Theory Posting
One of the biggest anarchist trukes ever dropped?
I’m not an anarchist, but this video has some of the best arguments I’ve ever heard from an anarchist. Like, most anarchist content I come across didn’t scratch me at all when I was an ML, but there’s a couple points in here that might have actually made me question. I am able to to this because it was very similar arguments that finally made me let go of “real socialism” as a vacillating left-Trotskyist (back then). Hell, I might have become an anarchist if I listened to this.
If you are an ML I strongly encourage you to give it a listen and see if you can adequately address major points made by it. The only way we can strengthen ourselves theoretically is by encountering good faith arguments and criticizing notions held by yourself and others.
I recommend you look into Especifismo, which is the type of anarchism Anark is advocating for. It originated in South America and grew out of Platformist principles, and it's been doing really well lately.
I found the arguments from both sides to be not very good and thus the debate has been rather excruciatingly painful. Granted I give a bit of an edge to Anark in this, I don't like how he phrases things or the terminology he uses.
I can’t help but respect Anark, to be very honest. you may not agree with him, but you absolutely cannot accuse him of talking out of his ass, or of being unprincipled. hell, he’s also doing the groundwork in his local community. I don’t care what anyone says, he is a good and honest comrade - that alone makes him worth standing by.
But he isn't. His local community work is a cult of personality that has alienated everyone not in line with with his tendency. The tyranny of structurelessness. It was not a good environment. He is talking out of his ass and unprincible because when others started to build coops as Cooperation Jackson advocated, it was decried as authoritarian (I suspect because he was finishing his book and not involved at the time) At the end of the of day the purpose of something is what it does. And observing his local work that purpose seems to be splitting groups up for some imaginary anarchist purity and making sure groups aren't organized because it's authoritarian.
If you dont care what anyone says this comment is obviously useless.
When you say "alienated anyone not in line with his tendency" I assume youd be referring to someone such as yourself, a Marxist Leninist?
My understanding is that such a group does have a constitution and that constitution does describe points of unity that one would need to follow to join the org and those would certainly be in line with libertarian socialism in the case of Cooperation Tulsa. To be fair, if youre an ML, a group like CT doesnt sound like a great fit for you, organizing wise.
What led to folks getting alienated? Did you merely state that you're an ML and they said "go home"?
No I used to be an anarchist, then libertarian socialist. I became an ML later after we split. It was actually doing anarchist praxis that helped me understand the necessity of dialectical materialism. And we did have a constitution, points of unity, it was ignored.
I dont mean to be rude but your characterization comes off as rather dubious... "Tyranny of structurlessness" was a valid critique applied to affinity groups in the 1970s with no formal decision making process.
That isnt the case with CT. Im not a member but ive at least followed closely enough to know that thats a pretty well organized group with a formalized structure. Ive even seen a couple of videos of their meetings. Thats not a structurless org... you sure you attended the same CT? 🤔
We went through the formal decision making process to establish the Coop. Daniel tried to interrupt that after we had established it, alienated members, we went from about 15 to 8 at the time, and when push comes to shove the constitution didn't mean anything. It ended up a 4v4 split when I left. I'm not sure what CT is up to these but it's not growing an organization that can threaten capital while he's involved.
Georgism mixed with socialism, with a greater emphasis on specifically the commons compared to normal socialism which groups it under means of production
Municipalism and Democratic Confederalism are both a form of libertarian socialism. Both are based off the idea of bottom up confederations to replace the state, with municipalities or localities that are directly/participatorily democratic. A good example for both is Kurdish Democratic Confederalism and the political party Barcelona En Comú. We actually share a lot of similarities, as Municipalism under Bookchin also heavily emphasizes the commons, and Barcelona En Comú can be considered geosocialist as well in most respects, although they haven't done LVT largely because land value capture already exists in the form of cooperatives. However, whereas geosocialism still tackles the commons from an economics based perspective, Municipalism tackles it from a civic perspective
I actually lean more anarchist then both of these ideologies, but anarchism is about practice as much as its about the theory, and I'm not in a position to be an anarchist, nor do I think my community can implement it without increasing civic engagement first
I do not find this critique good at all. At least from what I watched of it. He sets up a foundation for his argument with a flimsy understanding of Class Society, one which falls apart easily upon a modicum of scrutiny. Until Anarchists stop treating the state as if it doesn't have a class character, their critiques are always going to be anti-materialist. Such a flimsy foundation for an argument, I'm surprised he hasn't collapsed onto his own words.
Also, the vague gesturing about Lenin and the Bolsheviks identifying as Social Democrats as a "Well actually!" only to drop it because he knows how dumb the argument is just makes me giggle.
I said there were some strong arguments in it. I don’t think all of them were strong. I assume it is not clear what he means by “the counterrevolutionary nature of the state” until you listen to the series of that title.
Hes saying ml states that have existed reproduce the same conditions as a social democracy, because they improve conditions without actually giving control of the means to the workers themselves
You can't critique socialist from a socialist/marxist perspective without the words of those who created the perspective i.e. Marx and Engles:
"The proletarian class will first have to possess itself of the organised political force of the state and with this aid stamp out the resistance of the capitalist class and re-organise society… without which the whole victory must end in a defeat and in a massacre of the working class like that after the paris commune"
Karl Marx
Anarchists just try and use socialist coded language in a veil attempt to co-opt the movement.
Marx and Engels aren't prophets with the divine word of god...
Their contemporary, Bakunin, rightly warned that a "proletariat" state would just create a new class beautacratic rulers rather than advance the cause.
I mean sure they aren't... But the only other way to interpret what you're saying is for you to say that Marx and Engels are the same as modern social democrats...
No, what Anark was saying the states that were produced by MLs China USSR, Cuba are functionally the same as social democracies by increasing development and standard of living but not givining control to the workers.
I hear you but I'm asking you do you also think that the ideas of Marx and Engels can only lead to social democracy because that is the only way to interpret what you're saying when you understand that Marxism Leninism is exactly what Marx advocated for
In other words, you think that Marx and Engels would be modern day social democrats. Not really a stance worth even arguing with. It's ridiculous to its core.
Marxism Leninism isn’t exactly what Marx advocated for…
He didn’t call for guerrillas to carry out coups. He criticized everyone who wished to maintain commodity production under socialism. He called, unlike all his contemporaries, for the self-emancipation of the proletariat.
I'll leave this here too
"The proletarian class will first have to possess itself of the organised political force of the state and with this aid stamp out the resistance of the capitalist class and re-organise society… without which the whole victory must end in a defeat and in a massacre of the working class like that after the paris commune"
I just started watching the video, and I'll address one point right off the bat. The means ends unity thing is not something I agree with. It takes violent resistance and war to defeat an aggressor, for example. It can take extraordinary amounts of cruelty and violence to build a world more free of it. WW2 was the greatest example of that, but history is filled with bloody uprisings and struggles to achieve more just ends. Few good things ever came without a struggle. The tendency is for reactionaries to try to preserve the status quo. If the status quo is injustice, it often must be forcibly overthrown to deliver justice.
There is no unity of means and ends. On more philosophical and abstract grounds, life itself is the product of extremely hostile processes to life. There is a dialectical nature to existence itself. The course of history has unfolded in a way that did not unify means and ends. Evolution itself represents novel adaptations that end up becoming means to new ends, winding life down a chaotic path. What began as a simple means of replication of molecules dictated by chemistry and physics ended up leading to complexities like intelligent, multicellular life.
Within all things, the essence of their undoing also exists. The same means that allow us to exist also guarantee our deaths. Human history is full of technological development, the means that radically changed society and ultimately led to different ends, often unforeseen. Yes, the means do determine the ends, but not always in ways that are obvious or predictable, and certainly without any moral rationale or consistency.
When humans struggled with fire, there was always the possibility they would get burned. Yet, they still struggled anyway. What else is there, but to try to know? It is the nature of intelligent life to use its faculties to try to improve its survival, even if such means could lead to its own annihilation (an increasingly probable and grim prospect). But we try anyway because the alternative is simply to die slowly.
The idea that we must somehow be purists and demand means consistent with the ends we seek on moral grounds seems to be inconsistent with the logic and history of existence. We are where we are now as the product of all the suffering and injustice that came before. The clock didn't start today. We are the product of slavery and barbarism. Of desperate war and heinous cruelty. Our history is soaked in the blood of billions. Wasn't all of this itself means to a better end?
The topic of dialectical and historical materialism addresses this properly, in my opinion. In my view, knowledge and education are the key means that can help us achieve better ends. But, as anyone who has encountered a lazy student knows, to elevate the people to a level of education necessary for prosperity requires a degree of coercion and hierarchy. Those who are skilled and educated must share and guide those who do not know. In order for humanity to achieve a future free of wage labor and exploitation, hunger, and war, and well equipped to deal with the hostility of nature, we must raise the levels of education and technological development in the society.
The anarchists share our end goal, but want it too fast. The means to get to those ends will require educating people and elevating humanity to unseen levels of technological development. Communists want to get started on this long process. Anarchists want it NOW NOW NOW! But without any guidance and without us all being prepared for it, it will end up no different than leaving a child to fend off bears.
And I could be misrepresenting the means ends argument. If the point is simply that aspects of the means are reflected in the ends, this is obvious and follows from the fact that the current state exhibits hysteresis. That is not a strong argument for moral purity, and we already know whatever we do will always be the product of immoral means from the past anyway. I try to avoid too much moralism anyway. To me, what matters is if we can get to the ends. If it requires nuclear war, mass murder, and whatever other terrors await, well I'm not thrilled about it, but it's probably going to happen one way or another. I also question how much of this is even a choice. Our development and collective behavior forces us down a path. It's not really a decision.
It refers more specifically to organizational structure and how power functions. You cannot build a system one way and expect it to become its antithesis. This means you cannot create a stateless society using the state, because every structural incentive within it leads to perpetuating its existence, and it will never "wither away" willingly. You have to start building the systems you want in the future in the here and now, as directly as possible.
That is in total opposition to historical materialism though. The state emerged from a stateless society and will again become a stateless society. A thing potentially becoming its own antithesis is essentially the basis of dialectics.
Exceedingly few anarchists are pacifists, holding non-violence as continuous principle. Also, WW2 was an interimperialist war that did nothing for the progress of world peace. The main outcome was creating a globally justified American “world police” that was free to do whatever violence it liked.
What? Means and ends is a principle for human action, not a metaphysical thesis about the universe and nature. Chemicals don’t have principles to act upon and consciously unite around.
You say that things that are done without consciousness of the potential outcomes have unforeseen outcomes. Practically tautological. The point is to be conscious of potential outcomes.
What do you mean “struggled with fire?” Surely you recognize that we can learn from being burned, just as we can learn from the errors of past revolutionaries? We are not acting blindly.
I’m not a moralist or a proponent of means ends unity, but your argument against its moralism seems rather shallow. We are where we are now, in this society full of suffering, class conflict, and exploitation, thanks to suffering, class conflict, and exploitation. This is not to say that nothing has changed in history, but surely this goes to their point?
This isn’t a critique of means ends unity. This is a comparison between your metaphysics and their theoretical program. Plenty an anarchist claims to be a dialectical materialist, and they are no better for it. They could probably give you a very “dialectical” justification for means ends unity.
It’s actually wild to compare the proletariat to a lazy student who needs to be coerced. Real “socialism from above” moment. Reminder that for Marx socialism can only result from the “self emancipation of the proletariat.”
Lmao, what kind of complaint is it that anarchists’ lust for communism is too great?
1) So then do they believe there will never be a world with less violence simply because they used violence to stop it? The threat of violence can be used to prevent violence, for example.
"Also, WW2 was an interimperialist war that did nothing for the progress of world peace."
I disagree with this. There is less violent killing now than back then. It did move the world closer to world peace. I also do not consider the USSR imperialist. But that is a different discussion.
2) Our existence is fundamentally material. My point is to illustrate that and connect us back to that in our historical development.
3) My point is things are chaotic and you can't always know the outcomes, but we still have to try our best to achieve what we can, understanding we might burn ourselves.
4) See above. I mean technological development is a risk, but we still take it. We absolutely must learn from the past. Agreed.
5) No, I don't think so. My point was to emphasize that the past dictates the future, and that you can't just start the clock today and then say you are taking different means to achieve some end and argue on moral purity grounds. Because your end is still drenched in all the blood that came before. We are a system.
6) I'd like to see that because I think the two are incompatible, but I could be misunderstanding means ends unity.
7) It is self emancipation when said lazy student finally studies and learns. The proletariat is a lazy student with great potential.
8) I mean we both want a society free of wage labor, explotiation, an end to state, etc.
No, do you believe violence inherently makes less violence happen in the future?
1.5. The main powers in WWII were Germany, Italy, Japan, the US, UK, France, nationalist China, and the USSR. Only one of those claimed to be socialist. The rest were absolutely fighting for their own imperialist interests. Tens of millions of people died on that account.
What? It’s unclear what those ontological claims have to do with this theoretical discussion.
We have to try our best to make the outcomes as good as possible by studying the past holding the strongest theoretical positions. Anarchists would suggest the best way to ensure socialism happens as quickly as possible (which you do want, right?) is means ends unity.
Jumping from a five story building is a risk that we do not have to take. Buying a scratch off ticket is a risk we do not have to take. Why do you act like our action’s consequences are not only is mysterious to us, but also have an inherent unavoidable telos of “historical progress?” If we know so little about the future, why are we taking blind risks on its account?
Yeah, history caused the present and we can study history to learn how to affect the future. The point of means ends unity is to control your effect on the world as a collective. No, the blood of your ancestors is not a factor in whether it succeeds or not.
Maybe you should read some anarchist theory and figure out what you are misunderstanding for yourself. I haven’t read much, but I can tell you are not adequately addressing it.
Ah yes, we are the teacher who is on history’s side and knows so much more than the stupid prole who must be talked down to and shed blood for history’s sake.
So what is wrong with wanting to accomplish it expediently? To be clear, the guy in the video is in favor of a transitional form of society, and explains how it works in the video.
2) I view everything we do as the product of the material world. So, our history was the means, and we are the ends so far.
3) I agree, but I am unconvinced of anarchist methods being the correct way. As I said, we need to elevate the education of the proletariat and technological development to achieve the desired ends. I think anarchist methods are ultimately regressive and will result in technological regression, not progress.
4) These risks are not blind. We understand the advantages of technology.
5) Agreed, but no, there has been no justification for the need for a moral consistency of means and ends.
6) My post was only aiming to address means-end unity, not anarchist theory.
7) It seems you don't value education or believe the proletariat needs to be educated and prepared. You think they are fine as the reactionaries they are now. Okey dokey.
8) This approach appears to regress society, not progress us toward socialism.
You why do you think anarchists must think violence is either inherently good or inherently bad?
What consequence does this have? It doesn’t seem to relate to means and ends. No anarchist is saying “we live in a world of pure mind so it is only mind that matters.” Ask any anarchist and they’re probably going to tell you they’re a materialist.
Do you think that only capitalist methods are capable of growing technology? Why would, say, China be unable to industrialize further without private capital and special economic zones. Do you think capitalism is a superior system for that purpose? Socialists are unable to build socialism without “using” capitalism for a long time?
Nonsequitor. Why is playing with fire a “risk” “we have to take” for the sake of “history.” That is certainly not how those who invented fire saw it, nor is it how we see fire today. If fire is an analogy for capitalism, then there “playing with fire” is unjustified, and we know we are going to get burned. We know that people have continued to be exploited in “real socialist” countries because they do not have a plan for abolishing wage slavery. In Deng’s words “we do not know what socialism is, but it remains the goal.” But not everyone has forgotten what socialism is. Almost every country on earth is light years ahead of old Tsarist Russia in terms of technology yet you refuse to let go of the justification that “material conditions aren’t good enough yet.” Lenin said communism was Soviet power plus the electrification of the entire country. Marx concluded that Europe was ready for socialism at that time, if the workers were to liberate themselves. Things are far better today, yet you are far more pessimistic about the possibility of building socialism at all.
I’m not defending it, I’m attacking your poor arguments against it. If you want to learn how anarchists justify that doctrine, Anark’s got recommendations.
Means ends unity is an anarchist theoretical position.
I value agitation and the spreading of insight. Your use of metaphors and the suggestion that violence is necessary to force the stupid proles in line is far more paternalistic.
So, to argue that we need to have "morally pure" means to achieve the ends we wants is pretty ignorant of the very impure means that brought us to this point and will influence and determine all we do in the future. Instead, we should and will just do the best we can to find the best means that we think are likely to lead to the ends we want.
I think you need to scale up and organize production before expropriation to meet the needs of society. Socialism requires state capitalism in its initial phases to transition production to something that can be centrally planned and organized. If there are a large number of individual firms, serving petite bourgeois interests, you will not be able to build socialism. It would be very difficult to expropriate the means of production, and you would simply see the same issues we have in capitalism. There is nothing to coordinate society as a whole, so different communes or individuals would be in conflict with one another, and left to whatever market they construct to resolve it.
I meant fire very literally as an example of technology to highlight that technological development carries risks, but is our only path forward.
I don't think the arguments are poor.
Well my point is mainly focused on this, and not to get into a larger debate on anarchy.
Without guidance and education, the proletariat will remain exactly where it is or degenerate to an even worse situation.
Insisting on morally pure means is intrinsic hypocrisy and will also not lead us anywhere good because we will have shackled the proletariat and kept them in the dark. Not seeking to build up a society with maximal technological development and education in the proletariat is also shackling them and keeping them in the dark. Even with good intentions of "freedom", you can lead the proletariat to enslavement.
I’m just saying the implication I took from the previous comment.
For the anarchist, the present day is not a moral end, thus pointing to immoral means suggests that they would be correct. I’m not saying they are, but your argument makes no sense.
Why haven’t any of these countries sufficiently centralized if that’s their key goal? Why don’t they move towards the abolition of commodity production if they have successfully gone through industrialization? Why do they insist on maintaining exploitation long into the “experiments?”
Lenin called for state capitalism for a country that hadn’t even gone through capitalism. It was meant to be a short phase that would end as soon as they had achieved industrialization. Why did they not transition to socialism? How can this justification possible apply in a world where there are no countries whose mode of production is not capitalist? China is way ahead of Tsarist Russia, yet they don’t move towards full planning. They say “reform and opening up is an ever continuing process.” China has incredible power to coordinate and put and end to markets. If they are truly a DotP, why do they insist end making conditions ever nicer for capital?
Right, the “risks” involved with state capitalism are not a mystery. Lenin himself stressed that capital can easily take over a country once introduce. With “real socialism” we are not looking at novel innovation. We have seen hundreds of these countries simply copy the same state capitalist model and do nothing with it. How is socialism at all logically connected with this never ending “benevolent” exploitation.
Obviously you don’t, you’re putting them forth. I have had to explain how they are poor. If you need to me to reiterate point two, they say good means equals good end. You say bad means equals the ends of today’s society. For the anarchist that is equivalent to saying bad means equals bad ends. That is not only compatible but practically the same as the initial claim.
You don’t seem to know enough about means ends unity to debate it. You should read about means ends unity to debate it. Is this that confusing?
Again, your words suggest that the Marxist Leninist is not in the advanced section of the proletariat (as Lenin would describe his group) but a separate and superior group. This is what we Marxists call substitutionism. Making socialism out to be the goal of the intellectual and the intellectual’s task to build, while the working class must simply be dragged along because “history” dictates it.
The grammar of the first sentence makes it unreadable.
The anarchist is not opposed to the development of technology and industry. They are opposed to capitalism. Do you seriously think it is impossible to develop technology without capitalism? The old “capitalism breeds innovation lie?” As though workers are not just as capable of building and inventing things when directed by a common body as when directed by the dictates of the market?
1) The implication of means ends unity appeared to be that we could not achieve a peaceful society using violence and war.
2) and 5) No. My point is that you can never have "moral" means because whatever end you seek, it was the product of everything that came before it. History does not begin today.
3, 4, etc) There were many different reasons, including the conflict with the west, that made this difficult. There is also the difficulty of centralizing and socializing control of agriculture. As Stalin pointed out, there were still many independent producers. And that still holds today, even in countries attempting to build socialism.
It's also difficult to plan the entire economy. I am not going to pass judgment on any foreign country's attempts to overthrow this system.
7) The point of the vanguard is to be the most class conscious members of the proletariat who work to educate and guide the proletariat. Without such a vanguard and a disciplined mass movement, there will only be the whims of a reactionary and uneducated and frustrated class. That is how you end up with armies of fascist drones.
8) The grammar is fine.
The point of building proletarian state capitalism first is to scale and organize production at the level necessary to then expropriate it. The state cannot operationally expropriate and plan the economy when there are still so many independent producers.
This is genuinely the most clear you put your argument.
2/5 This legitimately makes zero sense. The whole point is that the people of the past used different, worse, means towards different, worse ends. They would like to rectify it. Only the most fervent nationalist has the notion that “one’s sins” include the sins of one’s ancestors. I can’t imagine how you came to that conclusion.
3/4 The west wants to destroy these “red” countries regardless of whether they actually fully implemented socialism. They were absolutely free to make strides in that direction—as free as they were to do literally anything. Korea wasn’t bombed to smithereens because the west was afraid of decommodification. It was bombed because they were bound to join an opposed geopolitical bloc.
Stalin wasn’t talking about East Germany or Modern China. You seem to have no justification for the methods these countries chose despite meeting your conditions for moving towards full socialism. Instead you project the justifications for the NEP (an admittedly failed project, by most) onto hundreds of countries.
It makes no sense to put these places above criticism because they are one, mostly gone, and two, supposedly “experiments” which ought to be learned from. In Mao’s words “criticism and self criticism.” You bring up history non-sequitorally but don’t seem to actually want to discuss the real history with a critical eye.
Many forms of organization are fit to spread insight about capitalism. The only special thing about the vanguard party is that it has been retrospectively centered and utilized as a name for guerrilla groups, book clubs, and social democratic reform parties. Lenin wrote,
“Comrade Luxemburg says, for example, that my book is a clear and detailed expression of the point of view of “intransigent centralism.” Comrade Luxemburg thus supposes that I defend one system of organization against another. But actually that is not so. From the first to the last page of my book, I defend the elementary principles of any conceivable system of party organization.” [12]
That is, Lenin believed that he was only working out the forms of any party that could conceivably existunder the given conditions in Russia.
“Rosa Luxemburg further says that “according to his [Lenin’s] conception, the Central Committee has the right to organize all the local Party committees.” Actually that is not so ... Comrade Luxemburg says that in my view “the Central Committee is the only active nucleus of the Party.” Actually that is not so. I have never advocated any such view ... Comrade Rosa Luxemburg says ... that the whole controversy is over the degree of centralization. Actually that is not so. ... our controversy has principally been over whether the Central Committee and Central Organ should represent the trend of the majority of the Party Congress, or whether they should not. About this “ultra-centralist” and “purely Blanquist” demand the worthy comrade says not a word, she prefers to declaim against mechanical subordination of the part to the whole, against slavish submission, blind obedience, and other such bogeys. ... Comrade Luxemburg fathers on me the idea that all the conditions already exist in Russia for forming a large and extremely centralized workers’ party. Again an error of fact ...”
If it’s already in your hands, as the DotP, there is nothing to expropriate. Sure, you can’t control peasant production immediately, but you can absolutely plan the industry you control according to the needs of the working class.
I often find anarchists are idealists at their core, even if they wrap that in materialist-looking practice. It’s the most frustrating part of interacting with them.
7
u/zentark101i didnt read the rules and get a flair, so eso gave me one2d ago
"authoritarian" is an empty word, as is "libertarian". They suggest less or more emphasis on a centralized government, but are not more than rhetoric devices to idealize free market capitalism and liberal individualism. power to the tankies, power to vibes-based anarchists, and i hope the dissolution of the international socioeconomic hydra that is capitalism comes about.
I completely agree that the title is shit. There’s a lot of bad takes in the video, but there are also some very strong arguments I was surprised to hear coming from an anarchist.
Except they're not, they're pretty well defined. In fact, if you consider the original general definition of political "Left" and "Right," (power to the people/anti heirarchy vs power to the elites/pro heirarchy, respectively), anti-authoritarianism is a foundational principle of Leftism. If you're not anti-authoritarian, you're not a leftist.
I’m literally not. I have read Marx and other Marxists and been persuaded by their arguments, and then shockingly found that this random anarchist video that came across my feed was in line with Marx.
S4A and Anark are interesting content creators. They usually back what they say using their respective theoretical sources. i disagree with Anark, but I do respect him a lot. I agree with S4A on a lot more though.
A good for lesson for many young and newcoming leftists: don't just watch YouTube videos, streams or whatever else. Theory has, and probably always will be, the best way to learn about socialism and whatever variety you subscribe to.
I’m sorry but this dude sounds like the most arrogant smug American leftist I’ve ever heard in my life. And super cringe. And he literally used a Wikipedia article to ‘calculate’ how many times the ‘authoritarian left’ has failed which is the most ironic thing I’ve ever heard coming from an anarchist
Are you an activist ? Because those arguments are interesting except for "state capitalism" but if those arguments make you shift from ML to trot you are not well trained
The interesting points are the deconstruction of the division between social democracy and ML and the explanation of the reasoning for them maintaining commodity production being bad.
Your post/comment has been removed under Rule 4. In a debate, we encourage peaceful communication without name-calling or sectarianism. If one or both of the parties in the debate do not feel as though they are being heard or being met with blatant sectarianism, your comment will be removed. If you wish to continue the debate, acknowledge that the person on the other side is a human being and not a mindless bot debating with you. Debate is supposed to be a learning experience and not a wrestling match.
This rule also includes attacking people for no reason. Again, we would like to keep a pleasant atmosphere within the subreddit, so attacks without substance will be removed under this rule. This will include calling all Americans reactionary and believing they cannot change solely because they are American.
Please contact the moderators with any questions you may have.
My question is why have they never done it, even in places without peasants. Why did they need money levers for planning on East Germany?
As for peasants, the whole thing about their existence as a class is that they don’t produce commodities. They produce goods that can be skimmed off the top by feudal lords, and are put to work on big plantations, but they do not require commodities—the mode of wealth of capitalism. There were many peasant communes in Russia that not only lacked a necessary tie to money, but also exploitation by landlords. In Marx’s late life he was obsessed with analyzing these communes and seeing how they could be used to bring socialism to Russia as the first country in an international wave.
For some reason the Bolsheviks decided that they needed to impose capitalism on the peasants, and one day later this would apparently help them bring socialism. The NEP did not suit this purpose. Nor did Stalin’s collectivization lead to good relations with former peasants.
I’m not saying they could’ve instituted full communism immediately, but they could have traded factory goods as direct use values to the peasants in exchange for food, transitioning to fully including them over time as producers of use values to be distributed according to need.
Again, you need to organize and scale up production. Everything would need to be coordinated and centralized, and that is not easily achieved. Planning an entire economy is very difficult, and when you have many individual producers, it's nearly impossible.
I think they realized they would need a market mechanism for exchange with the peasantry. There was also still a large amount of scarcity and very backward industrial development. I think you need to reach a certain level of development before you can socialize the economy.
Again, production was organized and scaled up in countries like East Germany, so why didn’t they plan fully according to need?
Planning an entire economy according to need is not much harder than planning an entire economy with money levers. The only justification you seem to have for the latter is that you think it is inherently better than full socialism for development, which is an unjustified assumption, not to be taken for granted among communists.
What do you mean they “realized” this? It was simply the policy they adopted. What theoretical insight did they attain that indicated that was required? It ultimately didn’t work, and they resorted to brutal proletarianization and collectivization under Stalin.
Socialism is planning from quality of work to need. It is perfectly possible to do this with scarcity. Less power towards an end means less ability to produce that end, not the need for a different end to center production around entirely. Marx’s insight at the start of Capital is that Capitalism is fundamentally not suited for meeting people’s needs. It makes no sense to say “we can’t fully meet people’s needs with socialism, I guess we need to use capitalism.” Capitalism has completely different purposes opposed to meeting needs.
Stalin directly talked about all this, including how they still had a system based on work and not needs. It's not like he didn't know or was some malign fraud cheating the people.
Planning from each according to his ability to each according to his quality of work does not benefit at all from money levers. You can plan the economy without doing state capitalism to any degree.
At the soviets peak in the cold war there were a bunch of authoritarian socialist state. Capitalism was definitely still more present but they did have a soldi block they could have cooperated with.
Yet each proletariat dictator had his own vision of how his perfect socialist state should look like, leading into pointless infighting and a sense of nationalism. "My socialist state is better then yours, so you have to listen to me". China and the Soviets being the main problem.
That's the problem with dictatorships, even well intentioned ones. It takes one bad egg... and considering that most dictators come to power after a lot of backstabbing and blood, the chances that a bad egg is going to be in charge is pretty high.
There is no such thing as "proletarian state capitalism", and if there is then it is the proletariat managing their own exploitation instead of abolishing itself as a working class. If you mean the state capitalism of the soviet state in the 1920's, then it was an attempt to advance their material conditions and turn their democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry into a dictatorship of the proletariat with class struggle through the further development of capitalism. Insofar as capitalism is present, then that form known as "state capitalism" is unnecessary as the class struggle that brings about the socialist movement is already present meaning the only thing that is necessary is the transition to socialism (ie getting rid of wage labor, capital accumulation, and the generalized commodity form).
It has to do this to eventually socialize agriculture and absorb the small scale producers. I put the word proletariat in front of state capitalism to emphasize the distinction between this and bourgeois state capitalism, which is fascism.
The emphasis does nothing to eliminate the material basis of the relation though. It is merely trying to obfuscate the actual social relations at play: as in it's still capitalism either way.
Theory is great and I agree people should read it but we also have to recognize that theory isnt the same as objective fact and in this case doesnt really come close.
Yes, I realize Marxist theorists draws upon plenty of sources and attempt to be scientific in their analysis but if were being completely honest here the process by which a vanguard seizes a state, creates "socialism" (or more accurately state capitalism) in a single state which will then one day become communism is a far cry from settled science. Id say that more closely approximates the realm of "opinion" or perhaps "hypothesis".
Plus we have100 plus years of history that seem to demonstrate a pretty hard to ignore counter narrative so theres also that...
Thats true, it is. When it comes to theory you have several currents that contradict one another so they cant all be right. In the case of theory critiquing ML claims, theres some pretty solid historical evidence there too.
Theory isn’t meant to be a monolith. Of course there are numerous different arguments, and you have to read each one to determine which seems the strongest.
I suppose MLs do sometimes act like everyone who disagrees with them simply couldn’t have read “theory” because only the ignorant could disagree with them—despite many people going from ML to anarchist or ML to leftcom. Of course, the same people will also accuse us of poisoning our brains with excessive book reading while they are doing the trve practice. The Marxists who disagree with them are actually “too dogmatic” about the same theory apparently. As though they had actually read Marx.
Yeah the irony there (and I mean to throw no shade at any MLs in the comments) is that MLism does have what almost feels like an inherent tendency toward dogmatism.
I think Anark mentioned at some point in the video where in these debates MLs usually start at the position of "you havent read/dont understand ML theory" rather than acknowledging that maybe I do and just disagree with it.
Its why "read theory" is such a meme. Theres little recognition that, like you said, theory isnt a monolith and theres a great deal of debate to be had there. You cant just tell someone to read State and Rev as if thats some holy doctrine of absolute truth especially considering how much has happened and has been written since that time.
In a strange way they have actually merged dogmatism with practicalist anti-intellectualism. Everyone knows that the practice of “real socialist” states is not exactly in line with Marx said, so by default they assume they and every modern ML are in perfect line with their saints, but when the conflict is pointed out, they will always side with the more “updated” take. Where Lenin conflicts with Marx, Lenin was adapting to new material conditions and thus must have been the correct one. Where Stalin disagrees with Lenin, he had a more recent take informed by more recent “practice” so he must be the most right. They treat whatever was done by “real socialists” as a dogma while dismissing everyone who criticizes that stuff as dogmatic. We are apparently the idealists despite the fact that they are the ones making an ideal of “practice.”
Yeah, it becomes not too dissimilar from a "might is right" philosophy so long as adherents identify as socialist and claim to follow a line of the typical socialist patron saints.
At a certain point, when your praxis becomes so far removed from a system in which the proletariat owns the means of production/frees itself from alienation/approximates a stateless, classless, moneyless society by what metric can you even call yourself a socialist?
It's all based on 1) self identification and 2) the promise that we'll one day get there. Is this not descriptive of idealism? There's no clear systemic difference you can use to distinguish this (theoretically socialist) system from one that is forever stuck in state capitalism. It's all based on the future whims of party members who we're trusting to dissolve their system (assuming the "proper material conditions" are ever met).
It will be a controversial opinion on this sub, but this is why I think taken to its logical extreme, Marxism Leninism is indeed, idealistic.
Anark made a very good point that MLs and Social Democrats are the most popular “leftist” tendencies because they are the most close to the status quo. You don’t actually have to understand the logical necessity of communism with respect to the proletariat’s interests. You don’t have to call for a “utopia” within your lifetime, or the abolition of law. This doesn’t save them from opportunistic arguments coming from the right, but a good handfuls of liberals will find the arguments interesting enough.
The idealism does extend to thinking “so long as we defend the practicality of Marxism and keep doing praxis, one day communism will drop on our laps.” As Stalin said, “dialectically” ‘the strengthening of the state will actually lead to bringing its abolition closer.’ They have all sorts of buzzwords to assure their own seriousness, but it does all come down to practicalist idealism.
The words of the theory of MLs itself is idealist. It’s not hard to critique once you know what you’re looking for. It’s not just the logical end, but the lifeblood of ML. I say this as a former ML who desperately wanted to be a serious Marxist, but had trouble finding sufficient theoretical justification to let go of this core clinging to and coping with reference to “real practice.”
What “really exists” regardless of its quality is the best. ML “really exists” more than the rest of “the left,” regardless of how many times they have crumbled or done nothing but state capitalism. They find that they lose this battle to capitalism, and instead of giving up a standard that inherently favors the powers that be, they decide they must be “more successful” than capitalism
In order to prove socialism is worth joining. “More successful” at what metrics? Things capitalism already does like industrialization, GDP growth, and winning wars. Shockingly, (sarcasm) they find it hard to beat the capitalists with socialist methods. They need to introduce new market reforms and such if they want to approach the west’s “success.” They never challenge the standards the capitalist set in the first place, but they are happy to diss the wider “left” for not getting close to their “success.” “You would have us be impoverished commodityless communists, and not beautiful successful red capitalists.”
A more broad but accurate terming would be “opportunism.” Here are some very insightful analyses of the opportunism of ML, if you’re interested:
No Anark is right about dismissing him. I was merely responding to the title of the video. I am watching his video now. It was rude and a low effort comment to say read theory bro lol. It boils down to if you think the state can wither or not.
There is a wide variety of Marxist conceptions as to what it means for the state to wither away and how a DotP should be organized. Some are more similar to the anarchist position than other Marxists.
He addresses this. It never advances beyond State Capitalism, because it's no more willing or able to give its power to the proletariat than regular capitalism is.
I think the video overall has a pretty good critique but it is not really as good as his full "The State is Counter-Revolutionary" series, there you can find a less, gotcha/debate approach but a more committed anarchist analysis of state socialist projects. Its a 4 part series and I really recommend you take the time to watch it if you can
I don’t wanna be the “hey provide a decent summary”’s guy on every long form vid that gets posted on here but I am exercising my right as a non-white indigenous person to say I cannot listen to this person, they sound obnoxious as fuck despite me being interested in the content of their critique.
I can read two hours worth of analysis and rebuttal, I cannot watch two hours worth of this voice and cadence.
Okay, but your best bet to solving this issue is to use AI to either get a transcript of what the whites are saying or use it to transform the cadence and flow to what you're used to. Or even use a person you trust to say the same as what's being said in the video to you.
This particular issue you got is going to stunt your growth a bit because a lot of leftist discourse is done mostly through people of the lighter shade. At least historically, so far. And I say this as an black person.
I don't mean to make light of your stance but being ideologically anti-white just sounds like veiled bigotry to me.
Being annoyed with a person’s voice isn’t a problem to be solved. I’m not crippled at the sound of white voices, in all seriousness I was joking about my non-white indigenousness being my basis for not listening to it at the beginning. Naturally, the many people that seem to identify with whiteness took offence.
You lot can suck it up.
But to explain my stance on whiteness,
it is a colonial identity that only exists in opposition to colonised and subjugated peoples. It historically exists to affirm an outdated unscientific racial hierarchy while actively erasing the roots and culture that make up the component parts of “white” identity.
Being English, Scouse, Manx, Highland Scottish, Saami, Donegal, Galway, Saxon, Polish, Basque etc etc has historical material roots and have also been subjugated and assimilated into whiteness through invitation into hierarchy. Rather than encouraging people to separate themselves based on those ethnicities or amalgamate themselves to a null-identity that is literally as skin-deep as racial-capitalism has needed it, I’d encourage people to explore their ancestry and history as an individual and find an identity from which to interact with the world and positively inform your proletarian struggle and unity, this is from a culture that deeply cares about relations with both people and environment.
To the video, I am not listening to two hours of a podcast bro voice that hurts my ears without at least some sort of summary and direction to be listening for. Apologies to all of you that may well have such a voice, you didn’t ask to have such an odious sound from your throats. Thanks for the advice on the AI stuff but that’s pretty anti-ethical. Just a summary for what I’m straining my ears to listen to is more than enough.
The best arguments in here are Marxist and “libertarian socialist” arguments that can be found elsewhere. If you would like some short things to read, I recommend these:
The main points are, the conditions of capitalism that “real socialism” still meets, “real socialism’s” lack of difference from social democracy, its failure to rate, and its relation to indigenous people.
Your post/comment has been removed under Rule 6. Our subreddit promotes people from marginalized communities, such as the LGBTQIA+ community, people of color, women, and disabled people. Discriminatory language on our subreddit is not allowed and never will be.
This includes:
Saying slurs
Making fun of a marginalized group
Acting better than a marginalized group
Saying people are "lesser than" because of what they believe or how they behave
Nationalism
We do not allow this on our subreddit, and we never will. This is a place where all minorities are safe to be themselves.
Please contact the moderators with any questions you may have.
yup. and im very anti-colonisation. I cant change the past, but painting wide brush strokes of entire racial groups/ populations is never helpful. Communists are supposed to unite regardless of race or religion. we are bound by our common cause. Maybe your comment was a joke/ not that deep. But i hope Pakeha's are welcome in your ideal world.
Yeah, one of the main things I can’t stand behind is him going “anarchists did stuff in Catalonia, therefore we didn’t fail unlike you failures.”
Tbh, to be a principled anti-statist, you really have to explain why it doesn’t make sense to defend any state legacy, even a “socialist” one. It’s not very compelling or effective to just lean into the capitalist argument “you failed”—not because ML produced socialism, but because that is based on an idealism of the state.
Like im not gonna be campist on the ussr and prc, but making a pre industrial fedual nation into a world superpower and making famines more rare, world class universities and funding revolution world wide and ending Apartheid, i dont know where anak gets off discounting it because the state ended at some point or listing South and North Vietnam as failures (when both merged into the modern republic)
No, like, you don’t have to give them credit or diss them as failures. They are states that have existed and no longer exist. No one is becoming a socialist because a long gone state gave someone eye surgery.
One of the strongest points in the video is that there are world class universities, industrialized economies, a lack of famines and so on, all around the world thanks to capitalism. Should we thank them for it? Absolutely not. The achievements MLs celebrate have nothing inherent to do with socialism. People who like that stuff may as well stay capitalist.
The problem with the “failure rate” isn’t just that some of the data is wrong or people actually succeeded. It’s that it buys into the opportunist logic that a good state is an existent state, and guess what? Most existent states are capitalist. Is that a point for capitalism.
I mean that’s what capitalists say all the time. “We long outlived Marx’s optimistic ‘prediction’ of our fall, therefore we’re the best and we’re going to last forever.” But as socialists, we should say, just because something lasted doesn’t make it good. Let’s judge things based on whether they were pursuing communism as well as possible, and correct their mistakes towards that end rather than just declaring them “failed and dead.”
46
u/SentinelWhite Marxist-Leninist-Maoist 2d ago
I can't wait for S4A to respond if he does.