Anarchists are right way more often than liberals, and are fellow travelers with other socialists, including communists. Communists & anarchists want largely the same ends; where they tend to disagree is the means.
No. Anarchists believe in the unity of ends and means, and Communists believe you can’t establish Communism through fiat and have to actually build it.
Yes and no, Anarchists believe they can do away with the State overnight. Crucially, what Anarchists consider a state and what Marxists consider a state are not the same. Anarchists see states as representations of hierarchy, while Marxists see the state as a tool for class oppression, depending on who is in charge.
The Communist strategy is not to “wait for a leader,” it’s to build up the productive forces rapidly so that economic democracy can be achieved.
Have you read Marx, Engels, Lenin? Even if you don’t plan on agreeing with them, I think it would be useful for you to know what Communists actually believe. I can make a short reading list if you want.
Anarchists believe they can do away with the State overnight.
That’s a common strawman popularized by Engels I have never heard an anarchist say. Anarchists occupy houses, forests and land to try and live their ways. They build parallel structures in the here and now that have the potential to be the thing after the revolution (think of anarchist unions that can coordinate production while now do union stuff or Rojava which built their council structure before they had power).
Anarchists occupy houses, forests and land to try and live their ways.
Yes, this is what I mean. What you refer to as “building out of the shell of the old,” Marxists would see as trying to abolish the state overnight, as though you can directly achieve Anarchism simply by getting more people to agree with it. It isn’t literally overnight.
They build parallel structures in the here and now that have the potential to be the thing after the revolution
This is largely the same mechanism Marxists suggest, the entire idea of “Dual Power.”
You seem quick to point out what you feel is a strawman against Anarchism, but make no effort to respond to my counter to what I believe to be a strawman against Communists, the “strong leader” idea, or the “ends justify the means” idea. I’d at least appreciate acknowledgement.
I’ll give you that much: Communists don’t have a leader cult, it was wrong to imply it. They have the concept of “democratic centralism” which slowly but steadily shifts its emphasis from the first to the second bit.
Also “the ends that justify all means” was an exaggeration to emphasize the difference that anarchists focus on using only power structures they want to see in the liberated society while communists think they can get to a horizontal power structure via a vertical one. Anarchists say power structures reproduce themselves and that’s why it’s important to have the right one from the start. Communists lack any meaningful analysis of power structures but dismiss them as the superstructure that will follow the material base eventually.
So the “strong leader” is by no means core of communist ideology but merely a byproduct. Happy now?
simply by getting more people to agree with it.
That’s not what I said. Why do you insist on making it sound like some idealistic “market place of ideas” stuff?
It isn’t literally overnight.
What does that even mean? I never assumed it’s literally. Are we talking weeks now or months? Is that what you mean?
This is largely the same mechanism Marxists suggest, the entire idea of “Dual Power.”
Yes, that concept is used in anarchism, too. How does that fit to what you said before? Anarchists want it overnight (not literally but still) and communists suggest the same mechanism? What is the difference between the anarchist dual power that you dismiss as “not literally [but still] over night” and the Marxist one?
For me it’s the already mentioned lack of analysis of power structure. Communists want an “over night” revolution, put the right people in charge and they will sort things out. Anarchists will and have argued that (1.) power corrupts and (2.) positions of power attract the wrong people. I do believe Lenin that he came into power with good intentions but the power blinded him and he put “the cause” over everything else (like the workers in Kronstadt and let’s not get into Makhnov). For Stalin, well, see (2.).
Anarchists on the other hand say we need to build and work with horizontal power structures from the start and put a lot of emphasis not only on the critiques of existing hierarchies, but also into how hierarchies come into existence. There are “skill shares” for example to avoid “knowledge hierarchies” by teaching what you know to others and avoiding to be “the one and only expert”. Still, some people are better in things than others and will have a “natural authority” that never should succeed their expertise.
I’ll give you that much: Communists don’t have a leader cult, it was wrong to imply it. They have the concept of “democratic centralism” which slowly but steadily shifts its emphasis from the first to the second bit.
Thanks for the acknowledment.
First of all, centralization is core to Marxism, without it there can be no economic democracy. Second of all, without the results of democratic decisions being binding, a centralized system cannot function.
Also “the ends that justify all means” was an exaggeration to emphasize the difference that anarchists focus on using only power structures they want to see in the liberated society while communists think they can get to a horizontal power structure via a vertical one. Anarchists say power structures reproduce themselves and that’s why it’s important to have the right one from the start. Communists lack any meaningful analysis of power structures but dismiss them as the superstructure that will follow the material base eventually.
Communists don’t want a horizontal power structure. Hierarchy isn’t the problem, class is. Communists absolutely have meaningful analysis of power structures, I can recommend reading on it if you want but don’t insinuate that it doesn’t exist.
So the “strong leader” is by no means core of communist ideology but merely a byproduct. Happy now?
No, because “strong leader” isn’t a byproduct of Communism. What is typically seen as “strong leader” type government is a combination of slander, careful exaggeration of facts, and the unfortunate necessity of underdeveloped productive forces. As productive forces advance into large syndicates through Capitalism, so too can they be siezed and democratized, without that there cannot be true economic democracy.
Yes, that concept is used in anarchism, too. How does that fit to what you said before? Anarchists want it overnight (not literally but still) and communists suggest the same mechanism? What is the difference between the anarchist dual power that you dismiss as “not literally [but still] over night” and the Marxist one?
Marxists don’t believe private property can be abolished without markets coalescing into monopolist syndicates that can be socialized, and as such the state remains an instrument of class suppression. Marxists also advocate for centralization, and are fine with hierarchy.
For me it’s the already mentioned lack of analysis of power structure. Communists want an “over night” revolution, put the right people in charge and they will sort things out. Anarchists will and have argued that (1.) power corrupts and (2.) positions of power attract the wrong people. I do believe Lenin that he came into power with good intentions but the power blinded him and he put “the cause” over everything else (like the workers in Kronstadt and let’s not get into Makhnov). For Stalin, well, see (2.).
No, Communists advocate for democratization. The Vanguard isn’t some unaccountable beast. The Anarchist position that “power corrupts” and “attracts the wrong people” is answered by implementation of bottom-up structures like the Mass Line and accountability measures like Recall Elections.
Anarchists on the other hand say we need to build and work with horizontal power structures from the start and put a lot of emphasis not only on the critiques of existing hierarchies, but also into how hierarchies come into existence. There are “skill shares” for example to avoid “knowledge hierarchies” by teaching what you know to others and avoiding to be “the one and only expert”. Still, some people are better in things than others and will have a “natural authority” that never should succeed their expertise.
I’m aware of what Anarchists believe and want, the issue Communists take with that is that Marxists don’t see inherent problems with hierarchy, nor do they believe Anarchism can actually be implemented in the context of a global Capitalist system.
Anarchists are right way more often than liberals, and are fellow travelers with other socialists, including communists. Communists & anarchists want largely the same ends; where they tend to disagree is the means.
True, anarchists believe in the unity of ends and means while communists believe in the end that justifies all means
No. Anarchists believe in the unity of ends and means, and Communists believe you can’t establish Communism through fiat and have to actually build it.
Anarchists believe in building the new in the shell of the old. It’s all about building it instead of hoping for a leader who will do it for us.
Yes and no, Anarchists believe they can do away with the State overnight. Crucially, what Anarchists consider a state and what Marxists consider a state are not the same. Anarchists see states as representations of hierarchy, while Marxists see the state as a tool for class oppression, depending on who is in charge.
The Communist strategy is not to “wait for a leader,” it’s to build up the productive forces rapidly so that economic democracy can be achieved.
Have you read Marx, Engels, Lenin? Even if you don’t plan on agreeing with them, I think it would be useful for you to know what Communists actually believe. I can make a short reading list if you want.
That’s a common strawman popularized by Engels I have never heard an anarchist say. Anarchists occupy houses, forests and land to try and live their ways. They build parallel structures in the here and now that have the potential to be the thing after the revolution (think of anarchist unions that can coordinate production while now do union stuff or Rojava which built their council structure before they had power).
Yes, this is what I mean. What you refer to as “building out of the shell of the old,” Marxists would see as trying to abolish the state overnight, as though you can directly achieve Anarchism simply by getting more people to agree with it. It isn’t literally overnight.
This is largely the same mechanism Marxists suggest, the entire idea of “Dual Power.”
You seem quick to point out what you feel is a strawman against Anarchism, but make no effort to respond to my counter to what I believe to be a strawman against Communists, the “strong leader” idea, or the “ends justify the means” idea. I’d at least appreciate acknowledgement.
I’ll give you that much: Communists don’t have a leader cult, it was wrong to imply it. They have the concept of “democratic centralism” which slowly but steadily shifts its emphasis from the first to the second bit.
Also “the ends that justify all means” was an exaggeration to emphasize the difference that anarchists focus on using only power structures they want to see in the liberated society while communists think they can get to a horizontal power structure via a vertical one. Anarchists say power structures reproduce themselves and that’s why it’s important to have the right one from the start. Communists lack any meaningful analysis of power structures but dismiss them as the superstructure that will follow the material base eventually.
So the “strong leader” is by no means core of communist ideology but merely a byproduct. Happy now?
That’s not what I said. Why do you insist on making it sound like some idealistic “market place of ideas” stuff?
What does that even mean? I never assumed it’s literally. Are we talking weeks now or months? Is that what you mean?
Yes, that concept is used in anarchism, too. How does that fit to what you said before? Anarchists want it overnight (not literally but still) and communists suggest the same mechanism? What is the difference between the anarchist dual power that you dismiss as “not literally [but still] over night” and the Marxist one?
For me it’s the already mentioned lack of analysis of power structure. Communists want an “over night” revolution, put the right people in charge and they will sort things out. Anarchists will and have argued that (1.) power corrupts and (2.) positions of power attract the wrong people. I do believe Lenin that he came into power with good intentions but the power blinded him and he put “the cause” over everything else (like the workers in Kronstadt and let’s not get into Makhnov). For Stalin, well, see (2.).
Anarchists on the other hand say we need to build and work with horizontal power structures from the start and put a lot of emphasis not only on the critiques of existing hierarchies, but also into how hierarchies come into existence. There are “skill shares” for example to avoid “knowledge hierarchies” by teaching what you know to others and avoiding to be “the one and only expert”. Still, some people are better in things than others and will have a “natural authority” that never should succeed their expertise.
Thanks for the acknowledment.
First of all, centralization is core to Marxism, without it there can be no economic democracy. Second of all, without the results of democratic decisions being binding, a centralized system cannot function.
Communists don’t want a horizontal power structure. Hierarchy isn’t the problem, class is. Communists absolutely have meaningful analysis of power structures, I can recommend reading on it if you want but don’t insinuate that it doesn’t exist.
No, because “strong leader” isn’t a byproduct of Communism. What is typically seen as “strong leader” type government is a combination of slander, careful exaggeration of facts, and the unfortunate necessity of underdeveloped productive forces. As productive forces advance into large syndicates through Capitalism, so too can they be siezed and democratized, without that there cannot be true economic democracy.
Marxists don’t believe private property can be abolished without markets coalescing into monopolist syndicates that can be socialized, and as such the state remains an instrument of class suppression. Marxists also advocate for centralization, and are fine with hierarchy.
No, Communists advocate for democratization. The Vanguard isn’t some unaccountable beast. The Anarchist position that “power corrupts” and “attracts the wrong people” is answered by implementation of bottom-up structures like the Mass Line and accountability measures like Recall Elections.
I’m aware of what Anarchists believe and want, the issue Communists take with that is that Marxists don’t see inherent problems with hierarchy, nor do they believe Anarchism can actually be implemented in the context of a global Capitalist system.
And as such we should be permitted to see our means to their ends. Methodological purity is a plague upon the left.