118
for all the "anti-authoritarians" out there
(lemmy.ml)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 15 Jun 2024
118 points (75.0% liked)
Memes
44073 readers
2773 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Seriously. I might not be a great "Marx Scholar" and I don't think the revolution will just be a peaceful process "whished into existence" but I don't think Marx was Dunkin g on anti authoritarians here and to presume the "dictatorship of the proletariat" is the long term free society of Marx ideals is utter garbage. Communism will be anti-authoritarian or it will not be.
I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve.
Marx and Engels considered the mere act of revolution to be authoritarian. Advocating for a worker state is at some level authoritarian.
Jumping straight to statelessness is Anarchism, not Marxism, and has a much lower success rate at lasting any amount of time.
The thing is that anarchism fundamentally doesn't scale. There's a reason we see central authority arise in every functioning society regardless of its political system. It's the same reason complex animals evolve things like nervous systems and brains. Large organism need a way to coordinate actions towards a common purpose, and a human society is no different. This is why we see anarchist style societies at small scales, and then as they grow they develop central coordination mechanisms. The fact that anarchist can't wrap their heads around this simple concept is frankly depressing.
Anarchists tend to fall for idealism, and see only Anarchism as "good" and therefore acceptable. That's really the key point, they feel like they must unify means and ends, and that the microscopic chance that one day Anarchism may be established is worth fighting for.
It's idealism to the core and puts the individual over the well-being of the group.
Indeed, and this is why anarchism is really just an offshoot of the liberal ideology at the end of the day. Idealism holds that existence is inseparable from human perception and that reality stems from the mind. This leads them to think that they can just will reality into existence through sheer force of will. The general premise most anarchists seem to believe is that the state is responsible for all the problems in society, and if it was somehow abolished then people would just naturally act in cooperative and enlightened way. This appears to be premised on the assumption that most people think the way anarchists do.
You claim to know with great detail and certainty what anarchists believe without citing any anarchist thinkers. All you are doing is constructing a strawman of anarchists based on vibes hoping that none will be here to refute it. Anarchy is more than the absence of the state, and none who are knowledgeable posit that anarchy will materialize without effort. Anarchists are idealists not out of naivete, but necessity. It has been born out of history that when means and ends are not unified, the means become the ends. This was true of the Russian revolution when "all power to the Soviets" became hollow words and "war communism" became the new oppressor of the people.
Nah, I'm going by the actual tangible achievements, or lack of thereof as the case may be, of anarchists based on the teachings of their thinkers.
Having actually grown up in USSR, I can tell you that listening to anarchists regurgitate this nonsense is incredibly offensive. It completely discredits your argument and shows that it is you who's opining on a subject you have no understanding of. All people like you accomplish is enable capitalist oppression by rejecting real world solutions.
The Bolsheviks discount anarchist achievements by claiming them as their own. Anarchists fought alongside the Bolsheviks because they promised to realize the anarchists' goal of all power to the Soviets. When it became clear the Bolsheviks lied in order to selfishly establish themselves as the intelligentsia, a privileged class, the anarchists resisted and were violently repressed by their former brothers and sisters in arms.
I would like to hear about your experiences growing up in the USSR as I know there were many positive aspects, but by betraying the values for which many of the revolutionaries fought they created a society with an unstable foundation, as evidenced by its' eventual collapse. Anarchists did not reject real world solutions, they defended them with their lives and lost. The Bolsheviks have themselves to blame for the collapse.
This clearly illustrates that anarchists are not capable of organizing in effective ways that can protect their ideology. The same way anarchists ended up losing to Bolsheviks, they end up losing to capitalists, and fascists. What Bolsheviks achieved was to build a socialist state that was able to defend itself and greatly improve the lives of the working majority. Anarchists simply aren't capable of doing that as the past century has shown beyond all doubt.
USSR was the first ever attempt at building socialism at scale, and while it may have collapsed, other socialist projects live on today and continue to improve lives of over a billion people on this planet.
You're using the same argument capitalists use to dismiss socialism, namely that socialism clearly doesn't work because all socialist projects ended in collapse or continue in a state of poverty. This is, in essence, victim-blaming. Just as socialism struggles under the oppression of capitalist hegemony, anarchism struggles under the oppression of both capitalists and statists.
What Bolsheviks achieved was the betrayal of all who fought for the liberation of the proletariat. If power had gone to the Soviets as the Bolsheviks promised then the USSR would not have collapsed under the weight of its' contradictions. You speak as if the USSR only repressed the forces of reaction, but it also repressed the very same workers it claimed to support when they tried to claim the worker control of the means of production they were promised.
What I'm pointing out is that all ideologies compete with others. That's the reality of the world. If Anarchists are not able to defend the way they want to organize society then their ideology ends up being trampled by others. That's the world we live in. Calling this victim blaming doesn't change the material reality of the world.
The difference between anarchists and communists is that the latter actually managed to build functional societies, and to effectively resist capitalism. Anarchists failed to do that, and the reasons for why anarchist approach fails time and again are well understood now.
Repeating nonsense over and over will not make it true.
This is an idealist position that's divorced from realities of the world. USSR existed under siege from global capitalism throughout its whole existence, and that was the reason it was organized the way it was.
The Bolsheviks' had the ill-gotten might to push their agenda, but might does not make right. The Bolsheviks lied to and used the anarchists to achieve what they did, but anarchists have learned from their past mistakes and will prove you wrong.
Capitalist aggression did not make necessary the regressive views on social issues and science the USSR had (which resulted in famine), nor the widespread corruption and bureaucratic inefficiency of state officials. You cannot simply excuse all flaws of the USSR by blaming global capitalism.
No amount of moralizing will change the fact that anarchists fail to organize effectively time and again. If anarchists actually learned anything then we'd see that put into practice. The lack of any actual achievements is the elephant in the room here.
Yes, it absolutely did as anybody with even minimal historical knowledge would know.
This is getting repetitive and we're just talking past each other so let's just agree to disagree about the USSR. I just want to make the point - which I hope we can agree on - that the revolution wouldn't have been successful without political pluralism within the ranks, and no future revolution will either. Dismissing the contributions of anarchists will only harm your cause.
Revolutions require a critical mass of people to come together, and sometimes people who have different vision for the end goal find opportunities to work together as Bolsheviks and anarchists did. Lenin wrote extensively on the subject of when alliances should be formed. MLs don't have a problem working with anarchists, recognizing that there are common interests and that a time may come where such alliances may need to be rethought. The hate largely comes from the side of anarchists who refuse to work with MLs and spend their time trying to discredit the accomplishments of existing socialist states.
It's also worth noting that the reality in the west today is that both MLs and anarchists are an insignificant political minority. If the current system does end up collapsing in the near future, then fascism is the most likely outcome. While the left bickers, the right is rapidly growing in power in vast majority of western countries.
You have been discrediting the accomplishments of anarchists while I have been acknowledging the accomplishments of marxists.
I agree, but remember this conversation was started because you were insinuating that anarchists never accomplished anything.
I've been pointing out that anarchists have not managed to put their ideas into practice on any appreciable scale while Marxists have done this. Ultimately, what I'm telling you is that anarchists need to show how they can actually make their ideas work and withstand the challenges that they face in the real world. This is a problem that anarchists have not been able to solve in my view.
You say that it's the fault of Bolsheviks that anarchists didn't get their way in USSR, but there's no reason to believe that anarchists would've fared any better against the capitalist invasion that followed in 1918, or against the nazis a couple of decades later. In fact, the centralization of power that you decried was ultimately what allowed USSR to rapidly industrialize and come out victorious in WW2.
Meanwhile, I completely agree that the socialist projects that Marxists managed to build are not without their own problems. Yet, I think they are a strict improvement over capitalism as imperfect as they may be. My view is that the threat of fascism is very real and that it grows by the day, and in face of that the left should focus on using tools that have been proven to defeat fascism in the past.
The dictatorship of the proletariat literally just means that the bourgeoisie are suppressed politically until they can be integrated into the rest of society, it doesn't mean a dictatorship, it means a democracy where the former oppressors don't get a seat at the table.