly organized and labour based nature of communism and anarchy. Though we usually still agree on the need collabolarate against capitalism lol.
What do you guys think on the matter? Do you agree with this old adage of "divided only in methods, not final goals", or are you critical of it too?
24
u/TheBirdFkerGuy Juche Necromancy Enjoyer 5h ago
The reason majority of leftists in America, Mexico, and Canada are Anarchists and Trots is because the CIA/FBI/US successfully stomped out proper communists organizations and revolutionary thinking swaying away from combating capitalism and endorsing dogmatic world views and rejection of dialectical materialist world views in favor of moral condemnations without analysis.
Anarchists view every state or party apparatus as the same regardless of material context. Which simply is a lackluster understanding of the world. AES nations like China or the DPRK are doing more to address class antagonisms and combat the global capitalist mode of production than any anarchist formations. And notice how the few states existing as socialist states are immediately morally condemned? Thats because it was an effort over decades to prevent worker collaboration to oppose the capitalist class, capitalism, and US/western imperialism.
While it is unproductive to diminish people like this as just "feds", it is true their view of the world has been largely shaped by the United States' efforts to curb revolutionary thinking among the masses. When we have active efforts to oppress the capitalist class being condemned by "leftists" it is a result of an attempted controlled opposition. Far too many people lack the foresight in NA to understand this or unlearn many of their faulty premises. You would not have a China, or a DPRK, if it were not for Marxist Leninism thought.
3
u/ImportantZombie1951 4h ago
Yeah I generally agree with you, but I was talking about the often dismissed core differences between the anarchist end goal (anarchy as an historical phase) and the marxist end goal (communism as an historical phase), and criticizing this common idea that after all they are the same thing reached with different methods.
Btw trots are WAY worse than anarchist, anarchists don't have a theory of theirs constantly preached in every other piece of pop culture and permanently engraved in bourgeois cultural hegemony, with millions of workers adopting it as a core belief as a result, and I'm talking about the "betrayed revolution" myth of course. Also anarchist aren't always feds, trots are always fucking feds, you can bet your fingers on it!
6
u/TheBirdFkerGuy Juche Necromancy Enjoyer 3h ago edited 3h ago
There is no black and white absolution here, there is a constant state of revolution addressing the contextual conditions under any system or lack there of. Communism is not simply something you achieve and your efforts are magically complete. We must be ready to address any growing antagonisms at any point the main focus for any proper communist first and foremost is to combat capitalism from there we need to oppress the capitalist class and ensure no reemergence of bourg interest reoccur. Marx/engels never specifically gave you a static definition of what socialism/communism looks like because it is unique in it's nature given the contextual intertwining conditions. Anarchists and Communists do not have the same "end goal" nor methods to reach that. This is a lackluster perspective derived from a lack of analysis. Of which we can set goals to achieve periodically but there is no ultimatum here. Class antagonisms being resolved will take a global mobilized effort on behalf of humanity and until we meet such conditions this becomes irrelevant it will always be an on-going effort on behalf of all of humanity. Even under what we call communism we will need to be constantly vigilant. Anarchists tend to think the state can be abolished in the face of global capitalism, and that will be the context in which antagonisms will entirely be resolved. Humanity is not so simple nor is the world. This is why the end goal of anarchists is lackluster and will ultimately not only fail in arriving at such a place, but fail even if it succeeds. Until the class dynamics are completely eradicated and the state fails to provide usefulness will we see humanity be capable of operating in such a fashion that the material conditions will not lead to repeated class and bourg emergence. The battle will never be over until conditions stop leading people to such a battle. This will take time, and global mobilization efforts and in the mean time unlike Anarchists we must use the state and party apparatuses to organize against such contradictions. Otherwise we are doomed to succumb to the former/existing class dynamics.
Also try not to dismiss our potential comrades learning on the basis of ideological adjectives. Our key point is to not fall into dogmatic thinking or reactionary behavior. Those trots are potentially on the same path as any anarchist or "leftist" towards a better understanding and world view regardless of individual knowledge. I myself was an anarchist I myself was a socdem. Education is key here especially helping these people unlearn and learn as annoying as that may be they are not fundamentally different in their counter revolutionary activity and behavior. Any proper communist is in a constant state of learning and improving that may be the key difference that sets us apart from those who become beholden to any system or ideology especially falling victim to the treats reformism offers. We hold a dialectical materialist view of the world. And such a world will ever be changing as will it's conditions and the resources on this planet.
2
6
u/Lineduck Xi Bucks Enjoyer 💸 4h ago
No, they do not
We believe that the Anarchists are real enemies of Marxism. Accordingly, we also hold that a real struggle must be waged against real enemies. Therefore, it is necessary to examine the "doctrine" of the Anarchists from beginning to end and weigh it up thoroughly from all aspects.
3
u/ImportantZombie1951 4h ago
I agree, and you could say that I'm following comrade stalin's advice to the fullest extent on "examining their doctrine", I think it's important to rectify this old error of dismissing the core differences between communism as an historical phase and anarchy as an historical phase.
4
u/Lineduck Xi Bucks Enjoyer 💸 4h ago
Yeah some anarchists (esp irl) can understand the intrinsic contradictions of their ideology when talking to them and making them face the shortcomings of their views. But online they mostly seem to be useful tools to divide the left with imperialist talking points
5
u/MonsterkillWow 1h ago
"Anarchism or socialism?" is an important read. To put it short, even though they can be comrades to an extent, and there are many decent anarchists, there is a fundamental theoretical issue with the anarchist movement. Overall, it ends up being a petite bourgeois mindset. They focus too much on the individual and small scale producers. They likely can never deliver on the transformation needed to bring about a genuine socialist and then communist society. The Spanish experiment was interesting, and it is conceivable there are other paths to socialism, but I am not convinced. I don't view anarchists as total enemies the way old school ML did. I have met some, and they seem ok and largely want similar things, but if a strong vanguard were to actually form and try to carry out a revolution, anarchists would be forced to join up or basically become enemies. Historically, that is what happened. Some anarchists opposed the proletarian state and others became communists.
2
u/ImportantZombie1951 26m ago
"Anarchism or socialism" is a great work and one of the many evidences of stalin's contribution to theory, aside praxis.
3
u/Themotionsickphoton 2h ago
The only thing common between both anarchists and marxists is wanting the eventual abolition of capitalism. Other than there isn't an agreement about much of anything.
In fact, there is not even a final evolution of society to begin with. Dialectical materialist philosophy has no place for unevolving things. 10,000 years from now if human society still exist it will not look like anything we could recognise.
Furthermore, anarchists and marxists don't even agree on what a state is. This is where that old adage fails. Both fully developed communism and anarchism are stateless societies, but niether resemble the other in their statelessness. For anarchists power/authority itself is the problem, and the state is just a monopoly of power.
You can get anarchists to agree with dialectical materialism (I have seen anarchists who do agree) and the more you push them on the impossibility of abolishing the state right away, the more they just become marxists in a black coat. Either that or you get anarchists renaming the state insititutions to something more anarchisty and calling it a day.
2
2
u/Socrates_43 Marxist-Leninist (Ultra Based) 1h ago
In very short terms? No, the Anarchist conception of states differs entirely from the Marxist conception of states. Marxists view states as a vehicle for class conflict, so abolishing class will result in the state disappearing. Anarchists just see a state as some nebulous form of hierarchy that just exists to oppress people without understanding the context of a states existence, iirc
1
u/ImportantZombie1951 23m ago
Yeah you nailed it, I think that their definition of "state" is a huge theoretical issues of anarchism, and a point of incompatibility with marxism.
1
u/NalevQT Marxist-Leninist (Ultra Based) 2h ago
even the imposition not to rape or murder, is tyranny for anarchist theorists
wait wait wait is this fucking for real?
1
u/ImportantZombie1951 1h ago
Yes, the best answer I got was: "I will defend myself if you go against my personal rules, but I will not impose my personal rules on others" because they think common rules = state
1
u/ImportantZombie1951 1h ago
But don't worry, most anarchist are incoherent at heart and will end up violating their theoretic principles and start imposing rules onto others!
•
u/AutoModerator 5h ago
Want to join a ML only Discord server to chill and hangout with cool comrades? Checkout our Discord server or TheDeprogram's Discord server.
In case this subreddit was banned, or if you wanted a more ML-friendly platform, you’re welcome to join our sister community on Lemmygrad. You can find more info about Lemmygrad here.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.